Archive for William Ayers

Great Minds Think Alike

Or else:

Witness the political tempest that blew up in response to the December 3 op-ed we published by Democrats Jon Cowan and Jim Kessler of the Third Way think tank. The former aides to Andrew Cuomo and Chuck Schumer, respectively, would be considered liberals in most places outside of the Harvard faculty lounge. But the campus and union left that increasingly controls the Democratic Party has launched a campaign to purge them for their deviation from progressive dogma.

Messrs. Cowan and Kessler had the temerity to suggest that the average American voter might not be as liberal as the New Yorkers who chose Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio or the Massachusetts voters who fell for Senator Elizabeth Warren. They argued that economic populism of the redistributionist kind was a political loser in most of America.

The authors were also guilty of acknowledging research from the Congressional Budget Office showing that Social Security is going broke. Progressives believe it’s high treason to admit the undeniable fact that such entitlements are paying out more in benefits than they collect in taxes. If left unchecked, such candor might motivate politicians to consider reform, and the last thing the left wants is a debate over the limits of the welfare state.

But the progressives didn’t try to rebut the op-ed’s arguments. Instead they set out to silence Third Way, intimidate Democratic politicians and donors into disavowing the group, and discredit the think tank on grounds that—gasp!—some of its supporters work at financial companies.

Senator Warren made her contribution to the new progressive orthodoxy by sending a letter to six large banks demanding that they disclose donations to think tanks. “If the information provided by think tanks is little more than another form of corporate lobbying, then policymakers and the public should be aware of the difference,” wrote the Member of the Banking Committee that oversees banks.

Ms. Warren, who was well paid as a lawyer for business clients even as she pursued her liberal political causes at Harvard, seems to think that every think tank is merely a mouthpiece for donors. Heaven forbid Messrs. Cowan and Kessler might believe what they write.

Elizabeth Warren is an unreconstructed Stalinist. Not content with committing “spiritual genocide” against Native Americans, she would line every American capitalist up against the wall and shoot them. (Without benefit of a last cigarette.)

And she’s got comrades:

The Democratic party’s further shift to the left is worrisome to some of the party’s more moderate members, such as Morning Joe contributor Steve Rattner. A former member of the Obama administration’s task force to address the auto-industry crisis, Rattner joined Joe Scarborough in pushing back against Howard Dean, who argued that a more left-leaning party is not a problem.

“As a centrist Democrat, I am scared about the progressive wing of my party — I’m scared,” Rattner interjected.

And she’s got her Stalin:

REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA): Professor Turley, the constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?

JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch.

[W]e have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations.

I’ve asked this before: do you think these people are going to go quietly? That they will respect the outcomes of elections in 2014 and 2016? Increasingly, I don’t.

PS: Even Stalinists don’t like what they’re seeing:

“You’re attributing to Obama not only good intentions but good actions around Afghanistan and Iraq. Actually he’s not acting well. He’s acting like any imperial leader would act,” Ayers told his interviewer in a new Chicago Magazine story, published online Tuesday.

Comments (1)

[Bleep] the Peace Corps

Same thing:

Weather Underground terrorist-turned-academic and Obama confidant William Ayers is taking up a cause near and dear to teachers unions: bashing a program that sends young, idealistic college grads into the inner city to teach poor kids.

The nonprofit Teach for America is a “fraud” whose participants are nothing but “educational tourists,” said Ayers, a onetime associate of President Obama who was a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago before retiring. The 68-year-old firebrand, now a self-styled educational theorist, said the program’s young grads are merely passing through the gritty neighborhoods where they serve to pad their resumes at the expense of longer-term educators represented by unions.

“It’s a fraud on every level because it’s not going to change teaching, it’s going to undermine teaching,” Ayers said at a recent educational summit. He added that the young teachers “are the nicest kids in the world,” but said the program itself is misguided.

Teachers unions have long criticized Teach for America, which they believe provides cash-strapped districts with a crop of short-timers who earn entry-level pay and don’t rack up the health and retirement costs of regular teachers.

The nonprofit Teach For America annually recruits thousands of top college graduates to teach for two years at public schools in low-income areas across the country. Its stated mission is to “eliminate educational inequity by enlisting high-achieving recent college graduates and professionals” to teach in low-income neighborhoods. Participants’ benefits and salaries, which range from $25,500 to $51,000, depending on where they serve, are paid by the local districts and match the compensation of regular hires.

