Friday, 18 April 2008


Ken Berwitz

Until the uproar over a dozen or so cartoon images of Mohammed, most people I know thought of Denmark as a benign, friendly country, with a great city, Copenhagen, and the Tivoli Gardens.

Since then, Denmark has become known as a place many Muslims hate, because the cartoons were published there.

The fact that they were published in private newspapers and had nothing to do with Denmark's government?  Irrelevant 'n immaterial.

Well, it turns out that, when it comes to issues regarding Muslims, Denmark is a lot more than a few cartoons. 

Here is an excerpt from Daniel Pipes' latest article, which details what I'm talking about.  You can read his entire piece by clicking here:

A Muslim group in Denmark announced a few days ago that a $30,000 bounty would be paid for the murder of several prominent Danish Jews, a threat that garnered wide international notice. Less well known is that this is just one problem associated with Denmark's approximately 200,000 Muslim immigrants. The key issue is that many of them show little desire to fit into their adopted country.

For years, Danes lauded multiculturalism and insisted they had no problem with the Muslim customs - until one day they found that they did. Some major issues:

  • Living on the dole: Third-world immigrants - most of them Muslims from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq - constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.
  • Engaging in crime: Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.
  • Self-imposed isolation: Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.
  • Importing unacceptable customs: Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem. Another is threats to kill Muslims who convert out of Islam. One Kurdish convert to Christianity, who went public to explain why she had changed religion, felt the need to hide her face and conceal her identity, fearing for her life.
  • Fomenting anti-Semitism: Muslim violence threatens Denmark's approximately 6,000 Jews, who increasingly depend on police protection. Jewish parents were told by one school principal that she could not guarantee their children's safety and were advised to attend another institution. Anti-Israel marches have turned into anti-Jewish riots. One organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, openly calls on Muslims to "kill all Jews . . . wherever you find them."
  • Seeking Islamic law: Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.

Are those problems?  Do the problems go deeper than reaction to a few satirical cartoons?  You tell me.

Moreover, these problems are being seen not just in Denmark but in Holland and Sweden too.  In Malmo, Sweden for example, I have read that ambulances and firefighters will not go into Muslim neighborhoods without police protection, for fear of violence against them. 

Ambulances that take sick people to the hospital?  Firefighters who put out fires and save lives?  If  they are attacked, how do you think it would be for just some nondescript Swedish couple strolling down the street? 

This is a problem.  A problem of huge dimension.  And one that precious few people are talking about. 

Why are we not hearing about what is going on?  Is it fear of Muslim reprisal?  Is it fear of being called a racist?  It's got to be fear of something, doesn't it?

For years and years the "come one/come all" immigration policies of nordic countries were thrust in our faces as proof of how much further advanced and enlightened they were towards people of different cultures than the neanderthal USA.

Don't expect to hear that too much anymore.


Ken Berwitz

The health news is mixed for Arlen Spector, the long-time Republican senator from Pennsylvania.

-The bad news is that there has been a reoccurrence of cancer of the lymph system, also known as Hodgkins Disease;

-The good news is that it was found in only "a small lymph node", which suggests that the condition may be extremely limited.  In the words of Mr. Spector's oncologist:

Sen. Specter has an excellent chance of again achieving a complete remission of his Hodgkins disease.  Sen. Specters early diagnosis of his recurrent Hodgkins disease has a five-year survival rate of 60 percent.  He is in superb physical condition, with a normal physical examination and blood work, no symptoms of disease, plays squash regularly and follows a careful diet.

Earlier this year I wished Tom Lantos, the Democratic house member from San Francisco's bay area, a return to robust health.  Sadly, this did not happen and he died just weeks afterward.

How I hope that I can get my batting average up to .500 with Senator Spector. 

May he fully recover and never see this terrible cancer again.


