Bill and Barack—Two Marxist Peas From the Same Pod

By Al Benson Jr.

Back in 2008 when Barack Obama co-opted the office of President with the help of the ruling establishment, both Republican and Democrat, there was a slight fuss over his association with (former) Marxist terrorist William Ayers, unrepentant former leader of the Weather Underground, an organization even Wikipedia was forced to label as “a radical left organization.”

This allegation was, supposedly, investigated by both CNN and The New York Times as well as others. They all concluded that the allegations were without foundation and that the two barely knew one another, barely recognized each other on the street. With that conclusion I have to question just where all those “investigative” reporters spend their time investigating—was it in the local corner bar or was it back in their editorial offices where they were told what not to write?

Wikipedia noted: “Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn hosted a gathering at their home in 1995, where Alice Palmer introduced Obama as her chosen successor in the Illinois State Senate. Obama and Ayres’ nine years of service on the board of directiors of the Woods Fund of Chicago overlapped for three years from 1999 to 2002.” Yep, barely knew one another! In a Breitbart article on the Internet for June 4, 2012, it was stated that: “Obama’s connection with Bill Ayers, like his connection to Jeremiah Wright, briefly became a campaign issue in 2008. The Obama campaign was quick to distance the candidate from the 60’s domestic terrorist, even as blogs continued to dig up evidence connecting the two men.” The issue became enough of an impediment to Obama’s campaign that author Scott Shane had to do a story on it which was entitled Obama and 60’s Bomber: a look into crossed paths. Suffice it to say, Scott Shane “missed” or overlooked significant connections between these two who barely knew one another, and these connections might have raised the red flag for some voters—which is probably why they were overlooked. The “news” media did what it usually does—hid the real news and concentrated on the fluff.

The Breitbart article continued: “However, Shane overlooks the more obvious…connection. Various boards on which Obama sat in the late 90s granted nearly $2 million dollars to Bill Ayers’ Small School’s Workshop…In addition to donations to Ayers’ Small Schools Workshop, the same foundations donated $761,100 to a related group run by Ayres’ brother, John Ayers. In fact, in 2001, Obama would join the ‘leadership council’ of a successor to the CAC called the Chicago Public Education Fund. Also on the leadership council of the group was Bill Ayers’ brother John. You have to wonder how Shane Scott missed all this. When confronted with the issue, Obama was forced to say that he repudiated Ayres’ terrorist actions of 40 years ago. Well, he was running for office, what else would you expect him to say? He couldn’t admit he didn’t have any problem with them. That would have been the kiss of death for his campaign even with the establishment help he got. However, it’s worth noting that he only repudiated Ayers’ “detestable acts” of four decades earlier. He never said anything about Ayers’ mindset in the here and now. That subject was left untouched. Had Ayers been repentant for his terrorist acts you might overlook some things, but he wasn’t and isn’t to this day. In a piece by The New York Times published on September 11, 2001, Ayres was quoted as saying: “I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough…Just two months ago (2012) Ayers was in Union Square telling anyone who would listen ‘I get up every morning thinking today…I’m going to end capitalism’.” This from a man Obama claimed to have barely known, a man who Obama said was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”

In an article in The American Spectator by Alfred S. Regnery in Septemer, 2011 it was observed: “The Obama campaign at once launched a crusade to distance Obama from Ayres. It went so far as to actually defend the man who had implicated himself in terror bombings in his own 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days. …In fact, Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, were radical Marxist revolutionaries in the Viet Nam War era. ..Both were eventually indicted in federal court, and Dohrn by the State of Illinois. Rather than face trial they jumped bail and disappeared into the underground in 1970. After they resurfaced 11 years later, both were admitted into the halls of academia. Ayers became a Distinguished Professor of Education and a Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Incredibly, Dohrn befame a law professor at Northwestern.” Do you think that kind of thing would have happened for most ordinary folks who might have been terrorists? From unrepentant terrorists to professors. That tells you something about our higher education system today.

