August 27th, 2008

Obama: champion of freedom of speech—except if that speech is against him

Obama is protesting an ad that targets his association with domestic 60s terrorist Bill Ayres. Here’s the ad:

Obama is asking his supporters to threaten to boycott stations running the ad. I have no problem with that; it’s a classic technique used to put economic pressure on entities that air programs and/or ads that are considered offensive by one group or other.

But the Obama campaign is going beyond that. In a letter to the Justice Department, Obama’s general counsel Bob Bauer wrote that:

The project is “a knowing and willful attempt to violate the strictures of federal election law,”….Bauer argued that by advocating Obama’s defeat, the ad should be subject to the contribution limits of federal campaign law, not the anything-goes regime of issue advocacy.

Bauer’s letter called on the Justice Department to open “an investigation of the American Issues Project; its officers and directors; and its anonymous donors, whoever they may be.”

AIP claims that there are no irregularities; I guess time will tell.

I’m not sure why the Obama campaign is so very afraid of this ad. It says nothing that hasn’t been in the public domain, and even in the news, for a long time—although perhaps the answer is that an ad such as this has the capacity to reach more people. Another problem for Obama may be that the ad doesn’t state anything that isn’t true, although it offers innuendos such as “What does [Obama] really believe?” and “Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it?” As for “advocating Obama’s defeat,” all it says about that is, “Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?”

This is not the first time Obama has tried to squelch opponents by challenging them on legal technicalities; he cut his political teeth on that sort of thing. Just ask Alice Palmer, fellow Democrat and fellow African American, what he did to her and all of his opponents in his very first primary race, for the Illinois Senate.

Of course, there’s nothing illegal about mounting legal challenges. But it doesn’t look good; it telegraphs fear and the desire to stifle criticism and freedom of speech.

Obama’s campaign has written a letter to various stations calling the ad “an appalling lie, a disgraceful smear.” Smear it may be, but lie it is not; there’s a difference. And even if the video did contain lies, wouldn’t it be best to rebut them and/or answer them effectively rather than stifle it?

So far, Obama’s answers have fallen short. If this is the best Obama can do as a video rebuttal, I begin to wonder whether he has an effective answer:

As for what else Obama has said on the subject, I refer you to Obama’s debate with Hillary Clinton around the time of the Pennsylvania primary. Asked about the Ayers connection by George Stephanopoulos, Obama was his usual obfuscating self, whereas Clinton had done her homework, pointing out some other connections with Ayers (although not all of them) that Obama had ignored when he described him as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” (note, also, Clinton’s prescient last sentence in the quoted excerpt):

OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.

The fact is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who, during his campaign, once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements? Because I certainly don’t agree with those, either.

So this kind of game in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, that somehow their ideas could be attributed to me, I think the American people are smarter than that. They’re not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn’t.

CLINTON: Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.

And, if I’m not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York and, I would hope, to every American, because they were published on 9/11, and he said that he was just sorry they hadn’t done more.

And what they did was set bombs. And in some instances, people died. So it is — I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about.

And I have no doubt — I know Senator Obama’s a good man and I respect him greatly, but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.

Then there’s Obama’s page attempting to refute the charges of a deeper connection to Ayers than he is willing to acknowledge. It begins with an assertion that is both true and irrelevant: Obama was eight years old when Ayers committed his terrorist acts. This would be a great defense if anyone was suggesting that Obama was a member of the Children’s Auxiliary of the Weathermen, but unfortunately for Obama, nobody is. What is being asserted by critics is that, as an adult, he had very close dealings with supporters who were, as the phrase goes, “unrepentant terrorists,” and that their status and past was hardly hidden from him. At the very least, it was an error in judgment on Obama’s part that he has never acknowledged. Nor did he see fit to repudiate them until sorely pressed by the media and by opponents.

Obama’s page goes on to list a bunch of MSM articles quoting people who think his Ayers connection isn’t much. That’s hardly a defense. And it ends with the fact that charges against Ayers were dropped—not important at all, since they were dismissed on a technicality and Ayers admits he is fully guilty. And for anyone who thinks Ayers is now just a nice old Mr. Rogers-type educator, think again.

[ADDENDUM: For more on the Ayers association, see this. The MSM needs to do its job and ascertain whether these charges are true or false. It’s something they should have done long ago.]

[ADDENDUM II: Somehow the final link in the first addendum got broken and is unfixable because I cannot locate the source again. Odd. I’ve removed the related quotes since I can’t find the attribution any more. But anyone who wants to read some similar facts can go here instead.]

