How far will Ayers turn against Obama?

How far will Ayers turn against Obama?

Jack Cashill

On two unprompted occasions in October of this year, Bill Ayers admitted to having written Barack Obama’s acclaimed memoir, Dreams From My Father.

At the time, I wrote of these admissions that “however ironic their delivery, [they] remind Obama who put him in the White House and who can take him out.” I suspected then, and still do, that this shot across Obama’s bow was meant to get his attention on the question of troop deployment to Afghanistan.
After months of dithering, Obama turned his back on his leftwing base, Ayers included, and grudgingly consented to a troop surge.  Ayers is not pleased.  On Wednesday night, he took to the streets of Chicago to protest.  Never shy about using stark language, Ayers told an interviewer just what he thought about his protégé’s policy.
I am here demonstrating against the war because I am appalled and alarmed that once against we are escalating the war.    And the idea that there are benchmarks for getting out is a myth and a lie.  The fact is that you cannot imagine a scenario where six months from now or eighteen months from now the administration would say well we did not meet our benchmarks therefore we are leaving.  This is an absolute tragedy for the people of the Mideast, for Afghanistan and for us.
In response to the troop surge, Ayers counseled direct action, “I think everybody has to take a moment right now to stand up in opposition to this war.”
To this point, as expected, the major media are all but mum on the schism, let alone the dynamics behind it.  Those who have commented, like the willfully blind John Hudson, writing on Atlantic Magazine’s blog, “The Atlantic Wire,” spin the story to discredit conservative media. 
Not surprisingly, Hudson sees the split as proof that “the ‘close’ relationship between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama that many right-wing pundits envisaged had always been rather tenuous.”
In truth, the relationship between the two is deep and complex.  It is likely that the media will continue to ignore its complexity unless, of course, Ayers forces them to do otherwise.  And rest assured, he has the means to do so.

Page Printed from: at December 03, 2009 – 11:44:41 PM EST

Breakthrough on the Authorship of Obama’s ‘Dreams’

Breakthrough on the Authorship of Obama’s ‘Dreams’

By Jack Cashill

Within days of my going public last September with the speculation that terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers helped Barack Obama write his acclaimed memoir, Dreams From My Father, I learned that I was not alone in that intuition.

Since then, I have received helpful contributions from serious people in at least five countries and any number of states and have integrated many of their observations into my ongoing narrative, summarized here.  If you are unfamiliar with this research, please read this before going forward. 


About a week ago, however, I heard from a new contributor.  I will refer to him as “Mr. West.” Like most contributors, he prefers to remain anonymous.  The media punishment that Joe the Plumber received has much to do with this nearly universal reticence.


A week before that, I heard from another excellent contributor, Mr. Midwest.  Their collective contribution should dispel the doubts of all but the willfully blind that Ayers played a substantial role, likely the primary role, in the writing of Dreams.


As a reminder, there is no reliable computer science for determining authorship.  In assessing the value of the existing science, think polygraph, not DNA.  Polygraph-level scholarship may suffice for harmless speculation about the authorship of Midsummer’s Night Dream, but not for Dreams From My Father.  Too much is at stake for the latter.


The experts in the field have told me to stick with old-fashioned literary detective work, and I have done just that.  Mr, Midwest has helped.  His most recent contribution is a good example of keen-eyed detection. 


Going forward, I will be referring to five books.  These include Ayers’ 1993 To Teach, his 1997 A Kind and Just Parent (shorthand: Parent), his 2001 memoir Fugitive Days, and Obama’s 1995 Dreams From My Father (Dreams). Casual critics of this research have repeated the canard that I attributed both Obama books, Dreams and the 2006 Audacity of Hope (Audacity), to Ayers.  I never have.  From the beginning, I have asserted that the two books appear to have two different authors, and so I will leave Audacity out of the equation until the end.


What Mr. Midwest noticed recently is that both Ayers in Parent and Obama in Dreams make reference to the poet Carl Sandburg.  In itself, this is not a grand revelation.  Let us call it a C-level match. Obama and Ayers seem to have shared the same library in any case.  Both talk of reading the books of Malcolm X, James Baldwin, Langston Hughes, W.E.B. Dubois and Frantz Fanon among others.  In fact, each misspells “Frantz” as “Franz.”


Ayers and Obama, however, go beyond citing Sandburg.  Each quotes the opening line of his poem “Chicago.”  From Dreams:


He poured himself more hot water. “What do you know about Chicago anyway?”
I thought a moment. “Hog butcher to the world,” I said finally.