Ayers, whose comments were echoed by Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis, said the young teachers themselves aren’t to blame, but indicated they are never truly vested in the schools in which they serve. Lewis went even further, saying TFA’s policies “kill and disenfranchise children from schools across this nation.”

Let’s see: young, idealistic, energetic kids putting their fresh college degrees to use in inner-city schools for low-to-middling pay, but no long-term cost.

The nerve! No wonder the educational establishment hates the idea. It threatens their very existence.

I confess a personal interest: I know someone who was a Teach for America trainee, and the experience changed her life. And I know she touched (if not changed) the kids’ lives. Being against Teach for America is like being against… the Peace Corps. The Boy Scouts. Candy Stripers.

Comments (1)

Shams From My President

Well, what did you expect? Bill Ayers can’t be expected to get everything right!

1. Hussein Onyango, Barack’s grandfather, wasn’t really imprisoned and tortured by the British.

2. The father of his Indonesian stepfather, Soewarno Martodihardjo, wasn’t killed by Dutch soldiers in the fight for independence.

3. Regina, a friend at Occidental who Obama writes about as a symbol of the authentic African-American experience turns out to be based on Carolina Boss, who is white. Regina was the name of her Swiss grandmother.

4. Obama projected a racial incident onto his New York girlfriend that he later told Maraniss had happened in Chicago.

5. Obama wrote that he broke up with his New York girlfriend in part because she was white. But his next girlfriend, an anthropologist in Chicago, was also white.

6. Obama cuts out two white college roommates entirely.

7. Obama wrote about his high school friends as an alienated, ne’er-do-well “club of disaffection.” In fact, most members of the “Choom Gang” were “decent students and athletes” who went on to successful careers.

8. Obama’s mother left his father, not the other way around.

9. In his memoir, Obama mentions he missed out on playing time in high school basketball because he coach preferred players who “play like white boys do.” In fact, Obama had to work hard just to make the team, and race had nothing to do with it.

Other than that, the book was (mostly… occasionally… rarely) accurate.

This is rather disturbing. Sure, JFK didn’t write Profiles in Courage, either, but at least they were profiles in other people’s courage! And they were relatively fact-based. At some point, a “composite” history isn’t history at all, but fictional memoir.

Or worse, campaign propaganda.

How reliable was Dreams From My Father as a biography and historical narrative? Barack Obama’s most recent biographer David Maraniss has discovered that Obama’s memoir was less a reliable historical account — and more of a carefully crafted didactic narrative intended to score political points.

Is it impolite to point out that this basic reporting is four years late? John McCain was (falsely) alleged to have had an affair with a lobbyist, Sarah Palin practically had to endure a pelvic exam, and no one bothered to check that neither his grandfather nor step-grandfather were imprisoned, tortured or killed by any colonial power—as he declared in writing?

Elizabeth Warren is more genuine than he is, and Indian head nickels are more genuinely Indian than she is.

PS: Why does he treat white people so shabbily in his (fictional) memoir?

PPS: Via Moonbattery:

Comments (1)

Will the Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up—and Get the [Bleep] Out?

The media will stick there fingers in their ears and say “nah-nah-nah, I can’t hear you!”

But what about the rest of us?

Andrew Breitbart took the podium at CPAC Friday afternoon, introduced to the stage with Rage Against The Machine’s Guerrilla Radio, and revealed to the audience he had “videos” of Barack Obama from his college days. “I have videos, this election we’re going to vet him,” Breitbart disclosed to raucous applause. “We are going to vet him from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008.”

“The videos are going to come out, the narrative is going to come out, that Barack Obama met a bunch of silver ponytails in the 1980s, like Bill (Ayers) and Bernadine (Dohrn), who said one day we would have the presidency, and the rest of us slept as they plotted, and they plotted, and they plotted and they oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars in the Annenberg Challenge and they had real money, from real capitalists. Then they became communists. We got to work on that. That is a parenthesis. Barack Obama is a radical, we should not be afraid to say that! Okay? And Barack Obama was launched from Bill and Bernadine’s salon. I’ve been there.”

Breitbart shared an anecdote about having dinner at their house, and surmised there was no way Obama didn’t have many a meal at their kitchen table.

