Hey, Ayers Likes John Kerry, Too!

What most people, of course found deplorable about Kerry, Obama’s longtime pal, Ayers describes as his “finest moment”:

Nice earrings.

At least Kerry had the decency to apologize, unlike Ayers.


Check Out “Hype”

“Hype”, from Citizens United Productions premiered at the DNC on August 24, and will run again at the RNC in Minneapolis on September 3. As you have no doubt guessed, the film is about the Obama candidacy.

Here’s the trailer:

A short snippet:

This snippet deals with the Obama/Ayers controversy:

Also, check out the Citizen’s United website for more great films, including The Blocking Of The Path To 9/11, Rediscovering God In America, and ACLU At War With America..

Hat tip: Hot Air

Another Democrat Has Trouble With Obama’s “Funny Name”

Wow, these awkward slips of the tongue just keep happening:

Former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson — yes, that Charlie Wilson — was speaking at an anti-war rally when he, um, flubbed a line:

“We should be led by Osama bin Laden,” he said, then quickly corrected himself. “I mean Obama and Biden.”


Of course that’s just the latest of a long string of similar freudian slips flubs. Here are some more notable members of the Osama/Obama flub club.

Dean Singleton, Chairman of The AP:

Who can forget Ted Kennedy’s extensive faux pas:

An ABC News anchor:

Dan Rather said Jesse Jackson paved the way for Osama Bin Laden (huh?!) as the others on the panel stared blankly:

Chris Matthews got it wrong two days in a row,  saying Obama instead of Osama when speaking of the terrorist.

Here Chris Matthews gets his name right,….but that’s not the problem….

Even CNN isn’t immune:

Anyway, you get my point. Democrats really do seem to have a hard time with what Obama likes to call his “funny name”.

Republicans have a hard time, too. They keep pronouncing Obama’s middle name as “Hussein”, lol.

Obama Threatening TV Stations For Airing Ayers Ad (UPDATE: AIP Responds)

With some success – both CNN and Fox News, (as I’ve previously noted) have declined to run this ad:

*Keep watching this, even if you’ve already seen it.

Unable to dispute the basic truth of the ad, the Obama camp has tried another tack. Sic the Department of Justice on the group, the “American Issues Project, who produced the ad, and aggressively pressure TV stations who plan to run the ad:

Obama’s campaign has written the Department of Justice demanding a criminal investigation of the “American Issues Project,” the vehicle through which Dallas investor Harold Simmons is financing the advertisements. The Obama campaign — and tens of thousands of supporters — also is pressuring television networks and affiliates to reject the ads. The effort has met with some success: CNN and Fox News are not airing the attacks.

Obama has mobilized his minions:

The Obama campaign plans to punish the stations that air the ad financially, an Obama aide said, organizing his supporters to target the stations that air it and their advertisers.

Why, Fox News would cave in to such pressure is anyone’s guess. It’s not like they are the first (or second, or third) choice for Obama supporters, anyway.

Not all stations are bowing to the pressure, however. It is still being aired widely:

Evan Tracey, who tracks campaign advertising at TNS Media Intelligence, said it has been broadcast 150 times in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Michigan. Federal Election Commission reports indicate that Simmons has spent more than $2.8 million buying ads.

The Politico also reports:

Obama’s campaign has written a pair of letters to station managers carrying the ads.

The letter calls the ad’s attempt to link Obama to terrorism “an appalling lie, a disgraceful smear of the lowest kind on the senator’s patriotism and commitment to the rule of law.”

Well, the ad doesn’t ‘link Obama to terrorism’. It links him to an unrepentant former terrorist. Where’s the “appalling lie”? It’s becoming increasingly clear that Obama had more than a passing acquaintance with this unrepentant former terrorist.

But Obama doesn’t address the actual problematic linkage. Instead, as always with him, we get smoke and mirrors.

The Obama Camp produced its own weak response ad:

Why is McCain talking about the sixties?