From Parent:


“At the turn of the century, Chicago had a population of a million people and was a young and muscular city – hub of commerce and industry, the first skyscraper city, home of the famous world exposition, “hog butcher to the world” – bursting with energy.”


This I would call a B-level match.  What raises it up a notch to an A-level match is the fact that both misquote “Chicago,” and they do so in exactly the same way.  The poem actually opens, “Hog butcher for the world.”


Last week, the first email I received from Mr. West had in the message box “759 striking similarities between Dreams and Ayers’ works.”  This claim seemed so outsized I did not take it seriously.  When I was unable to open the documents, I emailed Mr. West back, asked him to reformat, and then forgot about the email.  He resent his documents a few days later.


This time I was able to open them and was promptly blown away.  Mr. West’s analysis was systematic, comprehensive, and utterly, totally, damning.  Of the 759 matches, none were frivolous.  All were C-level or above, and I had no doubt of their authenticity.  I had been gathering many of them in my own reserve waiting for a book-length opportunity to make my case.  Mr. West had done the heavy lifting.  He even indexed his matches.  This represented months of works.  As I learned, he had been patiently gathering material since November when he first began building on my own research.


I read through all 759 matches and culled out those that I would consider B-Level or above.  There were 180 of these.  As a control, I tested them against my own 2006 book Sucker Punch, like Dreams and Fugitive Days a memoir that deals extensively with race.  In that I am closer to Ayers in age, race, education, family and cultural background than Obama is, our styles should have had more chance of matching.  They don’t.  Of the 180 examples, I matched, strictly speaking, on six.  Even by the most generous standard, we matched on only sixteen.


Let me just cite a few matches between Ayers’ work and Dreams that I found intriguing.  Rather astonishingly, as Mr. West points out, at least six of the characters in Dreams have the same names as characters in Ayers’ books: Malik, Freddy, Tim, Coretta, Marcus, and “the old man.” Many of the stories involving these characters in Dreams seem as contrived as their names.


In one instance, Obama reflects on his own first days as a ten year-old at his Hawaiian prep school, a transition complicated by the presence of “Coretta,” the only other black student in the class.


When the other students accuse Obama of having a girlfriend, Obama shoves Coretta and insists that she leave him alone.  Although “his act of betrayal” buys him a reprieve from the other students, Obama understands that he “had been tested and found wanting.”


Ayers relates a parallel story in Parent.  He tells of a useful reading assignment from the 1992 book, The Kind of Light That Shines on Texas, by black author Reginald McKnight.  The passage in question deals with the travails of Clint, the first black student in a newly integrated school, who repudiates Marvin, the only other black boy in the school.  Upon reflection, Clint thinks, “I was ashamed.  Ashamed for not defending Marvin and ashamed that Marvin even existed.”


As Mr. Midwest pointed out in a recent missive, Ayers’ interest in education bleeds into Dreams.  The tip-off once again is the contrived name, in this case “Asante Moran,” likely an homage to the Afro-centric educator, Molefi Kete Asante.  Moran lectures Obama and his pal “Johnny” on the nature of public education.


“The first thing you have to realize,” he said, looking at Johnnie and me in turn, “is that the public school system is not about educating black children. Never has been. Inner-city schools are about social control. Period.”


“Social control” is an Ayers’ bugaboo.  “The message to Black people was that at any moment and for any reason whatsoever your life or the lives of your loved ones could be randomly snuffed out,” he writes in Fugitive Days.  “The intention was social control through random intimidation and unpredictable violence.”


In Dreams, “Moran” elaborates on the fate of the black student,  “From day one, what’s he learning about? Someone else’s history.  Someone else’s culture. Not only that, this culture he’s supposed to learn is the same culture that’s systematically rejected him, denied his humanity.”


If this character were real, and Obama had actually met him, there would be no reason to phony up his name.  In fact, however, Moran is spouting exactly the same educational philosophy that Ayers does in To Teach. 


“Underneath it all,” Ayers says of standard school textbooks, “the social studies and literature texts reflected and promoted white supremacy.  There were no pictures or photographs of African Americans . . . there was throughout an assumed superiority and smug celebration of the status quo.” 


