The View From 1776

Liberal-Progressive Gun Control And The American Ethos

Mass murder via abortion and lone-wolf mass killings with guns are both products of liberal-progressive hedonism.

Bill Ayers wrote in A Strategy To Win, appearing in New Left Notes of September 12, 1969:  ...we’re also going to make it clear that when a pig gets iced that’s a good thing, and that everyone who considers himself a revolutionary should be armed, should own a gun, should have a gun in his house.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/08 at 04:35 PM
  1. Excellent article.

    It's interesting that the left has gone into hysterics about guns being brought into a school but is perfectly ok with the a man like Ayers being someone with input into educational policy. Ayers was directing his thoughts at putatively sane people advancing the idea that the killing of a police officer was a good thing.

    Between Lanza and Ayers, who has the truly diseased mind and which one is lauded and respected by the left? And which is the one who provided his living room to kick off our "president's" political career?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/08  at  08:09 PM
  2. In essence, the progressives' intent on killing opponents is OK, if you're a radical liberal, but even owning a gun is not OK if you're an ordinary hard-working citizen. Hey, that's not too logical, is it? Maybe that's why some say that liberalism is a form of insanity!
    Posted by bill greene  on  01/09  at  09:42 AM
  3. Thomas,

    Although Bill Ayers was appointed to the board of a non-profit institution on which Obama also sat, the contention that Ayers was and is a political adviser to Obama or shaped his views, is false.

    Ayers sponsored a coffee "Meet and Greet the Candidate" for Obama, candidate to the Illinois state senate, at the behest of a state senator. At the time, Ayers had not met Obama and did not know him.

    The fact that two people were in the same room is not proof of a conspiracy.

    You do not increase your credibility with false assertions.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/09  at  10:08 AM
  4. Ayers did more than provide Obama with his living room to promote his election as stste senator.:

    "The same year, 1995, he made Obama chairman of his education reform group:Launched in 1995 as a five-year education-reform initiative to improve public schools in Chicago and across the U.S., billionaire-publishing mogul and ambassador Walter Annenberg underwrote the organization bearing his namesake with $500 million of his own capital. Over 1,600 foundations, businesses, higher learning institutions, and private citizens contributed an additional $600 million in matching funds.

    "Nonetheless, the organization itself was in fact founded by Bill Ayers and in the words of author and columnist Stanley Kurtz, functioned as CAC’s “guiding spirit.”

    While in its nascent stage, Ayers along with five members of a working group assembled the foundation’s board of directors, inevitably electing a young Barack Obama chairman of the board, a position the community organizer would hold for four years."

    This article goes on to show that the foundation sought more to "educate" students in socialist agendas than to improve math and reading. Indeed the Foundation failed to make any improvement in student's academic performance, in spite of spending vast sums. This vast spending with little results seems to have shaped much of Obama's lifetime activity!
    Posted by bill greene  on  01/09  at  10:33 AM
  5. Bill,

    Your information is grossly out of whack.

    It was Annenberg (not Ayers) who founded the Annenberg Challenge, which was kicked off in a 1993 ceremony in the Roosevelt roomm of the White House by Bill Clinton, the education secretary and several governors.

    Grants were awarded to municipalities all across the nation

    One of the grants ($49 million) was won by the Chicago school system. Ayers participated in writing the successful grant application.

    The board chair for the Chicago foundation was selected by Adele Smith Simmons, President of the John and Catherine MacArthur Foundation.

    There were 10 members of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that was responsible for administering the grant:

    Stanle Ikenberry, President of the University of Illinois.
    Edward Bottom, former chairman of Continental Illinois Bank
    Scott Smith, publisher, Chicago Tribune
    Vitcoria Chou, Dean of University of Illinois
    John MCCarter, president of the Field Museum
    and 4 other luminaries.

    Ayers was not on the board.

    There was a separate group called the "Chicago School Reform Collaborative," with a board of 23 members, including Ayers. This group help design the RFPs and publicized the program.

    The main criticism from conservatives was that Annenberg was spending his money on public schools rather than promoting charter schools.

    There were hundreds of eminent institutions and individuals involved in this effort and while Ayers played a role, his participation was miniscule in the scope of the project.

    There was no socialist agenda as you claim.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/09  at  11:42 AM
  6. Mr. Jay, with regard to your statement:

    "The fact that two people were in the same room is not proof of a conspiracy."

    I don't believe you can cite an instance in which I have used the term conspiracy. However widespread the public's belief in conspiracies in which a few players control world event, I am not among those who support such beliefs.