First of all…that’s not even a McCain Ad. It was put on by an independent 527 group. Second of all, this ad mentions the sixties because that’s when Obama’s pal William Ayers was actively engaged in domestic terrorism. Obama’s age at the time isn’t relevant. The relevant question is, why is Obama friends with such a person?

And another thing… how did Ayers get his job at the University of Illinois-Chicago, with his terrorist background? Michael Barone answers that question:

And you might wonder how an unrepentant terrorist got a huge grant and cooperation from the Chicago public school system. You might wonder—if you don’t know Chicago. For this is a city with a civic culture in which politicians, in the words of a story often told by former congressman, federal judge, and Clinton White House counsel Abner Mikva, “don’t want nobody nobody sent.” That’s what Mikva remembers being told when he went to a Democratic ward headquarters to volunteer for Adlai Stevenson in the 1950s, and it rings true. And it’s a civic culture in which there’s nobody better to send you than your parents.

That’s how William Ayers got where he was. When he came out of hiding because the federal government was unable to prosecute him (because of government misconduct), he got a degree in education from Columbia and then moved to Chicago and got a job on the education faculty of the University of Illinois-Chicago Circle. How did he get that job? Well, it can’t have hurt that his father, Thomas Ayers, was chairman of Commonwealth Edison (now Exelon) and a charter member of the Chicago establishment. As Mayor Richard M. Daley said recently, in arguing that the Ayers association should not be held against Obama, “His father was a great friend of my father.”

That explains who sent Ayers. The question is, who sent Obama?


* Ace says (in his sidebar) to watch the video a few more times to drive it up the YouTube hot videos chart.

Good plan.

Also, Fox News says they love to hear your input:

“We Love to Hear From Our Viewers”!

Contact info here, in case you would like to let them know how you feel about their complete lack of spine on this issue.


Whoa, listen to Andrew McCarthy:

The only two cents I’d add is that a real story — and one that should alarm people — is that this is what Obama thinks the Justice Department is for. Here is a guy who fought the Patriot Act, fought surveillance reform, has spoken admiringly of Ayer’s radical views of the criminal justice system, and has a record as a Chicago legislator of being soft on violent crime. He is evidently ambivalent about going after terrorists and hardened criminals, but he wants to mobilize the Justice Department post haste to suppress political speech that he doesn’t like.

I regard that as more than a little disconcerting from a guy who wants to be president, pick the next attorney-general, and make U.S. law enforcement policy.

Excellent points.

Jonah Goldberg over at the Corner is AMAZED at the Obama camp’s obtuseness on this matter:

I am amazed, simply amazed, at the amazement of many liberals that Ayers and Dohrn should matter to anyone. I was one of the first to write about Ayers (for which Alan Colmes denounced me as some kind of McCarthyite, though not in so many words) and I’ve been getting email ever since for my mule-headedness. Apparently the groupthink is so thick that at the Obama campaign they actually think this rightwing or Republican obsession is a weakness. How else to explain the stupidity of their Ayers’ ad?

I think the Obama camp is in for a rude awakening when/if this story goes mainstream.

But that’s why I’m not sure people like jennifer Rubin at Commentary Magazine are right that Obama’s ad was a bad idea for him:

The conservative blogosphere is agog: what was Barack Obama thinking? He took a story largely confined to the internet, (only briefly raised in the primary) about Obama’s connection to former terrorist Bill Ayers, put it in his own ad, and then filed a claim trying to force the third-party 527 ad that first brought up the Obama-Ayers connection off the air. In the next 24 hours thousands if not millions of voters who never heard of or didn’t understand the extent of the Obama-Ayers relationship are going to get a full education.

I don’t know about that. Most people aren’t going to take the time to look up who William Ayers is. Obama could very well be successful in suppressing this story.

If late night comedians start making jokes about it, then I’ll feel better.

UPDATE (August 27):

More from Andrew McCarthy.


I’m hearing that Fox has changed its mind, and run the ad. I haven’t been able to confirm it, but that’s the word on the street.


The American Issues Project’s fights back with its own letters to the DOJ, here and here.