Both authors, by the way, use the phrase “beneath the surface” repeatedly.  And what they find beneath the surface, of course, is the disturbing truth about power disparities in the real America, which each refers to as an “imperial culture.”  Speaking of which, both insist that “knowledge” is “power” and seem consumed by the uses or misuses of power.  Ayers, in fact, evokes the word “power” and its derivatives 75 times in Fugitive Days, Obama 83 times in Dreams.


More exotically, both authors evoke images of a “boy” riding on the backs of a “water buffalo” and prodding the beast not just with sticks, but with “bamboo sticks.”  Ayers places his boy in Vietnam.  Obama puts his in Indonesia.


Both authors link Indonesia with Vietnam. In each case, clueless officials – plural — with the “State Department” try to explain how the march of communism through “Indochina” will specifically imperil “Indonesia.” The Ayers account, however, at least sounds vaguely real.  The Obama account sounds like an Ayers’ memory imposed on Obama’s mother.  She allegedly discussed these geo-political strategy sessions in Indonesia with her pre-teen son.


Ayers and his radical friends were obsessed with Vietnam.  It defined them and still does. To reflect their superior insight into that country, they have shown a tendency to use “Mekong Delta” as synecdoche, the part that indicates the whole.


In Fugitive Days, for instance, Ayers envisions “a patrol in the Mekong Delta” when he conjures up an image of Vietnam.  Ayers’ wife, Bernadine Dohrn, pontificated about “a hamlet called My Lai” in a 1998 interview, but to flash her radical chops, she located it “in the middle of the Mekong Delta,” which is in reality several hundred miles from My Lai.


Given Obama’s age, “Mekong Delta” was not likely a part of his vocabulary, but that does not stop him from writing about “the angry young men in Soweto or Detroit or the Mekong Delta.”  Ayers, of course, would also have had a much deeper connection than Obama to “Detroit,” whose historic riot took place shortly before Obama’s sixth birthday.  Ayers worked in Detroit the year after those same riots.


Returning to the exotic, in his Indonesian backyard Obama discovered two “birds of paradise” running wild as well as chickens, ducks, and a “yellow dog with a baleful howl.”


In Fugitive Days, there is even more “howling” than there is in Dreams.  Ayers places his “birds of paradise” in Guatemala.  He places his ducks and dogs together in a Vietnamese village being swept by merciless Americans.  In Parent, he talks specifically about a “yellow dog.”   And he uses the word “baleful” to describe an “eye” in Fugitive Days. For the record, “baleful” means “threatening harm.”  I had to look it up.


Ayers is fixated with faces, especially eyes.  He writes of “sparkling” eyes, “shining” eyes, “laughing” eyes, “twinkling” eyes, eyes “like ice,” and people who are “wide-eyed” and “dark-eyed.” 


As it happens, Obama is also fixated with faces, especially eyes.  He also writes of “sparkling” eyes, “shining” eyes, “laughing” eyes, “twinkling” eyes, and uses the phrases “wide-eyed” and “dark-eyed.” Obama adds “smoldering eyes,” “smoldering” being a word that he and Ayers inject repeatedly. Obama also uses the highly distinctive phrase “like ice,” in his case to describe the glinting of the stars.


If Ayers is fixated on eyes, about eyebrows he is positively fetishistic. There are six references to “eyebrows” in Fugitive Days — bushy ones, flaring ones, arched ones, black ones and, stunningly, seven references in Dreams — heavy ones, bushy ones, wispy ones.  It is the rare memoirist who talks about eyebrows at all.


On three occasions in Dreams, Obama speaks of people with “round” faces.  On four occasions in Fugitive Days, Ayers does the same.  Both speak of “grim-faced” people, people with “soft” faces, and, most unusually, people with “tight” faces. 


Both Ayers and Obama describe acquaintances who smile like a “Cheshire cat.”  Some of their characters have a countenance — grin, squint, or scowl — that is “perpetual.”  Others are “suppressing” their smiles or their grins.


To this point, I have just skimmed the 759 items in the bill of particulars in my case against Obama’s literary genius.   Not familiar with the term “bill of particulars?”  Uncertain myself, I looked that one up too.  It means a list of written statements made by a party to a court proceeding.  Ayers and Obama each refer knowingly to a “bill of particulars.” Doesn’t everyone?


The answer, of course, is no.  In Audacity of Hope, Obama does not use this phrase or most of the distinctive words or combinations of words in Dreams.  In Audacity, for instance, there are virtually no descriptions of faces or eyes, and the few that the author does use are flat and clichéd — like “brave face” or “sharp-eyed.” In Dreams, seven different people “frown,” twelve “grin,” and six “squint.”  In Audacity, no more than one person makes any of these gestures.