Unless he spied a place card with the name “Barry” written on it, I don’t know what he meant:

Daily Caller founder Tucker Carlson “mischievously” bid on a dinner with none other than the “Bonnie and Clyde of the radical left,” Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. And, of course, he invited pal Andrew Breitbart to come along. “It was Look Who’s Coming to Dinner, Part II,” Breitbart joked.

The other dinner guests, Breitbart told host Eric Bolling, were mostly educators who “looked like they came from the Barack Obama academic and aesthetic factory.”

And while Ayers “is a sociopath,” according to Breitbart, he also happens to be a great conversationalist and a fantastic chef.

I was a student at Columbia around the time Obama was there. I never came across him, never heard about him, but that doesn’t mean anything. But if this film materializes and shows what Breitbart says it shows, it just may prove to some people who Obama has always been. From the 80s at Coulmbia, through the 90s with Jeremiah Wright, into the 2000s with Bill and Bernardine, he’s nothing if not consistent.

Let me be clear… wait… what was I saying?


Let’s Talk About Censorship, The Courts, The The Author Of “Dreams Of My Father”

This is pretty disturbing.

This is a bit complex, but I hope you’ll hang in there. The prize at the end has to do with Bill Ayer’s apparent authorship of Dreams of My Father.

As Congress considers vastly expanding the power of copyright holders to shut down fair use of their intellectual property, this is a good time to remember the other activities that Obama’s “regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein wants to shut down using the tools of copyright protection. For a couple of years now, Sunstein has been advocating that the “notice and take down” model from copyright law should be used against rumors and conspiracy theories, “to achieve the optimal chilling effect.”

What kinds of conspiracy theories does Sunstein want to suppress by law? Here’s one:

… that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud. [From page 4 of Sunstein’s 2008 “Conspiracy Theories” paper.]

At present, limits on speech are governed by libel law. For statements about public figures, libel requires not just that an accusation must be false, but that it must have been:

… made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard to whether it was false or not. [New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964]

The purpose of the “actual malice” standard is to leave wide latitude for errant statements, which free public debate obviously requires. Sunstein thinks that room-for error stuff is given too much weight. He’d like it to see errant statements expunged. From Sunstein’s 2009 book On Rumors (page 78):

On the Internet in particular, people might have a right to ‘notice and take down.’ [T]hose who run websites would be obliged to take down falsehoods upon notice.

Further, “propagators” would face a “liability to establish what is actually true” (ibid).

Suppose you are a simple public-spirited blogger, trying to expose how Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, and other Team members conspire to suppress the research and destroy the careers of those who challenge their consensus views. If Sunstein gets his way, Team members will only have to issue you a takedown notice, and if you want your post to stay up, you’ll have to go to court and win a judgment that your version of events is correct.

Today that should be doable, at great expense. But before the first and second batches of climategate emails were released there were only tales of retaliation, with one person’s word against another’s. Thus at the most critical juncture, when documentary proofs of The Team’s vendettas were not yet public, even a person who was willing to run Sunstein’s legal gauntlet might well have been held by a judge to be in error.


The path from Sunstein’s 2008 “Conspiracy Theories” article to his 2009 On Rumors book is straightforward. According to Sunstein’s 2008 definition, a conspiracy theory is very close to a potentially libelous rumor:

… a conspiracy theory can generally be counted as such if it is an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role. [Abstract]

At this time, Sunstein’s “main policy idea” was that:

government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories….

… government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. [“Conspiracy Theories,” pages 14-15]

Government funding of trolls? Sounds like a bad joke, but Sunstein quickly upped the ante. In On Rumors he followed the conspiracy theory as slanderous rumor angle as a way to justify adopting the “notice and take down” artillery from copyright law. So Sunstein already has a history of escalation in his legal crusade against ideas he does not like. If SOPA and PIPA are enacted and the machinery of copyright protection becomes vastly more censorious, its pretty much a certainty that Sunstein will want to use these more powerful tools against rumors and conspiracy theories as well.

