Irrational Answers from Counselor Obama


By: Eddie Clements

When children can’t get what they want, they sometimes become angry. If they are not taught values like reason, morality, and forbearance, they may continue this behavior as they grow older. Most people gain maturity as they gain years, and some don’t gain as much.

This thought about anger came about thinking of the now famous-for-infamy William Ayers. You know him, the Mr. Rogers-like neighbor and alleged un-friend of Senator Barack Obama, Democrat-Illinois and attorney. I beg the court’s indulgence; later Senator Obama will be examined on the witness stand.

If they lack values-teaching, children, and some adults, may find anger devolving into irrational rage. It is a well known dynamic that if we can’t strike out directly at the cause of our anger, we might find another target, real or imagined.

These ideas and observations come from some formal knowledge and a lifetime of experience, not specialty college degrees. Not coming from a specialist does not make them any less relevant. No, I’m not an attorney either, but I know enough not to associate with known terrorists or bomb the Pentagon. Don’t most of us?

Mr. Ayers exhibits the behavior of one whose maturity has been outraced by his longevity. Indeed, his maturation may have long ago stopped entirely. For reasons perhaps only an aforementioned specialist could fathom, Ayers became so angry over what he saw as the imperfection of the society he lives in, he decided to seek out like minded souls and go a-bombing to try and attain the perfect society (note Obama himself has on more than one occasion referred to America’s “imperfection”.) This behavior only comes from people who cannot control their anger, or find a suitable outlet, else the human race could not have made it this far.
Or, perhaps this is pathological, having little to do with anger. Speaking to that possibility is way out of my league, but operationally, there is no difference. The results are the same. Boom. Kill the pigs; isn’t that what Ayers used to say?

The only plausible reasons that Ayers has ceased bombing are that he would be caught, or that a mind of even such limited capability as his could reason that bombing did not achieve his sought-after goals. Eyes are on him, and being older makes it more difficult. Rest assured, however, Ayers remains committed to radical change. He has never expressed otherwise. His stated beliefs have appeared in this forum and other sources. They are far from hidden; he expresses murderous, disruptive intent with the sanctimony of an Islamofascist beheading an infidel.

Now he neither has to bomb nor even be relevant. He has found an acceptable spokesman to spread his poison, his Senator and neighbor Barack Obama. The aging nutcase doesn’t matter; his intellectual comrade Obama matters because he is running for President of the United States.

Dick Morris, former Clinton pollster and a sharp operator, observes that the bombing long ago is not the point. Rather, the issue is that the two served on a board to distribute $50 million in grants received from The Annenberg Foundation. The funds were to be used in schools to promote “political awareness”, is the polite term. In effect, the purpose was to radicalize kids early (we don’t need no stinking math and science! Kill the pigs!) By extension, Morris says the fact they associated to distribute this much wealth indicates they each had knowledge of the other’s beliefs, which Obama has vigorously denied.

So. The lawyer replies that what Ayers did took place “when [Obama] was eight years old. This has nothing to do with me today”. Ostensibly Obama can reason through concepts and formulate arguments. Does the esteemed counselor and Senator expect us to believe he cannot see why some people would be upset by his association with a person who attempted murder through premeditated violence? Bear in mind while charges were thrown out on a technicality, this does not mean he is innocent of any wrongdoing, just that he was not convicted of it. Ayers admits he did it.

Here we have an attorney with political aspirations who associates with a known violent radical. Would a person of beneficent intent associate with an admitted enemy of the United States of America? Would a rational person explain away the relationship as “just a guy I served on some boards with”, after working hand-in-glove with “the guy” to hand out 50 million bucks, knowing “the guy” committed acts of irrational violence?

Senator Obama, please remember you are under oath. So, you were told by a Mr. William Ayers that he wanted you to distribute $50 million that he had obtained from The Annenberg Foundation through a grant. But you said earlier that you and Mr. Ayers did not work that closely together, correct? Senator, normal people don’t just distribute a suitcase – what, fifty suitcases – full of cash without a discussion. Without discussion, how did you know where he wanted the money to go? So it was to go to schools. Did you receive instructions to convey to the schools who were receiving the money how it must be spent? Because the purpose was part of the Grant application, correct? So he did tell you what it was for, and you agreed with that purpose? Granted, you don’t necessarily have to agree with the purpose for giving it to schools, but it did require minimal discussion, correct? Senator, during this discussion, then, the destination and purposes for the money were now revealed, purposes you say you didn’t agree with…so why did you do it, if you disagreed with the purpose? I see, because it was not an illegal activity and it was your job. Sounds like the Nuremburg Defense, Senator…you were only following orders.

So then. Did you know about Mr. Ayers past? Well, if you knew of it prior to the distribution of funds, don’t you think you should have questioned yourself as to how this would be perceived, a former domestic terrorist giving funds to schools so they would teach children, how did you put it, “political awareness”? So you thought that shouldn’t matter? So, did you learn of it before or after you distributed the Grant funds? Was this before or after you launched your political career from his home? As an attorney, you are an officer of the court, Senator. Did it ever occur to you your ethics might be in question because of this association with a known domestic terrorist, that you were not acting as defense attorney for in a court of law, and on whose behalf you were distributing grant funds to educate children in “political awareness”? You thought he must be legitimate because he was serving on a board with other people you knew, Democrats and Republicans? So you didn’t ask any questions, you assumed, correct? So you are saying all the people you know are of sterling character, Senator? Well, we all know of at least one who is not. Records show you taught constitutional law at Harvard, counselor. Can just anyone do that? Would you say you have to be a good lawyer to do that? So you consider yourself a “good enough” lawyer to teach law students about Americans’ fundamental founding document? Don’t you think educating children about the Constitution…oh, I see…so that WAS a part of it…so they would know their rights, especially in case they were ever criminally prosecuted, correct Senator? Withdrawn, your honor; no need for the witness to answer that question.

Knowing now of his activities, would you classify Mr. Ayers actions as those of a irrational man, Senator? So you would call his behavior “unacceptable”. One more question, Senator: would a “good enough” counselor at law, or Senator, associate with persons who committed unacceptable acts? No? Once the facts were known, then, would such an association be considered poor judgment? Then why did you not disavow this association and apologize for your poor judgment? We are awaiting your response, sir…

Rather than proving he is just being accused of “guilt by association”, a ridiculous excuse repeated endlessly by Obama’s minions, the sordid episode indicates Ayers and Obama are of like mind, just different tactics; it cannot be otherwise. Guilt by association between President Bush and Senator John McCain is the very concept Obama is trying to force on voters, to take advantage of the Presidents high disapproval rating. You can bet he would not make the same connection if the President had a low disapproval rating and high popularity.

With a Harvard Law degree, slick speechifying, and a slightly better mind, Obama is the perfect salesman for Ayers particular brand of political snake oil. Gotta tell ya, though: I sure wouldn’t want Obama to be my defense attorney in court. He must be the world’s crummiest lawyer. And “the guy” wants to be our President.



Eddie Clements
freedomring@live.com

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.