Mr. West independently came to the same conclusion that I did, namely that Ayers was not meaningfully involved in Audacity.  These two Obama books almost assuredly had different primary authors.   What should be transparent to any literary critic is that the author of Audacity lacked the style and skill of the author of Dreams.  There are a few pockets in Audacity that evoke the spirit of Dreams but without the same grace.


A likely suspect for these imitative passages, perhaps the whole of Audacity, is Obama’s young speechwriter, Jon Favreau.  Favreau joined the Obama team in 2005, time enough to play that role.  The London Guardian reports that Favreau carries Dreams wherever he goes and can “conjure up his master’s voice as if an accomplished impersonator.”  If so, in Audacity he played the classic role of the ghostwriter — one who absorbs his client’s thoughts and relates them in a refined version of his client’s voice.


Bill Ayers was no one’s ghostwriter.  The now overwhelming evidence strongly suggests that he used the frame of Obama’s life and finished it off with his own ideas, his own biases, his own experiences, his own passions, his own friends, even his own romances, all of this toned down just enough to keep Obama viable as a potential candidate. 


I would argue that Ayers played Cyrano to Obama’s Christian.  His personal history was too ugly for him to woo Roxane/America himself.  But Obama — “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” as Joe Biden reminded us — could and did make America’s heart melt.

See also:

Who Wrote Dreams From My Father?

Evidence Mounts: Ayers Co-Wrote Obama’s Dreams

The Odd Story of Romance in Dreams from my Father

Who Wrote Dreams and Why It Matters

Page Printed from: at June 28, 2009 – 10:20:37 PM EDT




Obama Praised ‘Searing and Timely’ Book by Ayers



Barack Obama provided a glowing endorsement of a

book by domestic terrorist William Ayers in the Dec. 21, 1997 Chicago Tribune.

“Barack Obama, who has consistently downplayed his relationship with William Ayers during his presidential campaign, once gave a glowing endorsement of a book by the former domestic terrorist and was mentioned by name in the book itself.

A blogger unearthed the Dec. 21, 1997, endorsement in the Chicago Tribune and posted photographs of the praise for Ayers’ book on Saturday.

Featured next to a smiling photograph of himself, then-State Senator Obama called Ayers’ book, “A Kind and Just Parent: Children of the Juvenile Court,” a “searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.”

The book, which details life at the Chicago Juvenile Court prison school, mentions Obama by name on page 82 when it describes Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood:

“Our neighbors include Muhammad Ali, former mayor Eugene Sawyer, poets Gwendolyn Brooks and Elizabeth Alexander, and writer Barack Obama. Minister Louis Farrakhan lives a block from our home and adds, we think, a unique dimension to the idea of ‘safe neighborhood watch’: the Fruit of Islam, his security force, has an eye on things twenty-four-hours a day.”

Barack Obama, who has consistently downplayed his relationship with William Ayers during his presidential campaign, once gave a glowing endorsement of a book by the former domestic terrorist and was mentioned by name in the book itself.

A blogger unearthed the Dec. 21, 1997, endorsement in the Chicago Tribune and posted photographs of the praise for Ayers’ book on Saturday.

Featured next to a smiling photograph of himself, then-State Senator Obama called Ayers’ book, “A Kind and Just Parent: Children of the Juvenile Court,” a “searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.”

The book, which details life at the Chicago Juvenile Court prison school, mentions Obama by name on page 82 when it describes Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood:

“Our neighbors include Muhammad Ali, former mayor Eugene Sawyer, poets Gwendolyn Brooks and Elizabeth Alexander, and writer Barack Obama. Minister Louis Farrakhan lives a block from our home and adds, we think, a unique dimension to the idea of ‘safe neighborhood watch’: the Fruit of Islam, his security force, has an eye on things twenty-four-hours a day.”

The Obama campaign said the blurb was not a full-fledged review of the book.

“He didn’t do a review. He provided one line about the book to the Tribune,” campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told

A month before the item appeared, on Nov. 20, 1997, Michelle Obama, then dean of student services and director of the University Community Service Center, held a panel at the University of Chicago that featured both Barack Obama and Ayers.

“Ayers will be joined by Sen. Barack Obama, Senior Lecturer in the Law School, who is working to combat legislation that would put more juvenile offenders into the adult system,” the University of Chicago Chronicle reported on Nov. 6, 1997.