Sunstein’s target has always been the very core of the First Amendment: the most protected political speech

In On Rumors, the rumor that Sunstein seems most intent on suppressing is the accusation, leveled during the 2008 election campaign, that Barack Obama “pals around with terrorists.” (“Look Inside” page 3.) Sunstein fails to note that the “palling around with terrorists” language was introduced by the opposing vice presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin (who was implicating Obama’s relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers). Instead Sunstein focuses his ire on “right wing websites” that make “hateful remarks about the alleged relationship between Barack Obama and the former radical Bill Ayers,” singling out Sean Hannity for making hay out of Obama’s “alleged associations” (pages 13-14).

What could possibly be more important than whether a candidate for president does indeed “pal around with terrorists”? Of all the subjects to declare off limits, this one is right up there with whether the anti-CO2 alarmists who are trying to unplug the modern world are telling the truth. And Sunstein’s own bias on the matter could hardly be more blatant. Bill Ayers is a “former” radical? Bill “I don’t regret setting bombs” Ayers? Bill “we didn’t do enough” Ayers?

For the facts of the Obama-Ayers relationship, Sunstein apparently accepts Obama’s campaign dismissal of Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” In fact their relationship was long and deep. Obama’s political career was launched via a fundraiser in Bill Ayers’ living room; Obama was appointed the first chairman of the Ayers-founded Annenberg Challenge, almost certainly at Ayers’ request; Ayers and Obama served together on the board of the Woods Foundation, distributing money to radical left-wing causes; and it has now been reported by full-access White House biographer Christopher Andersen (and confirmed by Bill Ayers) that Ayers actually ghost wrote Obama’s first book Dreams of My Father.

Ok, more at the link. But the bottom line is that we’re sinking deeper into Liberal Fascism, which is simply Fascism. And, apparently, more people are accepting the notion that Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s book. At the link, there are more details, including, apparently interviews with neighbors who claim that Obama gave all of his notes and images to Ayers:

What did interest Barack were Ayers’s proven abilities as a writer. Unlike Barack, Ayers had written and cowritten scores of articles and treatises, as well as several nonfiction books beginning with Education: An American Problem in 1968. But it was the tone Ayers had set in his latest book — To Teach (1993) — that Barack hoped to emulate.

The tale of a maverick teacher who takes her students onto the streets of New York to teach them firsthand about history, culture, and survival, To Teach was written in a fluid, novelistic style. Barack asked for Ayers’s input, and Ayers, who like so many in his circle was greatly impressed by the charismatic young activist, obliged.

To flesh out his family history, Barack had also taped interviews with Toot, Gramps, Ann, Maya, and his Kenyan relatives. These oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes, were given to Ayers. “Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together,” another Hyde Park neighbor pointed out. “It was not secret. Why would it be? People liked them both.”

In the end, Ayers’s contribution to Barack’s Dreams from My Father would be significant — so much so that the book’s language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers’s own writings.

Whatever. This information was available in 2008 and nobody cared. He won then, and I fear he will do it again.

– Aggie

Comments (3)

Win a Date With Bill and Bernardine!

I would rather dine with Saddam, Muammar, and Kim—but I guess that’s out.

Can I bring something? Wine? Dessert? Semtex?

Daily Caller editor-in-chief Tucker Carlson will have a very special dinner date before the end of 2012 — with Bill Ayers. Yes, that Bill Ayers.

Carlson donated $2,500 to the Illinois Humanities Council for the honor of supping on a home-cooked meal at the Illinois home of Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn — both unrepentant leaders of the terrorist Weather Underground.

“I bought the auction dinner because I support the important work of the Illinois Humanities Council,” Carlson emailed The Chicago Tribune. “Anything I can do to help.”

Carlson’s winning dinner bid entitles him to bring up to six people. The dinner must be arranged at a mutually agreed-upon date before October 2012.

Those still itching to hang out with the Weather Underground clan still have a chance. An opportunity to go to a Chicago Cubs game with Dohrn is still up for auction through Monday.

Let’s root-root-root for the Yippies,
If they don’t win it’s a sham.
For it’s one, two, three shots, cop’s dead,
And you go on the lam!

Hey, Tucker, I don’t think I can make it, but may I suggest someone? Saul, you free? The coversation would be…spirited.

Comments (2)

Reams of My Father

An American president and author of two books wasn’t born in this country and wrote only one (the crappy one).

Oh yeah, he’s also a Nobel Peace laureate who’s killed more people than any previous one, including Yasser Arafat. And excepting Woodrow Wilson, I suppose (though it’s early days!).

