After the astonished revelations about the horrific intent of the Weather Underground the other day, more evidence has emerged.
First, LGF links to video of the Grathwohl account of the WU discussing the genocide of 25 million American citizens, innocent people who the group knew would not go along with their communist dictatorship. For those of you late to the story, Bill Ayers and wife Bernardine Dohrn were both leaders of the terrorist group- and neither of them has shown an ounce of regret for what they did and intended to do. In fact, Ayers' views don't seem to have changed at all.
Next, blogger Zombie posts a detailed account of Ayers and Dohrn's book Prairie Fire, a Weather Underground manifesto. One important thing to note is that while the media characterises the group- and Ayers in particular- as being of the Sixties-era and anti-Vietnam War this is demonstrably false.
Ayers was not simply protesting "against" the Vietnam War. Firstly, he wasn't against war in principle, he was agitating for the victory of the communist forces in Vietnam. In other words: He wasn't against the war, he was against our side in the war. This is spelled out in great detail in Prairie Fire. Secondly, and more significantly, the Vietnam War was only one of many issues cited by the Weather Undergound as the justifications for their violent acts. As you will see below, in various quotes from Prairie Fire and in their own list of their violent actions (and in additional impartial documentary links), Ayers and the Weather Underground enumerated dozens of different grievances as the rationales for their bombings -- their overarching goal being to inspire a violent mass uprising against the United States government in order to establish a communist "dictatorship of the proletariat," in Ayers' own words.
Thus, Obama's assertion that he was only 8 years old when the Weather Underground was formed is shown to be preposterous. The group was active for years after its formation and, while Obama worked alongside him, Bill Ayers had neither renounced the bombings he engaged in nor the ideology that underpinned it.
This is the leader of a group which not only wanted to destroy the US government and to see the USA divided up between communist nations but which also discussed the mass murder of US citizens who opposed their ideology.
Given Ayers' radical nature and his desire to see the USA destroyed, it's not unreasonable to ask why he sought to promote Obama's career. What does a man who holds these views- who to this day remains a radical communist- see in a candidate who portrays himself not as a fellow radical but as a post-partisan moderate?
1 comment:
I'm really pissed-off about this and not a little bit afraid for America.
Post a Comment