Obama has been criticized for refusing to elaborate on the extent of his relationship with Ayers and for claiming to have had no idea Ayers was a co-founder of the Weather Underground, which claimed responsibility for bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and a New York Supreme Court justice’s home in the Sixties.

The Obama campaign has noted that Obama was 8 years old when Ayers and the Weather Underground were active and has no link to their activities. Ayers has said he has “no regrets” about his participation in the domestic terror group.

“A Kind and Just Parent” was in stock at and ranked 51,273 in sales on Monday

The Rich Are NOT THE ENEMY!!

The Rich Are NOT THE ENEMY!!

The Essence of Senator Obama’s Tax Plan is to Take Money From the rich and give to the poor. Kind of like Robin Hood…or Karl Marx. But lets face it the “rich” are already holding their fair share of paying taxes. The Top 5% of American Tax Payers pay 60% of the taxes. The Bottom 33% pay Zero percent of federal taxes. Senator Government wants to take money from the tax payers and give to the non-tax payers. So Lets here it for the folks that keep this country running, supply jobs and do something that neither Senator Obama or Senator Biden choose to do with their large incomes…give to charity. Take a look at the numbers:

ELDER: In defense of ‘the rich’ Larry Elder COMMENTARY:

So what do “the rich” pay in federal income taxes? Nothing, right? That, at least, is what most people think. And Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal rate for “the rich” – known in some quarters as “job creators.”

A recent poll commissioned by Investor’s Business Daily asked, in effect, “What share do you think the rich pay?” Their findings? Most people are completely clueless about how much the rich actually do pay.

First, the data. The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 – the group whose taxes Mr. Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. The rich (a k a the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the Internal Revenue Service, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent’s taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government’s revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts.

Now, what do people think the rich pay? The IBD/TIPP poll found 36 percent of those polled thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes. Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 percent and 20 percent, while another 10 percent thought the rich’s share is between 20 and 30 percent. In other words, most people thought the rich pay less – far less – than they do. Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent.

Let’s try this another way. A U.S.News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and did an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, “What should ‘the rich’ pay in income taxes?” Half the respondents said “25 percent”; 25 percent said “20 percent”; 12 percent said “30 percent”; and another 12 percent said “35 percent.” The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now – both by share of taxes and by tax rate!

Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing – zero, zip, nada – in federal income taxes. And, not too surprisingly, compared with taxpaying voters, they are more likely to support spending that benefits them. The majority of the 30 percent who don’t pay federal income taxes agree with Mr. Obama’s $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage. But the majority of the 70 percent who pay federal income taxes oppose his health-care plan.

Non-taxpayers support Mr. Obama’s plans for increased tax deductions for lower-income Americans, along with higher overall tax rates levied against middle- and upper-income households. The majority of non-taxpayers (57 percent) also favor raising the individual income-tax rate for those in the highest bracket from 35 percent to 54 percent. And the majority (59 percent) favors raising Social Security taxes by 4 percent for any individual or business that makes at least $250,000.

Mr. Obama calls increasing taxes and giving them to the needy a matter of “neighborliness.” Vice presidential running mate Joe Biden calls it a matter of “patriotism.”

Yet when it comes to charitable giving, neither Mr. Obama (until recently) nor Mr. Biden feels neighborly or patriotic enough to donate as much as does the average American household: 2 percent of their adjusted gross income.

Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals – especially secular liberals.

In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes, and donated $165,660 to charity – or 18 percent of their income. Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. And they paid $602,651 in taxes, and donated $166,547 to charity – or 5.5 percent of their income.

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.

Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Mr. Biden ran for president. Over the last 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity – or 0.1 percent of their income.

So let’s sum up. The “compassionate” liberals – at least based on charitable giving – show less compassion than “hardhearted” conservatives. The rich pay more in income taxes than people think. Voters, clueless about the facts, want the rich to pay still more.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln Rescinds Speaking Invitation for William Ayers

University of Nebraska-Lincoln Rescinds Speaking Invitation for William Ayers

(Cartoon- Red County– Alberto Araoz)
Barack Obama tries to defend William Ayers and his association with him by claiming the acts of terrorism committed by Ayers, where the group he was with and Ayers himself, bombed the Pentagon, the US Capitol and a judge’s home, 40 years ago. To Obama, the domestic terrorism should be forgotten about because it happened so long ago.