And then http://www.theobamafile.com which is always a good source for the nitty gritty, goes even further. The relationship between Bill and Barack, and their wives, is pretty well fleshed out. The Obama File stated: “It is a fact that in 1989, Bernadine Dohrn and Michelle Obama were associates at the Chicago law firm of Sidney & Austin, when Obama joined the firm as a summer intern. Barack also was essentially an employee of Bill Ayers for eight years, starting in 1995, the year the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created to raise funds to help reform the Chicago public schools. One of the architects of the Challenge was none other than Professor Bill Ayers. Ayers co-wrote the initial grant proposal and proudly lists himself on his own website as the co-founder of the Challenge. And who did William Ayers, co-creator of the Challenge, help select as the new director of the board for this program? Why, Barack Obama, of course. Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.” What a coincidence! And Obama stayed on the board for eight years until the Challenge finally ended in 2003. Ayers was definitely involved with the Challenge in this same time period, “raising and spending at least $110 million in an effort to bolster a ‘radical’ reform program in the Chicago Public Schools from 1994 to 2001.”

This Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an interesting animal and, knowing how the socialist mentality works, you can just bet that it was never formed to do what it had supposedly been formed to do. Stanley Kurtz, in his book, which we have mentioned previously, Radical-In-Chief has dealt with this organization and his observations are worth noting. Kurtz noted: “By ordinary standards, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was an expensive failure. Together Obama, as head of CAC’s money-dispensing board, and Ayers, as head of its policy-making ‘collaborative’ spent well over $100 million, with no discernable improvement in the test scores of low-performing schools.” But then, you have to ask—was improving test scores what they really spent all this dinero on? Turns out the answer is no. But if you follow this stuff, you knew that already. Instead of directly funding public schools, Kurtz observed that “CAC required schools to affiliate with ‘external partners,’ which actually got the money. Proposals from prospective external partners committed to teaching traditional math and science skills were rejected. Community organizers like ACORN and Obama’s own Developing Communities Project got the money instead. Programs established by these groups focused more on political consciousness, Afro-centricity, and bilingualism than traditional education. Ayers’ ‘small schools’ projects were perfect examples of the type. One of Ayers’ creations was a ‘peace school,’ where students celebrated United Nations-themed events instead of traditional American holidays. As part of his rhetorical makeover, Ayers has soft-peddled his overt anti-Americanism…In his education work, Ayers inculcates loyalty to ‘the world’ as a substitute for overt anti-Americanism.” So you can see, even by this brief excerpt the kind of One World drivel they have been feeding into the public school system.

To sum up, from The Obama File: “The problem of Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers will not go away. Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s…Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers’ and Dohrn’s home , Obama has dismissed Ayers as just ‘a guy who lives in my neighborhood’…For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama.” If you didn’t know why before you do now. The two men did share an office and you can bet the farm that Obama knew quite well who he was associating with. The terrorist and the Marxist have a long record of collaboration with one another—well, actually they are both Marxists so this should surprise no one except those that have not bothered to do the homework. This is what ignorant voters, a compliant bought and paid for media, and our ruling establishment have made sure we are forced to live with. Is this a wonderful Kountry or what???

About Those “Domestic Terrorists”

by Al Benson Jr.

On Friday, the 18th of April I believe it was, two politicians appeared on a show called What’s Your Point? on KSNV, which is a TV news station in Las Vegas, Nevada.  One of them was that bastion of honesty and integrity, “Honest” Harry Reid ( I exaggerate slightly here) and the other was a Republican State Senator named Dean Heller.

You’ll recall that “Honest Harry” Reid (about as honest as Honest Abe was) said that the folks out at the Bundy Ranch were nothing but a bunch of “Domestic Terrorists.” Reid may have gotten a bit of flack from the blanket statement because he went on to note that he didn’t mean Mr. Bundy and his family were domestic terrorists–just those folks that showed up to help Mr. Bundy protect his life and property from what many consider the REAL domestic terrorists, the ones operating under cover of law.

