Skip navigation

Tag Archives: DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY DEBATE

Radical Loon When Obama Was Only 47

by  Ann Coulter

10/22/2008 Radical Loon When Obama Was Only 47

by  Ann Coulter

10/22/2008

The media are acting as if they completely and fully vetted Obama during the Democratic primaries and that’s why they are entitled to send teams of researchers into Alaska to analyze Sarah Palin’s every expense report.

In fact, the mainstream media did no vetting. They seem to have all agreed, “OK, none of us will get into this business with Jeremiah Wright, ‘Tony’ Rezko, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers and everyone’s impression of an angry Michelle Obama on ‘The Jerry Springer Show.'”

During one of the Democratic primary debates, Hillary Clinton was hissed for mentioning Syrian national Rezko, and during another, ABC moderator George Stephanopoulos nearly lost his career for asking Obama one question about William Ayers.


In the past week, TV anchors have taken to claiming that Obama “refuted” John McCain’s statement that Obama launched his political career at the home of former Weather Underground leader Ayers.

No, Obama “denied” it; he didn’t “refute” it. If “denying” something is the same as “refuting” it, then maybe the establishment media can quit harping on Palin’s supposed lack of qualifications to be president, since she too “refuted” that by denying it.

Back before the media realized it needed to lie about Obama launching his political career at Ayers’ house, the Los Angeles Times provided an eyewitness account from a liberal who attended the event.

“When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”

The Times has now stripped this item from its Web page, but the great blogger Patterico has preserved it for posterity on his Web page.

Obama’s glib remark that “Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago; 40 years ago when I was 8 years old he engaged in despicable acts with a domestic group. I have roundly denounced those attacks” — doesn’t answer anything.

First of all, the fact that Ayers is a professor of education proves only one thing: He is dumber than any person without an education degree.

Ayers is such an imbecile, we ought to be amazed that he’s teaching at a university — even when you consider that it’s an ed school — except all former violent radicals end up teaching. Roughly 80 percent of former Weathermen are full college professors — 99 percent if you don’t include the ones killed in shoot-outs with the police or in prison — i.e., not yet pardoned by a Democratic president.

Any other profession would have banned a person like Ayers. Universities not only accept former domestic terrorists, but also move them to the front of the line. In addition to Ayers, among those once on the FBI’s most-wanted list who ended up in cushy college teaching positions are Bernardine Dohrn (Northwestern University), Mark Rudd (a junior college in New Mexico) and Angela Davis (History of Consciousness Department, University of California at Santa Cruz).

While others were hard at work on Ph.D.s, Susan Rosenberg was conspiring to kill cops and blow up buildings, and was assembling massive caches of explosives. This put her on the fast track for a teaching position at Hamilton College!

Despite having absolutely no qualifications to teach, having earned only a master’s degree in “writing” through a correspondence course, Rosenberg was offered a position at Hamilton within a few years of President Clinton pardoning her in 2001, releasing her from a 58-year prison sentence for participating in the murder of cops and possessing more than 700 pounds of explosives.

But Obama thinks it’s a selling point to say that Ayers is a college professor.

Hundreds of college professors have signed a letter vouching for Ayers, which would be like Lester Maddox producing a letter from George Wallace assuring us that Maddox is a respected member of the community. No, really, I’ve got the letter right here!

The media keep citing the fact that the money Obama and Ayers distributed to idiotic left-wing causes came — as The New York Times put it — “from Walter H. Annenberg, the billionaire publisher and philanthropist and President Richard M. Nixon’s ambassador to the United Kingdom.”

Great Republican though he was, Walter Annenberg died in 2002. The money came from the Annenberg Foundation, which, like all foundations, distributes money to projects that its founder would despise. John Kerry ran for president on the late John Heinz’s money. That didn’t mean Republican Heinz was endorsing Kerry.

As John O’Sullivan says, any foundation that is not explicitly right-wing will become a radical left-wing organization within a few years. It could be the Association of University Women, the American Association of Retired People, the American Rose Growers, the Foundation for the Study of Railroad Engineers or the Choral Society of Newport Beach.

Left-wing radicals swarm to free foundation money, where they can give gigantic grants to one another and they will never have to do a day’s work. That’s exactly what Obama and Ayers did with Annenberg’s money.

None of the Annenberg money went to schoolchildren. It went to Ayers’ left-wing crank friends to write moronic papers that we hope no one ever reads.

Instead of teaching students reading and writing, Ayers thinks they should be taught to rebel against America’s “imperialist” social structure. In 2006, Ayers was in Venezuela praising communist dictator Hugo Chavez, saying, “We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution.”