Via Michelle Malkin, I like how they turn the tables on the Obama thugs:

Re: Response to August 25, 2008 Letter to DOJ from Obama Presidential Campaign (“Second Letter”)

Dear Mr. Keeney:

Yet again, the Obama for America campaign has sent a letter to you and your office, demanding now that the Department of Justice prosecute one of the donors to American Issues Project, Inc., (“AIP), a non-profit organization which is presently sponsoring advertisements to which the Obama campaign objects.

As stated in my letter sent in response to the Obama campaign’s first letter, AIP has not violated the law, is not violating the law and is taking every possible precaution to assure that it does not violate the law in the future.

The Obama campaign dislikes the content of AIP’s advertising – but is unable to contradict the facts contained in the ad. That is precisely why the ad is presently being broadcast by numerous television stations. It is accurate, documented, and truthful.

The Obama Campaign has specifically called on the Department of Justice to prosecute a donor to AIP, whose contribution was disclosed publicly in accordance with federal law. See 11 C.F.R. §109.10.

Information contained in AIP’s FEC Form 5, filed on August 19, 2006 was attached to the Obama Campaign’s Second Letter to DOJ and information contained in the filing forms the basis for the Obama Campaign’s latest demands of you and the Department.

The Obama Campaign’s request gives rise to a significant legal and constitutional question: that is, whether the Department of Justice would seriously undertake the prosecution of a citizen under pressure from a prominent government official / political candidate, relying on information contained in truthful and accurate government filing, disclosed in accordance with federal law. There are serious Fifth Amendment self-incrimination issues involved in a situation whereby a criminal prosecution could be ordered at will by political pressure on your Department based solely on a timely and accurate federal government disclosure.

AIP has sought and received the voluntary after-tax contributions of donor(s) to support its policy objectives, which happen to differ from those of the Obama Campaign. Rather than addressing the facts contained in the AIP advertisement, it has instead set about to “deal” with AIP through your Department.

This is, however, only the latest in a series of brazen public statements and efforts by liberal Democratic operatives and agents of the Obama Campaign to silence their critics and organizations with whom they disagree, by initiating what they acknowledge is a concerted national effort announced in recent weeks to intimidate, harass and otherwise bully conservative donors.

An organization calling itself “Accountable America” announced two weeks ago its intent to obtain publicly filed disclosures to attempt to coerce donors to conservative causes to stop making contributions and essentially threatening potential donors into not making contributions to conservative groups. Like the Obama Campaign, this group of operatives is using information obtained from legally mandated public disclosures to identify and target for their attack donors to conservative causes.

Of course, should the Department decide to yield to the pressure from the Obama Campaign and undertake its requested ‘investigations’ of donors to politically related conservative causes, the Department would necessarily be required to do so in an even-handed, non partisan and non-ideological approach. In that regard, the Department would be required to review all donors to all causes and political / policy organizations, whose contributions exceed $5,000 per calendar year to any such causes, the vast majority of which are donors to liberal causes, not conservative ones.

Based on calculations from the Center for Responsive Politics (www.crp.org ) the following are leftwing donors whose substantial contributions to political causes in the last three election cycles have consistently landed each of them on the top donors list and surely each of these donors warrant the Department’s review, scrutiny and prosecution, if the Obama Campaign standard is to be applied evenly:

George Soros:

2004: $23,450,000

2006: $ 3,542,500

2008 (to date) $ 4,650,000

Steven Bing:

2004: $13,852,031

2008 (to date) $ 4,850,000

Peter Lewis:

2004: $22,997,220

2006: $ 1, 624,375

2008 (to date) $ 850,000

Herb and Marion Sandler:

2004: $13, 008, 459

Linda Pritzker:

2004: $3,300,000

2006: $2,101,000

John Hunting:

2006: $1,647,000

2008 (to date) $1,243,000

Alida Messinger

2004: $ 3,580,200

2006: $ 1,042,000

2008 (to date) $ 883,000

Pat Stryker:

2006: $ 1,331,293

2008 (to date): $ 300,000

Jon Stryker:

2006: $ 1,271,313

2008: $ 604,054

The list is quite lengthy and this is but a partial list of those the Department would be obligated to pursue if it bows to the demands of the Obama Campaign to undertake investigations of wealthy donors making large contributions to political causes. The Obama Campaign should be aware that most of the donors on the list are individuals who consistently support left-wing, liberal and Democratic causes. And most of the donors listed above have made public statements regarding their intent to use their wealth to impact the outcome of federal elections should the Department need further evidence of their activities.