Other than that, he’s aces:

Barack Obama knows what I know and what the people who have read my book, “Deconstructing Obama,” know: Bill Ayers is the principal craftsman behind Dreams. The evidence is overwhelming.

Ayers also established, as I have contended from the beginning, that he is not the author of Audacity of Hope. Although Obama claims unique authorship of this book too, it was, as Ayers suggests, a disingenuous feint to the center written by committee.

Worse for Obama still, Ayers knows that the story he and Obama contrived in Dreams is false in many key details. The fact that Donald Trump has proved willing to challenge that story has got to make the White House even more apprehensive.

I see Ayers as teasing the issue, rather than stating his claim as fact. But the story is still interesting. Starting with the birth certificate and stretching through whole periods of his entire life, there’s a lot about this man’s story that just doesn’t add up.

How about the Columbia student who wasn’t? I overlapped with him there, but never knew him, never even heard of him.

This is how he describes the time:

He changed course junior year when he transferred to Columbia. “I realized I wanted to be in a more vibrant, urban environment,” he says. As a transfer student, he didn’t receive housing, so lived off campus in various makeshift arrangements, such as living in one bedroom of a three-bedroom apartment, and renting a sixth-floor walk-up with slanting floors on the East Side, “just north of gentrification,” as he describes it.

As he pursued a political science degree, specializing in international relations, Obama says he was somewhat involved with the Black Students Organization and participated in anti-apartheid activities. “Mostly, my years at Columbia were an intense period of study,” he says. “When I transferred, I decided to buckle down and get serious. I spent a lot of time in the library. I didn’t socialize that much. I was like a monk.”

“Somewhat involved”… “intense period of study”… ” didn’t socialize”… “like a monk”. I guess that’s why I never knew him.

Obama says it is difficult to separate his college experience at Columbia from the urban experience of living in New York City, and his memoir offers little about his time on campus.

Go figure.

Even the New York Times was suspicious—once upon a time:

Barack Obama does not say much about his years in New York City. The time he spent as an undergraduate at Columbia College and then working in Manhattan in the early 1980s surfaces only fleetingly in his memoir. In the book, he casts himself as a solitary wanderer in the metropolis, the outsider searching for a way to “make myself of some use.”

Barack Obama during his Columbia years. He says little about his college days in his memoir, and declined requests to release his transcript, but some who knew him praised his record.
He tells of underheated sublets, a night spent in an alley, a dead neighbor on the landing. From their fire escape, he and an unnamed roommate watch “white people from the better neighborhoods” bring their dogs to defecate on the block. He takes a job in an unidentified “consulting house to multinational corporations,” where he is “a spy behind enemy lines,” startled to find himself with a secretary, a suit and money in the bank.

He barely mentions Columbia, training ground for the elite, where he transferred in his junior year, majoring in political science and international relations and writing his thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament.

“He doesn’t remember the names of a lot of people in his life,” said Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman.

Mr. Obama has, of course, done plenty of remembering. His 1995 memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” weighs in at more than 450 pages. But he also exercised his writer’s prerogative to decide what to include or leave out. Now, as he presents himself to voters, a look at his years in New York — other people’s accounts and his own — suggests not only what he was like back then but how he chooses to be seen now.

Some say he has taken some literary license in the telling of his story. Dan Armstrong, who worked with Mr. Obama at Business International Corporation in New York in 1984 and has deconstructed Mr. Obama’s account of the job on his blog,, wrote: “All of Barack’s embellishment serves a larger narrative purpose: to retell the story of the Christ’s temptation. The young, idealistic, would-be community organizer gets a nice suit, joins a consulting house, starts hanging out with investment bankers, and barely escapes moving into the big mansion with the white folks.”

In an interview, Mr. Armstrong added: “There may be some truth to that. But in order to make it a good story, it required a bit of exaggeration.”

Mr. Armstrong’s description of the firm, and those of other co-workers, differs at least in emphasis from Mr. Obama’s. It was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm, with about 250 employees worldwide, that helped companies with foreign operations (they could be called multinationals) understand overseas markets, they said. Far from a bastion of corporate conformity, they said, it was informal and staffed by young people making modest wages. Employees called it “high school with ashtrays.”

Many workers dressed down. Only the vice president in charge of Mr. Obama’s division got a secretary, they said.