He has backed a line of schoolbooks such as one titled “Teaching Science for Social Justice.”

Forget about Ayers’ domestic terrorism when Obama “was 8 years old.” Does he agree with Ayers’ idiot ideas right now?


http://blog.heritage.org

Morning Bell: A Trade Free Zone

Posted By Conn Carroll On October 8, 2008 @ 9:00 am In American Leadership | 10 Comments

Barack Obama has frequently called the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) “[1] a bad deal.” During one Democratic primary debate, Obama even said he would unilaterally “[2] use the hammer of a potential opt-out” to “renegotiate” the entire treaty. But after he secured the nomination, Obama changed his tune, admitting that [3] NAFTA was not so bad after all, and telling Nina Easton: “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.” If you find Obama’s rhetoric on trade inconsistent, do not expect to learn much from his voting record either. He has [4] voted with the Bush Administration for free trade in Oman and [5] supported free trade with Peru, but has [6] opposed free trade with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. To be as generous as possible, Obama has a evolving position on trade.

Considering that the No. 1 issue in this election is the [7] global economic downturn we are slipping into, one would think debate moderators would press the candidates to clarify their positions on trade. No such luck. We have had three debates so far (two [8] presidential [9] debates and one [10] vice presidential debate). There have been approximately 100 questions directed at all four candidates over the course of the three debates. None have pressed the candidates to explain to the American people where they stand on free trade.

International trade has been one of the biggest drivers of economic growth in recent years. The one bright spot in the American economy this past year has been [11] the continued growth in U.S. exports. [12] Exports generated an impressive two-thirds of U.S. economic growth over the past year. With the Doha round of trade talks grounded, bilateral free trade agreements (like those Obama voted against for Panama, Colombia and South Korea) are one of the only options for expanding trade. Although they comprise only 7.5% of global GDP (not including the U.S.), the [13] countries the U.S. has free trade agreements with accounted for more than 42% of U.S. exports. [14] Shutting down free trade now would be disastrous for the U.S. economy. The last time the U.S. reverted to protectionism in a time of economic turmoil [15] President Herbert Hoover’s Smoot-Hawley Tariff helped usher in the Depression. This is not the direction our country needs to go.

It is the direction the left wants to take us. Doing the bidding of her labor union masters, [16] Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) destroyed over thirty years of American credibility on trade when she gutted the legal framework of U.S. Trade Promotion Authority this April. The next president of the United States will have to fight hard against organized labor just to repair the damage Pelosi has caused, let alone advance new trade gains worldwide. Americans deserve to know where the next president stands on this issue. Hopefully they can get at least one question on it.

Quick Hits:


Article printed from The Foundry: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2008/10/08/morning-bell-a-trade-free-zone/

URLs in this post:
[1] a bad deal: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14762/
[2] use the hammer of a potential opt-out: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4461
[3] NAFTA was not so bad after all: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061
810

[4] voted with the Bush Administration for free trade in Oman: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14762/
[5] supported free trade with Peru: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061
810

[6] opposed free trade with Panama, Colombia and South Korea: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14762/
[7] global economic downturn: http://business.theage.com.au/business/global-stock-markets-slump-for-fifth-day-20081008-4wu8.html
[8] presidential: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/
[9] debates: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/
[10] vice presidential debate: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html
[11] the continued growth in U.S. exports: http://blog.heritage.org/2008/08/13/free-trade-fact-of-the-day-109/
[12] Exports generated an impressive two-thirds of U.S. economic growth over the past year: http://www.chamberpost.com/2008/08/trade-generatin.html
[13] countries the U.S. has free trade agreements with accounted for more than 42% of U.S. exports: http://www.ita.doc.gov/fta/index.asp
[14] Shutting down free trade now would be disastrous for the U.S. economy: http://www.heritage.org/Research/economy/wm1883.cfm
[15] President Herbert Hoover’s Smoot-Hawley Tariff helped usher in the Depression: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_shlaes&sid=alBsmRS72DyM
[16] Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) destroyed over thirty years of American credibility on trade when she gutted the legal framework of U.S. Trade Promotion Authority this April: http://blog.heritage.org/2008/04/18/american-leadership-on-free-trade-rip-april-10-2008/
[17] higher oil and natural gas prices: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-10-07-heating-costs_N.htm
[18] contributed significantly to rising food prices and the hunger in poor countries: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/world/europe/08italy.html?ref=todayspaper
[19] buying cocaine directly: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/world/americas/08mexico.html?ref=todayspaper
[20] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-to-hold-hearings-on-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-2008-10-07.html
[21] miasma of ignorance: http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1008/Free_Econ_101_course_offered_to_Congress.html?showall

Click here to print.

Copyright © 2008 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.