First Obama lied by saying that Ayers was "just some guy who lives in my neighborhood." He launched his political career in Ayers living room. He then dodges by saying that he shouldn't be held responsible for acts Ayers committed when he (Obama) was 8 years old. But that's not the issue. Ayers is unrepentant and says he wish he did more. (What, bombing the Pentagon and Capitol building weren't enough?)

Journalist Stanley Kurtz knew that Obama had served on the board of the Annenberg Challenge along with Ayers. In fact, that stint was listed as one of his qualifications when he ran for the Illinois legislature. Kurtz wanted to get access to the records of the now defunct Challenge, which were being stored at the University of Chicago, but they repeatedly stonewalled until Kurtz sued.

After they were released (some 130 or so boxes), Kurtz started examing them and was invited onto a Chicago talk show to discuss them. The Obama people instantly went into fascist mode and ordered its followers to try to shout down and shut down the broadcoast. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/08/28/obama-camp-failsto-stifle-kurtzs-obama-ayers-story-chicago-airwaves) Significantly, a spokesman for the Obama campaign was invited to be on the show at the same time, but they declined.

What Kurtz found is disturbing. First, it proves that Ayers was not just "some guy who lives in the neighborhood." They were joined at the hip. And the millions requested did not go to genuine educational institutions such as the Chicago Algebra Project, the Loyola University School of Education and the Argonne National Laboratory (http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/william-ayers-guy-who-lives-in-my.html)

The money did go to organizations that Ayers had close, even fiscal, relationships to. (http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=304729375940845)

It sounds like a scam and outright theft, and Obama was one of the principal officers of the orgnization.

The fact that they're doing everything to try to stop this story, including stormtrooper tactics, shows how dangerous it is to him.

There's way more. Try to learn to use Google.

Now that obama has conceded that the surge has been successful, I want to remind the salonista faithfull that your man apparently doesn't agree with many of you (link below)

I recall several months ago, salonistas claiming that the surge had failed. Some salonoids didn't claim failure, they just moved the goalposts or changed some vocabulary, in an effort to save face.

Prior to the claim that the surge had failed, I remember liberals declaring that;

1) Iraq would not hold elections.

2) Iraq would not form a constitution.

3) "This war is lost and cannot be won" - harry (the dunce) reid

4) General Patreus had "betrayed us"...many of you thought that slanderous ad from moveon.org was justified.

So let me guess, your next proclamation regarding what is going to happen, and how we should respond to it, will be correct.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/

The surge worked? Yes to FISA? . . . ouch.

This speech would cure any four hour erection. They ought to make it into a DVD and use it to put children to sleep at bedtime.

I love Sarah Palin's expression she just figured out there is no future for her.

He can't even get a 50% applause out of the hardcores in attendance.

Americans that don't want to step into the pig shit that the right loves to wallow in shouldn't have to hold their breath every four years and stoop to the level of the Republicans.

A much better solution is to divide the country in two.

I suggest a straight diagonal cut from Costa Mesa in the west to the Delaware/Maryland border in the east. Democrats get the north and Republicans get the south.

It's not a perfect solution and people on both sides will piss and moan but what else are you going to do? It's that or face a new civil war within the next twenty years.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/083108/edi_471449.shtml

Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff

Sunday, August 31, 2008

His eloquent words alone cannot be allowed to define Barack Hussein Obama.

However thin the Democratic presidential nominee's resume, his record is worth exploring. It's the best way to know what he's likely to do if elected.

The conclusion of those who have researched his record: He's vastly more liberal than his image.

How liberal? He's ranked as the most liberal U.S. senator -- to the left, even, of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a socialist.

In Citizens Against Govern-ment Waste's 100-point rating of senators and congressman on fiscal responsibility, Obama got a mere 10.

And a Washington Times investigation of Obama's eight-year record in the Illinois state Senate finds that Obama was so far to the left on many votes that he made his liberal Democratic colleagues look like Rush Limbaugh.

Some examples of Obama's extremism in the Illinois Senate, as provided by The Washington Times :

- Obama was the only senator not to support a bill "to report suspected child abuse while protecting the identity of the facility or person providing the information." The bill passed 54-0-1 -- the one being Obama, who voted "present." It passed the Illinois House 117-0.

- Obama voted present "on a bill in committee requiring criminals to serve consecutive sentences for separate crimes involving convictions for severe bodily harm or sexual assault, but didn't vote at all when the measure came to the floor." The bill passed the Senate 54-0 and the House 118-0.

- Obama voted present on a bill "making it harder for abusive and neglectful parents to regain custody of their children." The Senate vote was 57-0-1, with the lone wolf being Obama.

- Obama skipped a vote on a bill "to prohibit convicted sex offenders from serving on school boards." It passed without him, 58-0 in the Senate and 106-0 in the House.

Adds the Times : "The records also show Mr. Obama voted 'no' on a bill allowing police officers to execute warrants and enter buildings without knocking if there was a reasonable belief a weapon would be used against them; voted "present" on legislation requiring that minors who commit gun crimes on or near a school be prosecuted as adults; and did not vote on a bill requiring fingerprint background checks on school bus drivers.

"Mr. Obama was the only member of the state Senate to vote against a bill to prohibit the early release of convicted criminal sexual abusers; and was among only four who voted against bills to toughen criminal sentences, increase penalties for criminals whose offenses were committed in the furtherance of gang activities, and increase penalties for the delivery of Ecstasy and other designer drugs."

Obama also voted "present" in 2001 on three bills that required medical help for babies accidentally born in botched abortions. In 2002 he had another chance -- and actually voted against helping the survivors of failed abortions.

In 2003, as chairman he helped kill a similar bill in committee.

Meanwhile, as stories come out about his having learned at the feet of socialists and even a communist, Obama has tried to downplay his connections to admitted domestic terrorist William Ayers ('a guy who lives in my neighborhood,' Obama said in a primary debate). But in papers from Ayers' "Chicago Annenberg Challenge" released just this past week after a long battle, it appears the association between Obama and Ayers was much deeper. Obama served on the organization's board for years, for a time as chairman. And Ayers hosted Obama's first campaign fund-raiser.

"They in fact were partners in various entities and regularly exchanged ideas," writes Investor's Business Daily , "including on how to turn Chicago schools into re-education camps to create a generation of social revolutionaries."

Obama isn't just ignoring or running from his past. He's actively trying to cover over it: His campaign has threatened TV stations with their broadcast licenses for running ads noting Obama's link to Ayers.

Obama's record and his associations, past and present, define him, much more so than his lofty rhetoric. And he is the definition of an extremist far out of step with mainstream American values.

By every expert's assessment, this presidential election was the Democrats' to lose. And they very well may do that. In their zeal for change, and in succumbing to the cult of celebrity without asking questions first, they have chosen a nominee who is extreme in the extreme. His record, and his views, are only now coming out.

The Democrats may have fallen in love with someone they barely knew.

That hardly ever ends well.