But we do get a Columbia sighting!

He said he was somewhat involved with the Black Student Organization and anti-apartheid activities, though, in recent interviews, several prominent student leaders said they did not remember his playing a role.

One person who did remember Mr. Obama was Michael L. Baron, who taught a senior seminar on international politics and American policy. Mr. Baron, now president of an electronics company in Florida, said he was Mr. Obama’s adviser on the senior thesis for that course. Mr. Baron, who later wrote Mr. Obama a recommendation for Harvard Law School, gave him an A in the course.

Michael J. Wolf, who took the seminar with him and went on to become president of MTV Networks, said: “He was very smart. He had a broad sense of international politics and international relations. It was a class with a lot of debate. He was a very, very active participant. I think he was truly distinctive from the other people in that class. He stood out.”

Well, okay.

Interesting, however, that a professor and a student in an international politics senior seminar end up running an electronics company and a television network respectively. Oh yes, and the United States of America.

What are the odds?

PS: I’m not really a birther, I just play one on the Net. How would I know where he was born? I have just come to the conclusion that his actions and behavior are not consistent with one confident in where he was born, what he studied or wrote, and whom he associated with. Not in the least. Whatever that makes me, Obama made me it.

Comments (2)

Dedicated To Chris Mathews

Why is this dedicated to Chris Mathews? This is why

While waiting for America’s publishers to find their nerve, I had put my research into the authorship of Barack Obama’s 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father on the back shelf. But then I heard Chris Matthews.

The Hardball host was weighing in on the subject of Sarah Palin’s new book deal. “Sarah Palin – now don’t laugh – is writing a book,” sneered Matthews. “Not just reading a book, writing a book.”

“Actually in the word of the publisher she’s “collaborating” on a book,” Matthews continued. “What an embarrassment! It’s one of these ‘I told you,’ books that jocks do. You know she’s already declared, I mean, why they do it like this? ‘She can’t write, we got a collaborator for her.'”

I dedicate what follows to Matthews and those willfully blind souls like him. It is a work in progress, a collective one at that, aided and abetted by nearly a score of volunteer co-conspirators from Hawaii to Ohio to Israel to Australia. The thesis is simple enough: Barack Obama needed substantial help to write his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father. Moreover, unlike Sarah Palin, Obama chose to conceal the identity of his collaborator and not without good reason. To admit that he needed a collaborator would have undercut his campaign for president and to reveal the name of that collaborator would have ended it.

So, read this, Chris. And along with Chris, we can skim it. But that is older research. People have had another year to study the matter and more material has come to light. The more advanced work is here

This is careful detective work, detail upon detail. The result is hundreds of similarities between the writing of Bill Ayers and Barack Obama. Some is simple and just odd:

Let me just cite a few matches between Ayers’ work and Dreams that I found intriguing. Rather astonishingly, as Mr. West points out, at least six of the characters in Dreams have the same names as characters in Ayers’ books: Malik, Freddy, Tim, Coretta, Marcus, and “the old man.” Many of the stories involving these characters in Dreams seem as contrived as their names.

Some of the tie-ins are built on mistakes appearing in both books: misquoting Carl Sandburg in exactly the same way, or misspelling the name Frantz Fanon (Ayers writes Franz, so does Obama).

Interestingly, Obama’s other book, The Audacity of Hope, was not written by Ayers. All the clever literary devices disappear.

Mr. West independently came to the same conclusion that I did, namely that Ayers was not meaningfully involved in Audacity. These two Obama books almost assuredly had different primary authors. What should be transparent to any literary critic is that the author of Audacity lacked the style and skill of the author of Dreams. There are a few pockets in Audacity that evoke the spirit of Dreams but without the same grace.

A likely suspect for these imitative passages, perhaps the whole of Audacity, is Obama’s young speechwriter, Jon Favreau. Favreau joined the Obama team in 2005, time enough to play that role. The London Guardian reports that Favreau carries Dreams wherever he goes and can “conjure up his master’s voice as if an accomplished impersonator.” If so, in Audacity he played the classic role of the ghostwriter — one who absorbs his client’s thoughts and relates them in a refined version of his client’s voice.

Bill Ayers was no one’s ghostwriter. The now overwhelming evidence strongly suggests that he used the frame of Obama’s life and finished it off with his own ideas, his own biases, his own experiences, his own passions, his own friends, even his own romances, all of this toned down just enough to keep Obama viable as a potential candidate.