The letters from the Obama Campaign to you and your Department are a gross misuse of the power and prestige of that organization. However, because of the environment in which we function, it is important that AIP respond to the ongoing baseless allegations in the letter war now being waged against it by the Obama Campaign.

AIP has violated no provision of law. The donor(s) to AIP have violated no provision of law. However, if the Department of Justice decides to initiate investigations of donors to AIP and other conservative political and policy organizations, as well as the activities of citizens groups such as AIP, we will be prepared to counter such efforts with our list of targets and entities with which we disagree politically and philosophically for the Department to also investigate and prosecute.

Please contact me if you have any questions.


Cleta Mitchell

Cleta Mitchell, Esq.

Counsel, American Issues Project

I guess Obama isn’t the only one who knows how to fight the “Chicago Way”


How Obama Fights.

UPDATE IV: (September 26):

Obama continues this tactic in an effort to get NRA ads off the air, and to silence critics in MO.

Embarrassing!: Archbishop Publicly Corrects Pelosi

I’m always mortified for liberal Catholics when their egregious positions on abortion cause them to be publicly rebuked by the leaders of their Church. It’s happened to John Kerry, Rudy Giuliani, Kathleen Sebelius, and now most mortifying of all, House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. But what did she expect would happen when she tried to claim that the current Catholic position on abortion is only 50 years old?

I saw this one coming.

The Hill reports:

In a release issued Monday night, Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl said Pelosi’s comments on “Meet the Press” on Sunday “were incorrect.”

Wuerl noted that Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic.

The release quoted Pelosi as saying the church has not been able to come with a definition of when life begins.

“After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, ‘I understand. And this is, like, maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy,’ ” the release said.

Wuerl strongly disagrees.

He said, “We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.”

Wuerl pointed out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear, and has been clear for 2,000 years. He cited Catechism language that reads, “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception … Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

Yep, no doubt about it. The abortion issue is an uncomfortable one for pro abortion Catholics, as they flounder and flail helplessly, trying to justify their pro abort positions. Wouldn’t it be easier to just convert to another religion?

Hat tip: Hot Air Headlines.


And now Cardinal Egan responds to Pelosi’s drival:



Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Edward Cardinal Egan

Archbishop of New York


Man, she really put her foot in it.

Not to worry. Catholic League president Bill Donohue is sending her a copy of Catholicism for Dummies, with the thought that the Catechism Of The Catholic Church “is like maybe a bit advanced” for her.


Via Captain Ed at Hot Air:

Catholic House Republicans write a letter of response to Pelosi’s words. They would like her to “rectify her errant claims”:

To reduce the scandal and consternation caused amongst the faithful by your remarks, we necessarily write you to correct the public record and affirm the Church’s actual and historical teaching that defends the sanctity of human life. We hope that you will rectify your errant claims and apologize for misrepresenting the Church’s doctrine and misleading fellow Catholics.

The list of signatories, thus far:

Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (MI)
Hon. Steve Chabot (OH)
Hon. Virginia Foxx (NC)
Hon. Phil Gingrey (GA)
Hon. Peter King (NY)
Hon. Steve King (IA)
Hon. Daniel Lungren (CA)
Hon. Devin Nunes (CA)
Hon. John Sullivan (OK)
Hon. Patrick Tiberi (OH)


Let the American Papist walk you through the Brokaw/Pelosi interview. I promise, you’ll be amused.

And then there’s the inimitable Ace:

Here’s how Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants cautiously begins:

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.

Cardinals and bishops are correcting her, but as of yet, no response. She must be busy in her library of Catholic theology, researching the question further.

Probably wearing a mitre. And maybe two more mitres on each of the saline-filled medicine balls she calls her cans.