« USA Today: Global Warming Will Lead to Giant Asian Snake Invasion | Main | Obama: U.S. Military Armed by Taliban »

February 22, 2008

Obama's Radical Background Includes Terrorists

Politico offers a little background on the milieu that produced Barack Hussein Obama, who was abruptly snatched out of obscurity and shoved to the top of the Democrat Party by his MSM enablers:

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Not everyone remembers Ayers and Dohrn, but they once made quite a splash as members of the leftist terror outfit the Weather Underground:

They disappeared in 1970, after a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse, and turned themselves into authorities in 1980. They were never prosecuted for their involvement with the 25 bombings the Weather Underground claimed; charges were dropped because of improper FBI surveillance.
Both have written and spoken at length about their pasts, and today he is an advocate for progressive education and a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago; she's an associate professor of law at Northwestern University.
But — unlike some other fringe figures of the era — they're also flatly unrepentant about the bombings they committed in the name of ending the war, defending them on the grounds that they killed no one, except, accidentally, their own members.
Dohrn, however, was jailed for less than a year for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating other Weather Underground members' robbery of a Brinks truck, in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed.
"I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough," Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.

It's unnerving what you can find slithering in the swamp from which our left-wing media fishes presidential candidates.


Look who helped launch Osama bin Obama's political career.

On a tip from V the K.

Posted by Van Helsing at February 22, 2008 9:32 AM

certkiller -; testking -; passguide -; realtests -; test inside -


This would seem to be somewhat more relevant than whether or not John McAmnesty banged a lobbyist 20 years ago.

Posted by: V the K at February 22, 2008 9:41 AM

Here's a tip: go to the video store, look under documentaries, and rent or buy THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND. Believe it or not, it was actually nominated for an Academy Award (though in this era of Michael Moore, maybe thats not so hard to believe). You'll find out everything you need to know about Ayers and Dorhn

Posted by: phil at February 22, 2008 10:00 AM

"This would seem to be somewhat more relevant than whether or not John McAmnesty banged a lobbyist 20 years ago."


Posted by: hashfanatic at February 22, 2008 10:06 AM

Posted by: V the K at February 22, 2008 10:15 AM

Hmmm hashie thinks theres no difference between possibly boinking a lobbyist 20 years ago and dealing with terrorists? Yep, they are exactly the same. Except Ive havent yet seen any lobbyist suicide bombers yet. But hey, you never know!

Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2008 11:22 AM

So I'm confused. Why weren't Ayres and Dohrn tried, convicted, and executed for murder?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 22, 2008 12:37 PM

so Obama was introduced to these two? So fucking what? again, no story.

You can find pictures of George Bush the first and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with "terrorists" all over the internet , retards..

Anon above can't seem to see the difference bewtween fucking someone and meeting someone.

Posted by: hashfanaticFAN at February 22, 2008 12:39 PM

Exactly HashyPutz!, You can find pics of Bush and Rumsfeld shaking hands with terrorists/Saddam and right next to them will be posts by fuckwit Moonbats like yerself saying shit like "oh looky...Srub and his lacky Rummy are friendly with who were fighting this war for's an obvious sham to enrich their Halliburton Exxon masters blah blah blah...
Yer so full of shit Hashy, you must have diarreah running out of your ears. Your selective outrage is so transparent and it's so easy to call you out on it.

Posted by: Bryherb at February 22, 2008 1:31 PM

Here's more double standard to shove in Hashy's fuckface:

Posted by: Bryherb at February 22, 2008 1:34 PM

What I don't get about the McCain/Lobbyist phony scam is that shouldn't it raise their opinion of McCain?

I mean, if it's good for "BillyBob BlowJob" Clinton, isn't it good for John "Manchurian Candidate" McCain?

Posted by: Doug at February 22, 2008 2:00 PM

Wow Doug, you do make a good point!!!!

Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at February 22, 2008 5:32 PM

Mao, Che, Castro, Arafat, Saddam, Khomeini... With idols like these, of course Leftists believe that violent rebels naturally deserve to wind up the political leaders of the nation.

Posted by: BUUUUURRRRNING HOT at February 22, 2008 6:23 PM

"I mean, if it's good for "BillyBob BlowJob" Clinton, isn't it good for John "Manchurian Candidate" McCain?"

By the same token, Doug, isn't the NYT simply doing it's patriotic duty by shining light on McCain's obvious corruptibility and moral terpitude?

I mean, we all know what paragons of patriotic virtue Lucianne Goldberg and Matt Drudge are...

Posted by: hashfanatic at February 22, 2008 8:24 PM

"By the same token, Doug, isn't the NYT simply doing it's patriotic duty by shining light on McCain's obvious corruptibility and moral terpitude?"

hash, do you remember these from the Liberal "hit parade" of the '90s? I'll bet you don't!

> Let him do his job!
> It's just sex!
> You people are obsessed with sex!
> Even if you don't respect the man, you have to respect the office!
> Who cares what he does in private?
> Impeachment is just like assasination!
> It's a smear-job!
> It's a vast right-wing conspiracy!

So it all comes back to bite you neo-communists on the butt. It's "good for me, but not for thee" all over again!
All you idiots have on McCain are accusations from two ANNONYMOUS people. Even the NY Times couldn't confirm the story! But all you neo-communists need to convict your enemies is a single accusation. You obviously hate freedom and civil rights!

Posted by: KHarn at February 23, 2008 5:44 AM

"All you idiots have on McCain are accusations from two ANNONYMOUS people."

You simple, simple twit.

Are you incapable of understanding that it is not the sex, it is the influence of lobbies, the lack of good judgement, and the vulnerability such "rides" expose a potential presidential candidate to?

Do you comprehend that his own advisers pleaded with HIM to distance himself from that girl?

What an embarrassment you must be to your family.

Posted by: hashfanatic at February 23, 2008 7:09 AM

Look hash, the point is:How is McCain having sex with a lobbyist worse then Clinton having sex with his secretary?

And we're getting off topic as usual. Another thing I noticed in Lefty tactics "Distract them with something else so you don't have to answer their questions."

Posted by: conservativeteen at February 23, 2008 2:21 PM

CT, it's not the sex aspect that really concerns me.

In fact, I don't care if McCain pillowed half the Orient (I felt the same way about Clinton, as well).

It's America's problem with lobbies and lobbyists, and the corruption and potential for bad policy that issues forth from it.

I believe it needs to be looked into.

And, for the good of the country, it has to be taken seriously, whether you people hate the New York Times, or not.

As the days pass and they are issuing no apologies or backtracks, it's becoming more likely to me that the story does have legs, and that more details are to follow.

And, if this were a month ago and the Times weren't the source involved, you'd all be besides yourselves with joy that the dreaded "McShame" was being hung out to dry.

So, as far as "lefty tactics" are concerned, just bite me.

Posted by: hashfanatic at February 24, 2008 7:43 AM

How did this comment thread go so far off topic?
Actually, I agree with hf on what the real issue is with McCain, it is his relationship with lobbyists that should be looked at before they label him a real presidential candidate. But this comment thread isn't about him now is it?

Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at February 25, 2008 5:13 AM