I would argue that Ayers played Cyrano to Obama’s Christian. His personal history was too ugly for him to woo Roxane/America himself. But Obama — “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” as Joe Biden reminded us — could and did make America’s heart melt.

I realize that this is more complex than the usual link plus quick explanation of topic that I usually post. To really understand the meat of this, you need to check out both links. On the other hand, you probably don’t have time in your life to do all that. The bottom line is that Obama quite possibly didn’t write Dreams of My Father and the true writer was Ayers. And, more importantly, the media is as incurious as ever when it comes to Barack Obama.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Dreams From Some Other Guy’s Father

President Obama’s defenders will undoubtedly say: “He’s even more like Kennedy!”

“Obama had not as yet written anything. But he had taped interviews with family members. Andersen writes: ‘These oral histories, along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers.’ Look over those words. A man Obama said before the campaign — after conservative pundits continually raised the issue that he was friends with an ‘unrepentent terrorist’ — that he knew only in passing as someone in the neighborhood. He was simply an acquaintance — not someone he had any real friendship or relationship with. Yet Obama evidently gave Ayers his notes, tapes, and the small amount that he had already written…

Finally, Christopher Andersen concludes: ‘In the end, Ayers’s contribution to Barack’s Dreams From My Father would be significant — so much so that the book’s language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers’s own writing.’…

Soon we’ll learn that the second volume of Obama’s memoirs should have been called The Intellectual Paucity of a Dope.

I’ve heard about the possible Ayers connection for months; I’m not sure this is anything new, even if it is more.

Before we hear from any Obamabots transcribing DNC talking points memos, let me make the case that it does matter. Obama is a media creation. Not just by the media, which is obvious and undeniable—but for the media.

How does a hack Illinois state senator with a radical but undistinguished past get all the way to the White House? Some of his former rivals (and current administration colleagues) give us a pretty good idea. One said he was “clean and articulate”; another said “he gave a speech”. That was enough to give Chris Matthews an erection, and I can only imagine what to Maureen Dowd.

An articulate black man! It hardly matters what he says, just that we can understand him saying it! Obama had only to come to the attention of the media, and they would do the rest. To spin gold out of the dross that was Obama’s life story was but a small hurdle. As Ted Sorenson was no longer in the ghost-writing business, they did the best they could. Tom Haden and Friedrich Engels turned down the project, so Ayers got the gig. He did well enough.

Comments (1)

Freedom is Worth What You Pay For It

To all the lousy things I said about the Palestinians in the post below, please add: freeloading, bloodsucking leeches:

United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) Director of Operations in Jordan Richard Cook said today that the agency was reeling from extremely tough and unprecedented financial difficulties.

He told Petra in an interview that this year’s budget was estimated at $545 million dollars with a deficit of 30 million dollars, adding that the agency had not witnessed any worse financial situation in about 50 years.

“Refugees and the media should be aware of UNRWA’s difficult financial situation.

It’s a fact facing us and is beyond our control, particularly as financing is voluntary and not our annual right”, he said.

Voluntary? Not a right? Really? We could just turn off the spigot and be done with spewing half a trillion dollars into the desert sand every year?

Nonsense, of course. UNRWA, which exists solely to maintain Palestinians in a welfare state (the rest of the world has to make do with the UNHCR), has been in business for sixty years. It’s not going anywhere.



What Man can invite, He can uninvite:

The good guys win! Ayers is out! Because you spoke out, got on the phones and sent the emails, Boston College did the right thing and told unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers to take a hike.

Here’s how the Boston Herald reports it today:

Boston College yesterday abruptly withdrew two student groups’ invitation to former radical William Ayers to speak on campus Monday.

A BC spokesman said he was unaware of the plan for the controversial figure to speak on campus until contacted by the Herald yesterday afternoon. But students last night were scrambling to hold the speech off-campus.

“After meetings between administrators and students, the decision was made to rescind the invitation,” spokesman Jack Dunn said. Dunn declined to say why, adding only, “We feel the appropriate decision has been reached.”