Obama launched his career in William Ayers living room, Obama’s campaign tried to say “Obama didn’t know” about Ayers radical past when he first associated with him, that was debunked and they haven’t said that again.

Obama’s connections went further as he served on boards with Ayers and saw to it organizations Ayers was involved in received grants….all of this is public record.

More on William Ayers here. More on Weatherman Underground and the crimes committed here.

More on Obama/Ayers CAC (Chicago Annenberg Challenge) association here and here.

(William “Bill” Ayers, 2001, Chicago Magazine, trampling on the American Flag)

All evidence documented and the media having attempted to sweep it under the rug, we see that Americans have noticed and aren’t exactly impressed with William Ayers.

He was invited to speak at University of Nebraska-Lincoln and when donors and contributors heard about it, they had something to say, which basically consisted of, “If he speaks, no more money for you!!!.” (Paraphrased there but the article bears out my assertion)

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln rescinded its speaking invitation tonight for 1960s radical-turned-educator William Ayers.

University officials cited “safety reasons” for canceling Ayers’ Nov. 15 appearance.

Spokeswoman Kelly Bartling declined to elaborate on what safety concerns would keep Ayers from addressing a College of Education and Human Sciences event.

Earlier today, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman strongly condemned the invitation and called on the NU Board of Regents and President J.B. Milliken to block it.

Heineman said through a spokeswoman this evening that he was pleased the university had reconsidered and rescinded the invitation.

An Omaha charitable foundation had announced it was pulling all of its contributions to the university. Several other donors also have indicated to university fundraisers that there could be a financial cost if Ayers speaks.

And Nebraskans by the hundreds continued to register their opposition with university administrators and others, lighting up phone lines and filling e-mail boxes.

Heineman said Ayers’ invitation was “an embarrassment” to the state and that it goes beyond the bounds of the university’s mission.

“Our citizens are clearly outraged and want action,” Heineman said in an interview. “This is their university. This isn’t even a close call. The university should immediately rescind the invitation.”

Dean Marjorie Kostelnik said she spoke Thursday night with UNL Chancellor Harvey Perlman about “the climate around this issue.”

No one wants a unrepentant domestic terrorist, who detonated bombs on US soil, to speak to those University kids.

The contributors, the donors, the school and those that complained loud enough to make themselves heard understands what William Ayers was and still is, yet Barack Obama while denouncing the “actions”, still has not denounced the man, William Ayers and has lied repeatedly by trying to claim his connection was less than it was.

Attorney General Jon Bruning also said UNL made the correct choice.

“I think its good news for the university,” he said. “I dont think there was any good way for the university to disassociate itself with his past.”

Neither can Barack Obama.

Just another association like Wright, Pfleger, Meeks, ACORN, Rezko etc…. to which Barack Obama showed his very poor judgment in who he chooses to “pal” around with.

Between ACORN & Obama Be Released Immediately – With Video

Obama – Ayers relationship exposed By CNN

Ayres and Obama:It’s Not the Crime, It’s the CoverUp

Ayres and Obama:It’s Not the Crime, It’s the CoverUp

Clarice Feldman

Tom Maguire pokes around a bit and discovers that Obama’s ties to terrorist Bill Ayres are far more substantial than Obama has yet admitted to:


(1) It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up – why can’t Obama manage to deliver a clear answer about his relationship with Ayers?   It has long been reported that they both sat on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago.  We now also know that Ayers helped found the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Fund, with Obama as the first Chairman of the Board.  We also know that Obama, Thomas Ayers (Bill Ayers father) and John Ayers (Bill’s brother) all served on the Leadership Council of the Chicago Public Schools Education Fund (described here as “the successor” to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge project).
That is a lot more of a connection than Obama has admitted in two recent appearances on national television or at his websites “Fact Check“.  At the Philadelphia debate, Ayers was described as
… a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from.  He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.   
In Philadelphia, it was left to Hillary to mention the Woods Fund board overlap.
And on Fox News, Obama seemed utterly hazy as to what board he was on with Ayers, [snip]
(2) The second emerging theme in this Ayers drama is, what about shared values?  OK, so Barack was eight years old when Ayers was blowing things up.  But Ayers brings a very, hmm, progressive mindset to his educational agenda, or so I glean from the Ayers website (or this panel presentation).  So, does Barack share these views?  Seems like a fair question, since Ayers helped found a group Barack promptly chaired.


It’s well-documented. Read it all.