Dean Heller said he considered those that showed up to help the Bundy’s patriots, not terrorists.  However, you are forced to look at Harry Reid’s worldview.  In his twisted thinking, anyone that dares to oppose beneficent  totalitarian government in order to maintain his liberties is, automatically, a domestic terrorist. In today’s skewed political situation all who dare to even think of opposing the Obama Regime’s program for the systematic dismantling of American liberty are “domestic terrorists.” Today, in order not to be labeled as a domestic terrorist you must be willing to become a good little Marxist wannabe, carrying a sign with a big hammer and sickle on it, and loudly proclaiming that those that refused to vote for Obama are all blatant “racists.” To be opposed to Obamacare is not yet treason, but it may well be in the future, depending on what Executive Orders get signed.

So it seems that Honest Harry had a big problem with the folks that showed up to help the Bundy’s resist government aggression (oh, excuse me, I meant “assistance”). Reid said: “600 people came armed, they had practiced, they had maneuvered,…they set up snipers in strategic locations…they had automatic weapons.” Is any of this against the law–yet? The thought that such people had the ability to resist government aggression seems to have scared the daylights out of Honest Harry. That armed citizens might just resist government aggression is one reason Honest Harry and Comrade Obama want your guns.  They want no resistance to their plans to merge this country into the New World Order, and armed citizens (patriots, not terrorists) just might be tempted to resist.  As far as snipers go, well, the BLM had them out there before the militia folks did. Several folks attested to that, but, of course, Honest Harry “forgot” to mention that–besides, under cover of law, they were “legal” snipers. The militia snipers didn’t do anything illegal, but we won’t mention that.

I’ve read that about 100 or so of the militia folks remain at the Bundy Ranch because they don’t quite trust the feds to leave Mr. Bundy alone–and why should they? Situations like the one in Waco several years ago show what the feds are capable of if left to their own devices. Many people feel that all we have at this point is a breather, that the feds will return, because, like Honest Harry, they don’t get mad, they get even–and then some.

David Hathaway, writing on http://www.lewrockwell.com on April 21st has said: “The federal response will definitely come. It will likely be in three areas; two of which don’t involve the Bundy’s specifically. First, a multi-faceted attack will be made on the Bundys; second, a broad-front regulatory response against other land users will be made for the purpose of retaliation against the whole group and as a deterrent; and third, new provocateur deployments will probably be made across the West into similar situations.”

This time they’ll probably send so many people against the Bundys that it will be harder to combat them. The federal leviathan has to prevail, no matter how many people it takes. If they can be resisted then their aggressive power will be gone. And, unfortunately, most of the militia people can’t stay at the Bundy Ranch forever, so unless those that have to leave can be replaced by others, they have a problem.

Second, the feds will now engage in an open display of the class struggle technique against the ranchers in the West.  The ranchers will, in essence, become the new “Kulaks” of the American Empire–to be starved out or driven off their land. After all, Honest Harry and his buddies in Red China need the acreage for new solar farms.

And third, the feds will probably set up more situations around the West like that of the Bundy Ranch, while at the same time, pushing a PR campaign, with the aid of the compliant lapdog media, that paints all ranchers and farmers as horrid, selfish people, who want only to protect their lives and property–something that is fast becoming a “class crime” in our new leftist-oriented society.

Mr. Hathaway estimates that it will probably be in the neighborhood of around three weeks before we are treated to a federal response, as the feds work all these factors into their agenda in a way most beneficial to them and most detrimental to ordinary citizens, who, in case you haven’t yet realized it, have now become the new “enemies of the state.”

The public will be conditioned, as they were after Oklahoma City, to be afraid of the militias, to view them with fear and loathing. So get ready, folks, for the next big anti-militia campaign. It’s all coming soon, brought to you by the same folks that gave us Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City.