Ken Berwitz

In case there is any doubt about who and what william ayers is, here is a sampling from his own blog, dated April 6:

1. Regrets.  I'm often quoted saying that I have "no regrets.".  This is not true.  For anyone paying attention--and I try to stay wide-awake to the world around me all/wayslife brings misgivings, doubts, uncertainty, loss, regret. Im sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Viet Nam, and I say no, I dont regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government. Sometimes I add, I dont think I did enough. This is then elided: he has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings

The illegal, murderous, imperial war against Viet Nam was a catastrophe for the Vietnamese, a disaster for Americans, and a world tragedy. Many of us understood this, and many tried to stop the war. Those of us who tried recognize that our efforts were inadequate: the war dragged on for a decade, thousands were slaughtered every week, and we couldnt stop it. In the end the U.S. military was defeated and the war ended, but we surely didnt do enough

2. Terror.  Terrorismaccording to both official U.S. policy and the the use or threat of random violence to intimidate, frighten, or coerce a population toward some political end. This means, of course, that terrorism is not the exclusive province of a cult, a religious sect, or a group of fanatics. It can be any of these, but it can also beand often isexecuted by governments and states. A bombing in a caf in Israel is terrorism, and an Israeli assault on a neighborhood in Gaza is terrorism; the September 11 attacks were acts of terrorism, and the U.S. bombings in Viet Nam for a decade were acts of terrorism. Terrorism is never justifiable, even in a just causethe Union fight in the 1860s was just, for example, but Shernans March to the Sea was indefensible terror. Ive never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it. The U.S. government, by contrast, does it routinely and defends the use of it in its own cause consistently.

Let's start with a bit of chronology.  This was not said 40 years ago, a la the cynical dismissal of ayers' comments by Barack Obama during Wednesday's debate.  It wasn't even said 40 days ago.  These words were put up by ayers on his blog of April 6, less than two weeks ago. 

So the argument that ayers' positions are from way back when is a hot steamy load of what a bull produces after lunch. 

Now let's look at what he is saying:

-ayers says that he is accused of not having regrets but that this is not true.  He then procedes to mention a few completely general ways he (or anyone) might have regrets about things (anything at all).  He then quotes himself - specifically - on not having regrets for his actions during the time when he was setting bombs.  Nowhere in this semi-literate screed does he ever say that he regrets bombing the United States. 

Maybe someone should acquaint the ayers who wrote the beginning of this crap with the ayers who wrote the rest of it. 

-He then equates the random bombing of Israeli civilians by palestinian Arab terrorists with Israel going after palestinian terrorists in the Gaza neighborhoods they launch their attacks from. 

I would love to hear Mr. Obama explain that equation to, say, the American Jewish Congress, as he assures them ayers is just some relic from the 60's;

-Then, not content with just one idiotic comparison, ayers compares/equates the 9/11 attacks - again intentionally random mass murder of as many people as possible - with Vietnam. 

Whatever you may think of our involvement in Vietnam or how poorly it was carried out, we were there for far more than just killing people.  If we just wanted to kill as many people as possible we'd have bombed Hanoi back to the stone age and they wouldn't have been able to stop us for one second.  So, like most of what ayers says, this is totally ridiculous.

What we seem to have in william ayers (not "bill", he's no friend of mine) is a proud, unrepentant domestic terrorist.  It is clear that ayers is still living in what he thinks are his glory days when he was proactively engaging in violent terrorist acts against the United States.

This may be nothing with nothing among the LAMBs (Lunatic-left and Mega-moonbat Brigade) who Democratic candidates have to butt-kiss during their nominating process.  But most of the United States is not comprised of registered Democrats and you can bet that, in aggregate, they will be disgusted by it.  (In fact, I strongly suspect that most registered Democrats will be disgusted by it too).

Do voters want to elect a man who is ok with william ayers?  And jeremiah wright?  And who will not wear an American Flag pin (except when he's embarrassed into it)?  And who has a problem putting his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance?  But who then assures you of how much he loves his country?

We may well find out in November.


Ken Berwitz

That is a question I've asked over and over again about media coverage of the war in Iraq.

If you read this blog regularly, you know why.  If you don't Ralph Peters, writing for the New York Post, is here to help:

Media's War Lies  
By Ralph Peters
New York Post | Friday, April 18, 2008

LIKE many Americans, I get angry at biased "reporting" about Iraq and the spin from dishonest pundits. Usually, I get over it quickly, since my expectations of the media are pretty low.

But sometimes a Big Lie just won't let go. And the lefty lie that the Iraqi military is a hopeless failure must be answered.

Yes, we all know that left-wing media outlets, such as the dying New York Times, need Iraq to fail to redeem their credibility. They'll do all they can to dismiss any sign of progress.

But the perverted gloating over recent Iraqi military operations in Basra combines willful ignorance of military affairs with a shameless manipulation of the facts. Yes, some local Iraqi police and new military recruits ran away. But that was all that the media reported.

Where was the coverage of the 95 percent of the Iraqi security forces who did their duty? Some fought superbly. The Iranian-backed gangs and militias took a beating.

Muqtada al Sadr - not the central government - asked for a cease-fire. The Iraqi military remains in Basra, still pushing (and freeing the occasional kidnapped journalist). The government now has a presence where lawlessness prevailed - and it took control of Basra's vital port facilities, the country's economic lifeline.

But all we continue to hear about is the one Iraqi cop or soldier in 20 who ran away.

OK, consider our own military history - which isn't short of ultimate victories:

* During the American Revolution, George Washington repeatedly had trouble with troops fleeing the battlefield and with desertions. Militias remained unreliable all through the war. Yet, we defeated the British - a global power - in the end.

* In the War of 1812, American troops broke again - and more than once. Yet, at the war's conclusion, it was redcoats seasoned in the Napoleonic Wars who fled from the US Army's "Cottonbalers" at New Orleans.

* In the Mexican-American War, Gen. Winfield Scott's march on Mexico City was the most brilliant campaign ever fought by American troops - yet, earlier in the conflict, an entire troop of US Cavalry (new immigrants) deserted to the Mexican side. That's why there's never a J or Juliet troop in a US Cavalry regiment.

* After a few hours of fierce fighting, the Union Army broke at Bull Run, fleeing in panic at the start of our Civil War. Even two years later, when the Army of the Potomac was well on its way to becoming the first great industrial-age force, the XI Corps - more than 10,000 men - disintegrated when surprised by Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville. Guess who won the Civil War, anyway?

* As other writers have noted in regard to Basra, the green US forces in North Africa in WWII fell apart when struck by Rommel's Afrika Korps at Kasserine Pass. At Vossenack Ridge, two years later, US troops cracked under heavy shelling and ran again. Guess who won that war, too?

* At the outset of the Korean War, the US Army's Task Force Smith collapsed as it was overwhelmed by North Koreans. But we came back with a vengeance. Should we have just quit?

And should we demand more of the Iraqis, who have so many internal obstacles to overcome, than we ourselves could deliver in the past?

Few battles have perfect outcomes. No wars do. Not all soldiers will measure up. And no human endeavor is more complex than warfare.

Soldiers break and run in three basic circumstances: when they're new and are asked to do too much too soon; when they're surprised; or when they're ground down to the breaking point by overwhelming odds.

Show me one country whose troops have never fled a battlefield - I can't find any.

In the past, when we still honored military service, even the literary set understood that wars are fought by fallible human beings. Stephen Crane's American classic, "The Red Badge of Courage," is about a young soldier who runs away in terror from his first taste of combat - yet returns to fight bravely later on.

The Iraqi military, which now has 190,000 troops in uniform, is getting along pretty well by historical standards. These troops are taking responsibility for their own country, allowing us to do less and less of the fighting and dying. Yes, they'll need our help for a while yet - but we needed the "technologically superior" French to help us get to Yorktown.

Meanwhile, why don't the noisiest critics of the situation in Iraq, from the Times' silly Frank Rich to Sen. Barack Obama, go to Iraq to see things for themselves?

Are they afraid?

If so, they really shouldn't question the courage of others or mock their sacrifices.

I've always admitted that Iraq could fail. Despite real, measurable progress, that remains the case. I only wish that those on the left would have the integrity to acknowledge that Iraq also has a chance to succeed.

When the news is bad it leads.  When the news is good it is buried.  When the news is mixed the bad leads and the good is buried.

If the above paragraph describes your sources for print and/or broadcast news, you should be wondering whose side they are on, the same as me.


Ken Berwitz

Sorry for harping on Barack Obama's associations, but this short piece, which was written by John Hinderaker at, is too important to ignore.  The bold print is mine:

Obama Seeks Distance From Hamas

Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for President on Sunday. Yesterday, after Hamas's endorsement was reported here and elsewhere, his campaign tried to distance Obama from the terrorist group:

"Senator Obama has repeatedly rejected and denounced the actions of Hamas, a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of many innocents, that is dedicated to Israel's destruction," Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

Left unaddressed by the campaign was what it is about Obama's policies that makes his candidacy so attractive to a leading terrorist organization. Here is one obvious possibility: Iran controls Hamas. Obama has said that as President, he would meet one-on-one with Iranian leaders, without preconditions. Perhaps Hamas's endorsement reflects Iran's pleasure at the prospect of an American President with whom the mullahs can do

Let me tell you, the electorate doesn't come across candidates like this every day:

-Obama is a congregant at jeremiah wright's "Black liberation theology" hate-fest church for almost 20 years, but he is shocked and appalled by what wright says.

-Obama has an ongoing association with william ayers, but he is shocked and appalled by what ayers is and what he has done;

-Obama does not wear an American flag pin or put his hand to his heart during the pledge of allegiance but he loves his country to death;

-Obama stacks his campaign staff with Israel-haters like robert malley and "tony" mcpeak and zbigniew brzezinski and samantha powers (among others), but he is a loyal supporter of the state of Israel;

- And now we have Obama being endorsed by hamas, a terrorist group which (Obama supporter) jimmy carter honored with his attentions and affections just this week.  But he is shocked and appalled at what hamas does.

How long before the country sees that Emperor Obama is not wearing any clothes?  He has to be hoping and praying -with his spiritual mentor jeremiah wright, no doubt - that it is after November 4. 

My guess (and fervent hope) is that it will be somewhere between now and that date, preferably sooner rather than later.

We'll see........


Ken Berwitz

I've said most of what Deroy Murdock has in the following column.  But he says it so well that I want to show it to you.  This is not excerpted, because it is too laden with facts and too well written to deny you even one word:

More Oil Drilling, Please
It is foolish to forsake Alaska as a source of oil.

By Deroy Murdock

How much more pain must Americans endure before our masters in Washington let oil companies punch a few holes in the Alaskan tundra? Must we shiver pennilessly in the dark before we may extract new domestic petroleum deposits? Or shall we simply keep buying $114 barrels of oil from people who want us dead?

In case Congress missed the news, four U.S. airlines have gone broke during this month alone. Frontier declared bankruptcy, but will continue flying. Even worse, Aloha, ATA, and Skybus blamed
unaffordable fuel as they grounded their jets. Aloha said sayonara to 1,900 employees, NBC News reports. ATAs demise destroyed 2,200 jobs, while Skybus sacked 450 workers, atop the 80,000 positions lost across the economy as unemployment spiked from 4.8 percent in February to 5.1 in March.

Losing these airlines likely will boost plane-ticket prices, which already have climbed alongside fuel bills. Since April 11, 2007, a gallon of jet fuel has risen 69.3 percent to $3.44. The International Air Transport Association calculates that jet fuel will cost airlines worldwide an extra $58 billion in 2008 versus 2007. Having ditched complimentary meals, movies, and even pillows on many flights, there is little left for embattled carriers to curtail, as their chief expense goes sky high. Whats next? Bring your own seat belt.

The situation on the ground is equally grim.

Independent truckers have staged work stoppages to showcase their plight. Typical big-rig drivers who spent $837 to fill 250-gallon fuel tanks a year ago pay $1,189 today  up 42 percent.

As of April 14, automobile drivers
paid a record average of $3.39 per gallon for self-serve gasoline, up 51 cents in 12 months, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.

To Our Loyal Customers, read a sign taped to a gas pump at a Beltway service station featured in the Washington Times. We Apologize for the Price of Gas. We DO NOT have any control over the high price of gasoline. We Are Sincerely Sorry.

Faced with this real human suffering, the Democratic Congress merely whines about oil companies obscene profits.

This whole situation has been nothing more than manipulation around greed, Rep. Joe Larson (D., Conn.) bellowed at a March 31 House hearing.

Politicians and journalists who obsess over X-rated oil profits leer at numerators, not denominators. Take industry giant Exxon/Mobil. Its profits are like a pair of size-22 shoes: Massive in isolation, but much more modest when parked
beneath Shaquille ONeals 7-1 frame.

Exxons $40.6 billion profit for
2007 is dwarfed by its $404.5 billion revenue and $199.5 billion crude-oil expense. Of course Exxons sales have swelled: Americans pay more for gasoline as OPEC charges record cartel prices for crude, and rising global demand exceeds stagnant supplies. While Exxons 10-percent profit outpaces the oil industrys 8.3 percent average gain, Coca-Colas 20.7-percent profit margin and Microsofts 27.5 percent turnover should make Exxons executives jealous. When will Congress denounce Coke and Microsofts corporate pillage?

For once, Congress should behave constructively:

-Approve new Alaskan oil drilling already. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuges pertinent parcel covers just 2,000 acres a veritable raindrop in the Olympic swimming pool that is Alaskas 365-million-
acre territory. ANWRs estimated 10.4 billion barrels could match or replace for 19 years the 1.5 million barrels of Saudi oil that America imports daily.

ANWR also could equal or provide a substitute for American purchases of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavezs oil for 25 years. Interestingly enough, Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.),
who presided over the Houses late-March public dunking of top petroleum executives, applauds former Rep. Joe Kennedys (D., Mass.) program to provide poor people with Venezuelas anti-American heating oil. One years worth of Chavezs authoritarian charity equals just one days worth of ANWRs all-American output. Guess which one enjoys the approval of the chairman of the House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee?

As for Americas
49th state, no one wants to rape Alaskas wilderness. Environmentally friendly techniques direct numerous drill bits sideways, like covert tentacles, from a handful of surface holes. The allegedly fragile caribou seem quite aroused by all this; their Central Arctic Herd has quintupled from 6,000 in 1978 to 32,000 today. Meanwhile, petroleum development hums at Alaskas nearby Prudhoe Bay.

-Deregulate the construction of new oil refineries, something not seen since 1976.

-Halve the gas tax, making the average gallon 9.2 cents cheaper. Congress would have less to spend, but they should tighten their belts anyway.

-To encourage new atomic-power plants, stop debating and start storing radioactive waste at Nevadas Yucca Mountain facility. In return, give Silver State residents free electricity.

-If its too much to drill more offshore oil, at least withdraw more natural gas. At worst, natural gas leaks do not blanket beaches or smother seagulls.

I welcome the day when planes, trains, and automobiles can operate on fuel squeezed from shredded junk mail and pulverized rap CDs. Such alternative sources will deliver minimal benefits . . . eventually. The International Energy Agencys 2007 World Energy Outlook
forecasts that fossil fuels will still generate 82 percent of Earths energy in 2030, with 9 percent from biomass. Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and other renewable sources will satisfy just 2 percent of demand. Refined petroleum propels vehicles today, and yet oil languishes beneath our sovereign soil, even as Americans go jobless and our republic meanders into recession.

Will we finally grow up and harness our resources, or will we childishly weep over imaginary threats to wildlife, dispatch supertankers of cash to the Middle East, and watch our petrodollars sponsor bomb belts and exploding aircraft?

Merely asking this question illustrates how desperately this nation needs adult supervision.

Just one other thing;  how many of the same people who stop us from exploiting our own vast resources then attack the Bush administration for its dealings with the Saudis? 

When do we stop listening to these hopeless nutcakes and do what we have to do?


Ken Berwitz

I miss Captain's Quarters, the blog Ed Morrissey enriched us with for years. 

However, though it is gone, Mr. Morrissey can be found as a regular contributor to  And his material there is just as intelligent, well-researched and analytically on target as it was at Captain's Quarters.

Here is Ed's take on the relationship between U.S. Senator Barack Obama and unrepentant domestic terrorist william ayers:

Obamas strange defense of William Ayers

posted at 8:34 am on April 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama has decided to push back against criticisms of his association with former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, but the arguments he offers sound less than convincing. Rather than chalk it up to political naivete and issue a non-apology apology, Obama has decided to argue that he cant be expected to consider the actions of people that took place in his childhood, and that Ayers only was bad for a few days. No, really, this is his entire opening argument:


Obama Turned Eight In September 1969, The Days Of Rage Occurred In October 1969. Barack Obama was born on September 4, 1961. He turned eight on September 4, 1969. The Days of Rage, in which William Ayers participated, occurred in October 1969. [Obama Birth Certificate, UPI, 10/21/81]

William Ayers Participated In The Days Of Rage In 1969. The AP reported, In the autumn of 1969, the Weatherman, led by Bernardine Dohrn and Mark Rudd, converged on Chicago and planned a series of demonstrations to dramatize their beliefs. The riots, which came to be known as the Days of Rage, caused thousands of dollars in damage in the downtown and Near North Side areas and resulted in injuries to several policemen. Rudd and Ms. Dohrn were named in federal riot indictments with ten others William Ayers, Kathy Boudin, John Jacobs, Jeff Jones, Michael Spiegel, Howard Machtinger, Terry Robins, Lawrence Weiss, Linda Sue Evans and Judy Clark. Another prominent activist, Cathy Wilkerson, was arrested on state charges of mob action and resisting a police officer. Some surrendered years ago. Two Ms. Dohrn and Ayers, son of the former chairman of Commonweath Edison Co. surfaced Wednesday. Charges against Ayers had been dropped in 1978 but Ms. Dohrn still faces charges of aggravated battery and jumping bail. [AP, 12/3/80]

Well, at least he got his age right, unlike his association with events in Selma in his speech from March 2007. In that speech, Obama didnt mind deriving authenticity with a march that occurred when he was less than four years old and with people he had never met, let alone with whom he partnered on foundation boards.

The age issue is a transparent dodge. When terrorists killed Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972, I was nine years old. Would that give me a pass if I chose to associate myself on a board with Mahmoud Abbas, the reported mastermind of the Black September operation? Of course not. Obama wasnt eight years old when he sought Ayers out for his support and later worked with him at the Woods foundation.

Ayers doesnt help matters with his own dodge, claiming he wasnt a terrorist at all. Ben Smith explains:

He contests the notion central to the objection to him, as opposed to other people who were bad actors 35 years ago that he he has no regrets about bombings but he doesnt exactly contradict his 2001 line that I dont regret setting bombs.

Im sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Viet Nam, and I say no, I dont regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government. Sometimes I add, I dont think I did enough. This is then elided: he has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings

Terrorismaccording to both official U.S. policy and the the use or threat of random violence to intimidate, frighten, or coerce a population toward some political end. Ive never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it.
Ayers tries to argue that terrorism is defined by its randomness, but thats absurd. Ayers committed acts of violence intending on forcing the kind of political change he couldnt get through the democratic process. Thats not only terrorism but an assault on self-government. The fact that he still cant acknowledge that shows the unrepentant nature of William Ayers very clearly.

Obamas inability to grasp this has him grasping at straws instead. He winds up being an apologist for Ayers, most laughably in this passage:


On September 11, 2001, A Story About William Ayers Memoir Was Published In The New York Times; The Interview Occurred Prior To Publication. I dont regret setting bombs, Bill Ayers said. I feel we didnt do enough. Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970s as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. [New York Times, 9/11/01]

I think almost everyone sophisticated enough to hold a newspaper right-side-up understands that an interview gets conducted before publication. No one claims that Ayers said this at the moment the towers fell. The point is that after a decade of terrorist attacks against American interests, Ayers still hadnt reconsidered his own terrorism after 30 years, and the publication of that fact on 9/11 had its own twisted sense of irony.

The bigger question is why Obama spends so much energy defending Ayers. If he wasnt that important to Obama, why offer this page on the campaign website to rehabilitate Ayers?

Morrissey lays this out perfectly. 

For Barack Obama, william ayers is more than just some guy in the neighborhood he ran across occasionally.  A lot more.

And his clumsy attempts to cover up the extent of their relationship are embarrassingly inept.

This is no small matter.  And it, along with Mr. Obama's umbilical association with jeremiah wright, is going to be an ongoing, major issue in the general election.

You can tell how damaging it is by referencing a sample of print and broadcast media on the internet today.  Obama supporters are howling at the injustice of his connection to ayers and wright being part of Wednesday's debate. 

They want this issue buried under a rock at the core of the earth. 

And, from a political perspective, who can blame them?   Because in a general election (as opposed to a Democratic primary where the hard left has to be appeased), it is going to resonate loudly and clearly to millions of voters.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!