Sarahcuda: Barack pals around with terrorists

Because, ya know: he actually pals around with terrorists!

"Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country. [...] This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America."

I think Barack is within McCain's reach. I think Barack's numbers will severely tank as Election Day nears. I think McCain has a good chance to win.

However, I'm a terrible judge of election stuff. I understand philosophic and governing issues. I do not understand election stuff. I'm a bad prognosticator.

If McCain loses, I will be fine as long as McCain/Palin have gone down swinging. I want them to go down telling truth and defending conservative principles. I want them to go down defending the American Dream against radicals who do not believe it exists. I want them to go down defending the exceptionalism of America's constitutional system, and of freedom and opportunity.

So, I am glad Sarahcuda is chomping into Barack. Someone has to. Media will not.

Rant alert.

Barack and Bill Ayers had a decade and a half team up for their own mutual benefits, and also to promote a genuinely radical political agenda - including in education. Such an adult, recent (possibly into 2004) team-up with a current radical and former domestic bomber ought disqualify anyone from being voted into the Oval Office.

Bill Ayers tried to bomb the Pentagon.

Bill Ayers tried to blow up soldiers at a USO dance in Kentucky. He prepped enough TNT to kill - not dozens - but scores of persons at that dance.

Bill Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground. He sent members out on terror missions which targeted the United States and her citizens. Sometimes they succeeded. Innocent Americans were killed. Thank God Ayers was not more competent.

Yet that is mere prelude. More importantly, completely relevantly, Bill Ayers now overtly states he continues to promote his same radical agenda through other means, i.e. via the American public education system. When Barack was at Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack was consciously promoting Ayers' radical agenda. Why?
1) For Barack's personal gain (connections; killer resume item), and
2) b/c Barack himself is radical, grew up radical, has befriended and been assisted by radicals every step of his rise.

McCain's friends are old Navy guys. Barack's friends and promoters are radicals who promote severe changes inside the United States. WHY are so many of Barack's associates severe radicals? The high number of radical Barack friends constitutes evidence against coincidence.

Barack is a stealth radical who impersonates a moderate. He wants voters to look at him and see what they want to see. He DOES NOT want voters to look at him and see who he truly is.

Plus, he's a poseur who is without professional accomplishment. For instance: Sarah Palin's professional accomplishments DWARF Barack's. He is a comparative pygmy (which observation, of course, is RACIST).

h/t
A blog is a good place to vent. Now I can go through my weekend like a sane person, without having pent-up tension over unexpressed thoughts. When I began that rant, I didn't realize how much I wanted to say that stuff.

Update - Angered by a NYT whitewash, Stanley Kurtz opens fire:

[T]he Times quotes Mayor Daley saying, "People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life."

The trouble with this is that Ayers doesn’t view his terrorism as a mistake. How can he be forgiven when he’s not repentant?

Nor does Ayers see his education work as a repudiation of his early radicalism. On the contrary, Ayers sees his education work as carrying on his radicalism in a new guise.

The point of Ayers’ education theory is that the United States is a fundamentally racist and oppressive nation. Students, Ayers believes, ought to be encouraged to resist this oppression. Obama was funding Ayers’ "small schools" project, built around this philosophy. Ayers’ radicalism isn’t something in the past. It’s something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers’ radicalism, he’s flat wrong. Obama’s funded it.

Obama was perfectly aware of Ayers’ radical views, since he read and publically endorsed, without qualification, Ayers’ book on juvenile crime. That book is quite radical, expressing doubts about whether we ought to have a prison system at all, comparing America to South Africa’s apartheid system, and contemptuously dismissing the idea of the United States as a kind or just country. Shane mentions the book endorsement, yet says nothing about the book’s actual content. Nor does Shane mention the panel about Ayers’ book, on which Obama spoke as part of a joint Ayers-Obama effort to sink the 1998 Illinois juvenile crime bill. Again, we have unmistakable evidence of a substantial political working relationship. (I’ve described it in detail here in "Barack Obama’s Lost Years."

More! I want more of this! More:

The Times also ignores the fact that I’ve published a detailed statement from the Obama camp on the relationship between Ayers and Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (See "Obama’s Challenge.") Maybe that’s because attention to that statement would force them to acknowledge and report on my detailed reply.