The Herald’s coverage leaves unanswered the question as to whether the Boston College administration did the right thing and said “terrorists not welcome,” or the student groups who invited him–the AHANA Council and the College Democrats (JFK would be sound proud)–withdrew the invitation. Let’s hope it was both.

I am always troubled when a voice is denied the right to be heard—but not here. BC is a private institution, and a Catholic college. If pro-life means anything, then it surely means that unrepentant terrorists, with a local cop’s blood symbolically on their hands, are unwelcome.

“Guilty as sin and free as a bird,” Ayers once famously declared. Then go, and sin no more. Or at least sin somewhere else.

Comments (1)

Cop Killers on Campus

Credit to local radio talker, Michael Graham for this story:

Speaking soon at a Catholic college near you (or near me, anyway).

Terrorist William Ayers is speaking at Boston College this Monday, and nobody seems to care.

How ironic that Ayers’ likely route to BC will take him right through Brighton, where members of his Weather Underground murdered Officer Walter Schroeder of the BPD. It won’t bother Ayers. As he’s said repeatedly, he has no regrets over his terrorist past. In fact, he wishes he’d blown more stuff up.

In fact, Ayers and his fellow left-wing terrorists were only limited by their incompetence. While they tried to use nail bombs to murder American soldiers, they were actually much better at blowing themselves up than killing their innocent fellow citizens. But despite dopey arguments from local lefties to the contrary, Ayers group did manage to kill Officer Schroeder and three others, according to the FBI.

Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Bill Ayers says “Blessed are the bomb makers.” At BC, that appears to be close enough.

Officer Shroeder had nine children. While he won’t be able to attend in person, perhaps one of Schroeder’s children who grew up without a father might make it over—Brighton borders right up against the BC campus.

They might look something like this:


Patrolman Schroeder was shot and killed while responding to a silent alarm at a bank at 9:20 am. The bank was being robbed by a gang of anti-Vietnam War activists. As he exited his cruiser and walked towards the bank a gang member who was across the street opened fire on him with a rifle, striking him in the back several times. Patrolman Schroeder was taken to a local hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.

The trigger man was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, but has been denied parole each time. The other gang members were all sentenced to prison but are now mostly freed.

Patrolman Schroeder’s brother, Detective John Schroeder, was shot and killed while working for the same agency on November 30, 1973.

Patrolman Schroeder had been with the agency for 19 years and was survived by his wife and nine children.

Let another Boston reporter, Michelle McPhee, put that cowardly, despicable act in context:

On Sept. 23, 1970, BPD Officer Walter Schroeder was gunned down outside a Brighton bank that had just been robbed by five members of the Weather Underground. One of the terrorists opened fire on the cop. With bullets from a machine gun the group ripped off from a National Guard armory in Newburyport just weeks earlier, Schroeder was shot in the back and killed.

Schroeder left behind a wife and nine children, aged 17, 15, 13, 10, 9, 7, 6, 2 and 11 months. The gunman, William “Lefty” Gilday, was captured along with three accomplices. The armed getaway driver, Katherine Powers, fled and remained on the lam for 23 years. When she was finally caught, Powers was treated with the same despicable reverence that Obama’s friend Ayers has been given by the media. Like Ayers, Powers was profiled as a hapless revolutionary caught up in the tumult of the Vietnam War rather than what she truly is: a cop-killing lowlife.

That fact was not lost on Schroeder’s daughter, Clare, who delivered a powerful victim impact statement at Powers’ sentencing in 1993. “Powers’ crimes, her flight from justice and her decision to turn herself in have been romanticized utterly beyond belief,” Schroeder said. “My father’s life was cut short for no reason, shot in the back with a bullet of a coward while Ms. Powers waited to drive that coward to safety.” The Weather Underground was also involved in a Brinks robbery in Nyack, N.Y., that left two cops and a Brinks security guard dead. Those murders also left nine children fatherless.

So for Obama to think it is OK to launch his political career in the living room of two Weather Underground members, Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn — the couple, like Powers, went underground as fugitives after a bomb-making factory blew up on a residential Manhattan block, killing three people — and then explain the association away by saying, “I was 8,” is outrageous.

Sorry, I just let that gratuitous Obama-bash slip in. Can’t imagine what I was thinking.

Anyway, I never expected the Jesuit fathers to warm to a domestic terrorist, beyond praying for his damned immortal soul. For which, I fear, it is too late.

Comments (2)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »