The Challenge Of Exposing The Challenge

"The Obama campaign claims that his name was suggested [for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge] by a couple of other foundation presidents who were on a committee there, and that may or not be true. But the truth is that Bill Ayers was the most powerful person on that foundation and he was on that committee that selected the board members. It is extremely unlikely that Obama would have been chosen without Ayers’ say so. And I also published recently an e-mail message I got as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. You can read that message a couple of ways, but I think the most plausible reading is that the fellow who sent it—who used to the executive director of this foundation—was basically admitting to some people that he had been avoiding reporters’ questions about the full story about how Obama got chosen. I wish the press would follow it up, but at least it begins to look as though there might have been a cover up there about Ayers’ rule and choosing Obama in that—to be head of that foundation."

-- Stanley Kurtz, on one of the questions the press won't investigate (during a discussion on how the Obama campaign has used intimidation tactics to try and silence him) on Townhall.com.

"Ayers was the only individual,...with legal authority to select board members. He relied on advice from Leff, Graham and Simmons but only he had the legal authority to approve board members. Thus, legally, Ayers approved the selection of Obama as a result of meeting with him prior to the board meeting (in fact, even if they had not met or first met at the board meeting Ayers’ silence would be deemed approval). Thus, Ayers was “involved” and in fact had to have been given his role as the legal agent of the Collaborative.

If Ayers objected to Obama, Obama could not have become a member of the CAC board because no one else had the legal authority to approve his selection. If Ayers had come out of that lunch with Obama and expressed an objection Leff, Simmons and Graham would have had to go back to the drawing board.

While I have speculated that Ayers and Obama knew each other before the CAC, it is nonetheless clear to me that Ayers appointed Obama to the board and thus helped Obama’s career at a very significant point – just in advance of his first political campaign which as we know was launched at Ayers’ house a few months after these events. That impact stands apart from whether they shared a pre-95 history."

-- Steve Diamond, in an e-mail to the The New York Times "reporter" that interviewed him three times (but without the NYT printing his answers, or documents, revealing the multiple business connections between Obama and Ayers) while the rest of "the press" continues to act like Diamond doesn't exist - with his left-wing blog Global Labor and Politics.

The Fact Of The Matter: Obama's Lying (Again)

Don't buy into what liars say, buy into:

Is The NYT Just Dumb - Or In The Tank?

“'The Times refused to discuss the written record that fills in this story, apparently because they did not understand what they were looking at (unless one wants to conclude that they are operating as part of the Obama campaign).]"

-- Steve Diamond, the main blogger the "bored" NYT discussed Barack Obama's connection to Bill Ayers with (three times) on his blog Global Labor and Politics.

Also, one thought that keeps leaping out at me, regarding the arguments of the Obama campaign, is the timing:

All of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments (which weren't all his alone) took place in the last two years of his being an Illinois Senator (a job he held for 8 years, before becoming a United States Senator for 143 days, and then launching his presidential campaign). What was he doing for the previous 6 years? We know he voted "present" more than anyone else. And it was a talk with his political "godfather" in Chicago, Elvin Jones, that alerted him, if he wanted to become a United States Senator, he'd need his name on *something* to move forward, which seems to have been his only goal in government - not helping the country.

Obama has been trying to divert attention by saying he was only 8 years old when Bill Ayers was bombing the country, never mentioning he was an adult after 9/11, when Ayers said he "didn't do enough" bombing, and, together, they were serving on the board of The Woods Foundation. By that time, he had already served directly under Ayers on the board of the Annenberg Challenge (Steve Diamond, in the link above, says Obama was "hand picked" by Ayers) and it's been revealed that Michelle Obama worked with Ayers's wife, the terrorist Bernadine Dorne, all the way back in 1987 - proving the two families have a long history and share an apparent meeting of the minds when it comes to political goals. What are Ayers's publicly stated political goals? Bringing down America and destroying the capitalist system. I'd say, as the #2 guy to reap financial rewards from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Obama got over $181,000 - Barack Obama is playing his role very well. John McCain, by comparison, got only $21,000 and is on record as trying to stop the mortgage crisis years ago.

The Obama campaign is throwing out the 20 year old Keating Five Scandal as proof John McCain is craven and doesn't understand the economy. What they don't mention is John McCain was exonerated in Keating Five and was completely transparent with reporters and the public when the verdict came back, exonerating him. So what's the point of bringing it up? To further distract the public from questioning who Barack Obama is and what he's been doing hanging with so many terrorists, criminals, racists, and other unsavory types.

I'll have much more later, but for now, keep an eye on the timing of Barack Obama's political moves: he hasn't been around that long - most people didn't even know his name until recently - so his campaign's lies (and that's what they are) are very traceable.

And he can't wiggle out of all of them.

Obama And The NYT: They're Both Full Of It

Global Labor and Politics visitors: click here for more Obama/Ayers news:

"I was interviewed at length by the New York Times for this story - in fact, this was the third Times reporter to interview me about the Ayers/Obama relationship - and I provided the Times with the [incriminating] letters I discuss here. They are not mentioned in the story at all.

It may not have helped that the reporter, Scott Shane, specializes in the FBI and CIA and did not seem well equipped to understand the structure and dynamics of a non profit entity like the Annenberg Challenge, had no apparent understanding of educational policy issues or debates, had no prior experience as far as I could tell with Chicago politics or culture and expressed his own sense of 'boredom' with the Annenberg Challenge records he reviewed.

...The nation's leading paper of record is basing its published story on Ayers non-role in Obama's selection on unnamed sources when the two of the three named sources did not confirm that Ayers was not involved. And as I told the Times there is written evidence that, in fact, Ayers was involved in the selection of Board members, and, in fact, that he would have had to have been involved given his formal role in applying for and winning the grant from the national Annenberg Challenge.

The Challenge Board was chaired by Barack Obama and Obama also served as President of the Challenge. The Obama campaign and Obama himself have attempted to minimize the candidate's longstanding and close professional and political relationship with Ayers because of Ayers' authoritarian politics and past record of terrorist activities."

-- Steve Diamond, a lawyer, political scientist and law professor, pointing out what a thorough investigation the NYT performs, on Global Labor and Politics.