    Look to left-wiongers like Oliver Stone for that.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/09  at  01:52 PM
  7. Mr. Jay, you provide much useful information on the CAC that shows Ayers's role was less important than Mr. Greene alleges. I don't care to research the exact role that Ayers played there but even from the face of what you provided I cannot conclude that his role was a minor one.

    Perhaps "progressive" would be a better adjective for Ayers's agenda. That's putting it mildly, of course, since Ayers is an admitted communist. He's married to a woman who pleaded guilty to aggravated battery and was a self-proclaimed "revolutionary communist.” (She and Ayers were indicted for conspiracy to bomb and kill civilians before charges were dropped due to improper FBI wiretaps.)

    You focus your efforts on minimizing Ayers's role at the CAC and make the point that "Ayers had not met Obama and did not know him" at the time of the "Meet and Greet" event in Ayers's living room. That would be Dohrn's living room too, she being the woman that a Chicago gang member described as a "violent maniac." That's saying something when I consider that the average Chicago gang member is a violent maniac, but then maybe that's just me.

    In 2008, Obama disingenuously referred to Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" when he worked with him at CAC and where there's credible evidence that Ayers ghost wrote one of Obama's "autobiographies."

    The preceding link indicates that Obama only "developed a friendship" with Ayers and Dohrn in early 1990s. Assuming for the sake of argument that Obama had only just met Ayers and Dohrn, it would be simply absurd to argue that Obama was clueless as to the background or politics of those two (the focus of huge media attention in the past) and two others who "happened" to be at that "Meet and Greet." Our Harvard-educated, genius-level president simply could NOT have been unaware of the identities and backgrounds of this über-radical pair of freaks, and of Alice Palmer (one-time member of communist front group and author of an article published in the newspaper of the Communist Party USA) and Quentin Young (a friend of Ayers and Dohrn and a "[l]ongtime supporter of communist causes"), also present at the said "Meet and Greet."

    Moreover, credible evidence exists that Obama knew Ayers's parents in the summer of 1989 -- six to seven years before that "Meet and Greet" -- and that they were supporting him in his schooling.

    Even if -- and it's a big if in my mind -- Obama didn't know Ayers and Dohrn at the time of that fundraiser, he for sure -- without a shadow of a doubt -- knew WHAT they were and what their agenda was.

    Surely you are not asking us to believe that if you were running for state office you would walk blindly into a room full of notorious communists and terrorists and seek their support without knowing who you were dealing with. Come ON.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/09  at  01:54 PM
  8. We can argue the fine points--the exact extent of Obama's connections with extremists--but it is important to avoid getting lost in the trivia. The Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, his anti-Israel mind-set, and now an Islamic apologist as Secretary Defense, all reveal Obama's underlying philosophy. It is not part of the mainstream!

    Like most demagogues seeking concentrated power, he has emerged from a wildly dissident clique hell bent on reversing everything fundamental to our nation. His "redistribution" politics panders to the lowest level of the populace, breeds envy and resentment, while doing nothing for those who most deserve support.

    Obama's biggest hypocrisy was pledging to tax the top 1%, while allowing social security withholding taxes to increase and take more money from the Middle Class. And he hardly touched the 1%, who he lets run the Treasury Department. The 3% added tax on ordinary income over 450K is the mildest rebuke that 1% has ever been subjected to--especially when you realize that the bailouts that went to their favored financial firms totalled billions of dollars! Clearly, his personal mission is to strip religion and guns from Americans, while bankrupting all of us so we will be obedient to his favors and hand-outs.

    How much of this crazed agenda comes from Ayers, or Wright, or his Muslim background, is not our problem. The agenda is a matter of record,and it spells big trouble for America.
    Posted by bill greene  on  01/09  at  05:42 PM
  9. Your articles are always interesting and understandable. Thank you!
    Posted by termpaperexpert net  on  01/10  at  06:30 AM
  10. Thanks for all:):)
    Posted by  on  01/15  at  05:58 AM
  11. The implication of all of this is that if you come into contact with someone with a questionable past, you are automatically guilty, by association, of the sins of that person and are assumed to hold the same opinions as the person you have met.

    I imagine that over his lifetime, Mr. Obama has met, been at meetings with, sat on boards with, went to school with, lived on the same block as, or attended parties with many thousands of people.

    Each one of these people probably has some skeleton in his or her closet that reflects poorly on them (who doesn't?). Guilt by association is normally not an accepted standard for judging someone.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/16  at  03:43 PM
  12. Mr. Jay, we are not engaged in a guilt-by-assosciation exercise. We are simply noting Mr. Obama's actions, most notably his class-warfare re-election campaign and his continual bludgeoning capitalistic business. Those are bedrock elements of the beliefs espoused by Bill Ayer and Bernadine Dohrn, who may or may not have influenced the president as much as or more than his father's embrace of socialism.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/17  at  01:37 AM
  13. As my Mother wisely advised me, "You are known by the company you keep."
    Posted by bill greene  on  01/17  at  09:03 AM
  14. Mr. Jay, Obama sought out the company of two members of the Weather Underground and spent 20 years in a church whose "pastor" gave a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan and famously gave a speech in which he said, "God damn America. God damn America." Obama also deliberately tried to conceal the nature of his relationship with Ayers, showing that HE believed that who he associated with tells us something about HIM.

    Apparently, you believe that it is not possible to tell something about a man who joins the Nation of Islam, the Gangster Disciples, or the Rotary Club. Who one CHOOSES to associate with offers NO clue as to one's core beliefs?

    That's ridiculous on its face. Your comment ignores the element of intentional choice, as though Obama's being in Ayers's and Dohrn's living room was equivalent to a chance meeting of two strangers in an airport waiting room who happen to be Weather Underground fanatics.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/17  at  01:46 PM
  15. Richard is right on! Twenty years supporting Rev Wright is more than a brief happenstance "coming into contact with."

    Mr. Jay has the mental agility and flexibility to apply euphemisms to cover-up the lies of those he supports. It's a reaction common to those who abandon simple common sense and logic so they can embrace abstractions. It explains why they are what they are and why they think the way they do.

    But, I understand this reaction and have not given up. Some readers of this great site may recall that in 2012 I resolved to convert Mr Jay, to exorcize his devils, and get him to think simply and rationally, to concede that members of both parties are flawed, that both Dems and Repubs have supported disastrous policies, and that a rational discourse must make distinctions, and not resort to mere partisan attack. I actually have seen progress in many of these posts, and will continue undeterred in spite of the disinformation concerning Obama's and Ayer's many "connections."
    Posted by bill greene  on  01/17  at  02:05 PM
  16. Bill,

    Your efforts are not in vain (with respect to my concession that members of both parties are flawed). They most certainly are!

    Although the immortal injunction, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," lurks in the back of my mind, I still enjoy a lively debate with you on which side of the aisle exhibits the fewest flaws.

    I think we can have this discussion with the goal of illuminating the issues better for all to see, without stooping to make attacks that are partisan only in nature.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/18  at  12:55 PM
  17. Amen, J. J. I agree that it may be a worthwhile debate to determine which side has the fewest flaws, but it would be more productive to see which one has the most serious flaws--flaws that will cripple the nation and its people, deprive them of their prosperity and comfort--in short, we should endeavor to ignore the petty side issues and concentrate on the real problems facing the nation.

    Gun control, abortion, gay rights, the environment, and racist behavior, will not destroy us in the short run no matter the details of their resolution. What will destroy us is the fiscal irresponsibility that is bankrupting both the nation and many of its States. The other side issues are for the moment red herrings and merely distract us from solving the financial problems facing us.

    The solution will rely on cutting spending and rasing taxes enough to balance the budget, and eliminating the crippling ties between Wall Street and the Treasury Department. Both parties have allowed Goldman Sachs, et al. execs to run the nation's finances, monetary policy, and bailouts to the favored few. That's a draw. But only the Republicans show any eagerness to cut spending. Until the Democrats admit to that necessity they are the worst party on the most important problem we face. And the Dems leader in the oval office seems to be unalterably opposed to sufficient reductions in spending, and his controlled Senate has not passed a budget in four years!

    Both parties are sullied, but the first stones should be directed at those who will cripple the nation, not those who have differing opinions on social issues. Thus, IMHO, the biggest stones must be thrown at you and your party.
    Posted by bill greene  on  01/18  at  06:03 PM
  18. Bill,

    Fortunately, as the US economy recovers, our deficit problem is receding. The real danger to the country is high unemployment rather than the debt. Europe has found to its chagrin that the vaunted "austerity" programs have been a miserable failure at reviving the economies, and have resulted only in further economic depression.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/22  at  10:15 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Next entry: Core Inflation?

Previous entry: 2nd Amendment Original Intent