32 Responses to “Obama: champion of freedom of speech—except if that speech is against him”

  1. Webutante Says:

    This is, if you’ll pardon the pun, a dynamite piece of work, Neo. Well written and well researched. Hope it will be read far and wide. Thank you.

  2. Dane Says:

    I found your site while doing some research on Michelle Obama’s salary history. I love it. As Winston Churchil is purported to have said, “If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no head.” Of course I have no idea of your age, so please excuse me if I have added a few years. It only means you came to the conclusion before the curve. I will come back to visit often. By the way, you would be high on my list of a therapist should I find myself in need of one (which I may if the election goes to Obama)

  3. neo-neocon Says:

    Dane: Welcome. But if you do more reading around here, you’ll soon learn that (sigh), not only didn’t you add a few years, you subtracted a couple.

    And thanks, Webutante. From your lips to Instapundit’s ears :-).

  4. Dane Says:

    Most things I like wine, cheese, great art, etc. get better with age. Oh, and more or less on the same mark as the title to this entry I have been saying for years, “Everyone is in favor of free speech until someone says something they don’t like.”

  5. Count Grecula Says:

    Your last link “note this” is bad.

    Glad to see you embracing your Obamamonomania again. Another great post, always delivered in such a civil manner. I don’t know how you do it given the subject manner!

  6. neo-neocon Says:

    Count Grecula: I tried to fix the link but couldn’t find the source again, so I added a new addendum about it.

  7. Peter Says:

    I would like to assume the worst in Obama (at least on this topic). Let’s say that Bill and Barack get along very well and that Obama is completely knowledgeable and accepting of Ayers’ past crimes and continuing disgusting views. That’s the worst case scenario, is it not?

    For those supporting Obama because of his policies, this would likely make little difference. Here’s my question to those for whom this would make a lot of difference in how they view Obama: How is illegal domestic terrorism any different than the illegal foreign terrorism our government uses?

    Both obviously are horrible in my mind, as is killing in general. Is a means to achieve an end any less wrong because it is done by a government? Even the legal terrorism our government uses must surely be considered wrong by principled Americans. We all know that legality is not the same as what we know is right and wrong. Anyways, there are my thoughts.

  8. strcpy Says:

    “How is illegal domestic terrorism any different than the illegal foreign terrorism our government uses?” and then “”Even the legal terrorism our government uses must surely be considered wrong by principled Americans.”

    Not only is it a *really* bad formed question along the lines of “did you quit beating your wife today?” but you can’t even make up your own mind about how to do it. Is it legal or illegal (at least you continually call it terrorism)?

    “Anyways, there are my thoughts.”

    Sadly, that is true.

    However to answer you question what the US did was neither illegal or terrorism. So, given that, why should I find it to make a difference in supporting the republicans or not? I also find, that as a principled American, it was the correct/right action to take at the time so, again, why should that make me *not* want to vote for McCain?

    Not only that but that is the *whole* issue here. Both sides do not see a particular action as “wrong” or terrorism. McCain doesn’t see the Iraq war as one and sees Ayers as being that way. Obama see Iraq as illegal terrorism but is just peachy keen with Ayers.

    If you see both as acts of terrorism then you should be angry at both sides and not vote for either. If you see one side as good and the other not then you should vote for that side. If you see both sides as A-Ok then it is a non-issue.

    Obama’s camp knows how this plays and is desperately trying to silence it where they can and paint McCains support of Iraq in the same light. As I said ages ago once the republicans start bringing this stuff up the campaign was going to get entertaining. During the democratic primary there were too many leftist/liberals who support crap like that to villainize it – now McCain is free to do it as both he and the majority of non-partisan people think Ayers and co are quite bad people.

  9. SteveH Says:

    Aside from the race for President. What kind of corruption must Illinois be infested with to even allow this shady character to make his way to the U.S. senate?

  10. gcotharn Says:

    Ed Morrisey, on Senator Obama’s comparison of Senator Coburn to the terrorist Ayers:

    Coburn wanted to pass a law [defining abortion as murder] through legitimate democratic and political means; Ayers tried to terrorize people into policy changes by blowing up buildings, for which he remains unapologetic to this day. Does Obama really see no difference between the two? And if not, what does that say about Obama?

  11. Michelle Says:

    I stumbled upon your site while researching poems with my daughter for English. She got booted to her Dads computer. I have to read more.

    I am encouraged. Although, I am not thrilled with McCain. I really can’t live in an America headed by OBama. What the freak was Oprah thinking to support this bozo. It is almost as bad as when she had the fake drug addict on promoting his book.

    Obama is just a puppet on a string, I would like to know who the puppeteer is……..

  12. 11B40 Says:


    Senator Obama’s tactics are beginning to look like those of his Muslim non-brothers.

  13. Pat Says:

    Essential content and excellent logic — and the City Journal article that you linked is a superb expose of Ayers and his ilk’s complete assault on the minds of American students – a must-read for anyone interested in why few Americans are learning to think anymore.

    Thank you!

    “If this is the best Obama can do as a video rebuttal, I begin to wonder whether he has an effective answer”

    His prior use of intimidation and force through the unjust legal technicalities as documented by the Chi-Trib article you linked shows he’s just another pragmatist who rationalizes that his obtaining of political power justifies the destruction of individual rights like free speech.

    With the New Left now well in control of the Democratic Party, we’re only going to see more cases of reason being supplanted by force in the forms of censorship, campaign finance laws, FCC meddling, ballot box lawsuits, violence, etc.. Unless there is a rebirth of reason, the growth of censorship and other force will eventually lead to dictatorship.

    As Ayn Rand wrote in “The Voice of Reason:”
    “When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes. No, the average man is not morally innocent. But the best proof of his non-brutality, of his helpless, confused, inarticulate longing for truth, for an intelligible, rational world—and of his response to it, when given a chance he cannot create on his own—is the fact that no dictatorship has ever lasted without establishing censorship.”

    Your article is part of the courageous antidote!

  14. Pat Says:

    Peter rhetorically asks: “How is illegal domestic terrorism any different than the illegal foreign terrorism our government uses?”

    Although I agree that our foreign interventions are increasingly unlawful violations of the Constitution by the executive branch, this is moot relative to Peter’s fundamental premise.

    Peter’s premise (pacifism) is wrong because it equivocates between murder and killing in self-defense. The initiation of force (which the US has never done) is *not* retaliatory force.

    Pacifism is also fatal in practice because it’s moral agnosticism – leading always and everywhere for at least 2,000 years to the destruction of innocents at the hands of thugs and dictators.

  15. Danny Lemieux Says:

    Also, Pat, pacifism enables war.

    Pacifism is alive and well in the United States because North America was the last refuge to which Europe’s pacifist religions could run in order to escape persecution.

  16. njcommuter Says:

    If the AIP is hauled before the appropriate tribunal, charged, and cleared, could they then run an ad describing what Obama did to them, and asking what and whom he will censor next?

  17. nyomythus Says:

    A neo thread on “the U.S. Constitution and International Law” would be awesome 🙂

  18. Good Ole Charlie Says:

    All Hands:

    Recall what My Main Man, Nick Machiavelli, said about gauging the character of The Prince.

    Don’t have the quotes handy, but from Wikipedia on The Prince and his associates…

    “The selection of quality servants is reflected directly upon the prince’s intelligence, so if they are loyal the prince is considered wise; however, when they are otherwise, the prince is open to adverse criticism.” Machiavelli asserts that there are three types of intelligence:

    ” * The kind that understands things for itself- which is great to have.
    * The kind that understands what others can understand- which is good to have.
    * The kind that does not understand for itself, nor through others- which is useless to have.”

    If the prince does not have the first type of intelligence, he should at least have the second type. For, as Machiavelli states, “A prince must have the discernment to recognize the good or bad in what another says or does even though he has no acumen himself”.”.

    The Ayers Thingee should that at best, BHO has #2 – “good to have”.

  19. Artfldgr Says:

    well, its par for the left course… neo liberals are not liberals, they are communist authoritarians… i think its called communitarian…

    they attempted to lift the denver mint with their minds and then attacked michelle malking chanting kill michelle malkin in the background
    [reminds me of the SA – and history buffs remember what happened to them]

    and here is a video of england Labours use of law against its citizens. it should scare you becvause they use england to jsutify things here in the US under UN treaty…

    basically they fully search you. you cant turn it down, and they go through your wallets, affects, books… looking for things like “maps”

    ” these officers are not only searching the man’s belongings but frisking him, going through his pockets, looking in his wallet, and flipping through the books he reads. Notice the lie they tell. They argue that they are looking for anything that can be used by terrorists. But they start going through his credit cards and looking through his wallet. And then, when they find nothing wrong, they send in his details to check up on the man.”

    last night i posted documents that englands labor was targeted by communist tactics in the 30s, so the labour government now is very authoritarian and neo liberal.

    “local councils are using the antiterrorism surveillance systems to spy on “couples’ sleeping arrangements.” Taxes are based, not only on the value of property, but also on the number of people living there. So councils “undertake ‘surveillance’ of cars registered to addresses ‘to substantiate the allegation of living together.’” Documents from one council show they are checking to see if couples are living “as husband and wife.”

    obama is cut from the same cloth… the tactics here are that kind of tactics.

    if you dont have a point of merit to argue from you have to win by other means.

    it all comes from the premises that the innnocent people are unaware of. the end results that they cant work to.

    when the state gives out charity, or assigns taxes, the state now feels that if you dont pay your share, you are a criminal. the same will soon be true of those slackers at the protests…

    obama is working from the same socialist mandate where the saying “you have to crack a few eggs to make an omlette” comes from.

    that his mandate is bigger than things like real equality before the law.

    its a product of end justifies the means thinking of communism, an that the end being communism trumps all other things, so ANY means is ok.

    its sociopathic rule… i posted the quote from bakunin in the late 1800’s

    to quote a blogger on the mechanics:
    “the assumption that your wealth belongs to the government and they let you keep some of it. If you keep more of your own income then the government has to take more of other people’s income. So it is your fault that they are confiscating more wealth from other people. Thus keeping your own money is a crime against others.”

    they used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act up to 10,000 times a year to investigate such petty offences as dog fouling and under-age smoking


    they are the ones acting as fascists. and you can be sure that after they are in office, they will insure that in the future the justice department will do what they say, not do what is right.

    the thugs that support them in the street are a kind of SA for the movement. like the SA they wear special uniforms (hippie/nihilist/etc). they take their job of suppression of alternative views and merit very seriously. they project what they are and their actions on to the others, like a sociopath attacking a person with a weaker mentality and blaming them for the attack so that they can keep doing it.

    they are a rag tag crowd that is agitated by a few well placed people (some known some in masks) that act as agent provacateurs. their purpose is to make people afraid to stand up to them.

    the exact same tactic si what obama is using since he is going to make people afraid to question him for any reason that they can invent that will stick to the wall when they throw it.

    its all part of the normalization of such actiosn that has been going on since the 60s. that the normal way to resolve conflicts is in violent and supporessive group actions not in meritocritous discourse… [again if you dont have merit, and you refuse to walk away empty handed, you try to win by other means, since there is no higher authority to punish youf or invalid practices. the population no longer does]

    Agents provocateurs – the main weapon of the police state to suppress protests in the streets and legalize the end of the right to protest, during the transition to the terror state. -“autonome”, i.e. anarchists, extreme left, etc

    in other words, they are there to push the limit so far that no one can protest. that then gives them the excuse that the state appears to be the way that they will be later once they get it. its a moral equivalence.

    an example also is to use publicly available information to suppress support (which is why the left is using donation records to intimidate teh wealthy from freely supporting the candidate of your choice). its why they have been caught using fake names to get donations and use alternative means to get it. the list goes on.

    when will we wake up? its already too late!!!

    eventually we will pass an event horizon where no matter what we do, we will not be able to stop it till it completes its trend. this is what happened to the majority of the german people.

    the whole beast gets away from everyone and heads down the hill with no steering and no brakes as someone you dont want keeps you from such things.

  20. Artfldgr Says:

    “We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.” Khrushchev

    “It is our duty to inculcate in the minds of nations the theories of international friendship, pacifism, and disarmament, encouraging their resistance to military appropriations and training, without ever relaxing our own efforts in building our military equipment.” Rykov

    “The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. We shall begln by Launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends.” Manuilsky

    Lenin, the founder of the first Communist state, put it simply: “First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands.”

    “We must practice coexistence with other nations, until we are strong enough to take over by means of world revolution…. We are not pacifists. Conflict is inevitable. Great political questions can be solved only through violence…. It is inconceivable that Communism and capitalism can exist side by side. Inevitably one must perish.” Lenin

    Marxism-Leninism is particularly effective on the semantic level where it exhibits a devastating duality. It lulls its adversaries to sleep, while at the same time it mobilizes its followers to revolutionary action. The Communist International’s Seventh Congress concluded that open use of revolutionary terminology does not promote the Marxist-Leninist drive for world domination. Therefore, “revolution” has been changed into “liberation,” “world conquest by the proletariat” has speen changed into “peace and socialism,” “armed seizure of power and liquidation of the bourgeoisie” has been rephrased to read “peaceful and gradual transition to socialism.”

    Even the word “Communism,” which every revolutionary is so proud of, has been changed into “progressive, “anti-Fascist” or “liberal.” Further, to confuse their adversaries, the Marxist-Leninists have devised a new language which uses old words in the basic vocabulary. When they say “imperialism arouses the wrath of the people and digs its own grave,” they mean “through our manipulation of the local Communist parties, and with a vast auxiliary corps of dupes ; and sympathizers, we so arrange matters that the free enterprise system and democracy are destroyed from within. All we need to do is push it into the grave.”

  21. Artfldgr Says:

    they dont have to get you to accept communism as one whole entity too big to swallow.

    they only have to get us to accept socialism, as a seed that grows and grows as there is nothing to actually stop it.

    from the premises and the mandates come the actions that create totalitarianism.

    you dont have to accept the end result, you only have to accept that the first step is acceptable, then you will move till it grows and builds on itself and ends up with politicians sweeping our protections out of teh way for pragmatism, or expediency, and then applying force to solve problems (As the state hs nothing else).

    we have accepted the poison of socialism…

    the past 40-70 years has been watching how an acorn grows into a oak tree…

  22. Artfldgr Says:

    the main website for reference:

    target area to read if interested in the kinds of things that go on behind the media.

    The Literature of Intelligence:
    A Bibliography of Materials,
    with Essays, Reviews, and Comments

    lots of stuff there… but if your interested in how organizations like Acorn and other things converge to make changes, then digging here will give you an idea of the kind of things that the main press will not cover or even botehr with today (despite the fact that real information would be a financial boon).

    Soviet Active Measures in the “Post-Cold War” Era

    is an interesting read..

    especially this chapter:
    How Soviet Active Measures Themes Were Spread

    Recent investigations by the Russian supreme Soviet of CPSU funding of foreign communist parties have uncovered documentary evidence that during the 1980s the CPSU provided approximately $20 million per year in direct monetary aid to 98 different parties and movements on all continents.

    One of the most effective, most difficult to detect, and least understood areas of Soviet active measures is the use of agents of influence. Agents of influence are foreigners who have been recruited by the KGB in order to be used to influence the opinions of foreign publics and governments. Agents of influence are extremely useful because they are perceived as loyal patriots of their respective countries who are simply expressing their own personal opinions, not scripts written by the KGB and designed to dovetail with the current actions and priorities of Soviet foreign policy apparatus. The covert influence campaigns that they wage in public and private are not only the most difficult type of active measures operation to identify, but also potentially the most potent if the agent of influence is a senior government official or a respected public figure.

    agent of influence… change agent… agent of change… etc…

    In the June 6, 1992 issue of Human Events, Herbert Romerstein reported that “a retired high-ranking KGB officer with extensive knowledge about operations against the United States” had identified U.S. journalist I.F. Stone as a longtime Soviet agent of influence.

    and this is what leads us to what pertains to this stuff here… that the left sees these attacks on them as “active measures”, and so they do the same in response. the fact that they have no boundaries to tell what is acceptable or not, is how come their responses get them into trouble.

    they want the power to not be opposed.

    One key component of the “white” active measures apparatus was the Novosti Press Agency (APN). The activities of Novosti’s department of political publications, which specialized in active measures, were discussed in the Moscow newspaper Kuranty on September 19, 1991. The article provides an inside look at how the 30-40 active measures specialists working there on assignment from KGB’s Service A devised arguments and assembled information for covert media placements, which were then published in an unattributed or falsely attributed fashion throughout the world

    this is how the false story of georgia got out first. (i know people in the press and a couple called me to tell me of the phone call they got from their ‘friends’ in georgia, detailing the attrocities, within an hour or so of events!)

    The purposes of the part-time craftsmen, concentrated in the main editorial offices for political publications and some other structures, was to conduct “black propaganda:” to prepare articles, books, brochures, or simply argumentation in which, to the extent possible, the “Soviet ears” would be invisible. … it is not always convenient, for instance, to defend the interests of Kremlin policy with the help of “opuses” by official authors…. It is another matter if an independent newspaper or a magazine, published in faraway foreign cities and towns, publishes an article written from an entirely neutral position, using generalized facts found in Western publications, and on top of it is signed by a local journalist or public figure.

    …What is important is that these objectivist materials pushed the same ideas directed at Western politicians and ordinary folks: to boycott the Soviet market means to prolong unemployment; American grain sent to the starving people of Africa is poisoned by pesticides; the Soviets really do not have a superiority in tanks and missiles, and so on. The effect of the action depends, of course, not only on the quality and smartness of arguments prepared in the Western style, but also on where the unrenowned opus is published and under whose signature.

    …the disinformation operation … does not end with the publication of a skillfully planted scholastic thesis. The highest aerobatics is to quote an already planted “duck” in – this time – quite official propaganda: See, even the West European press is indignant over the machinations of the wily Uncle Sam. So, it is a sacred task for us to stop these wily efforts.

    40 years of this stuff has molded our view of our own country, programmed us to think that whatever the russians do is a lie, etc.

    this is how we went from father knows best, to the state knows best.

    40 years pretty much unopposed because by how its constructed, no one can think that their wells are poisoned.

    It is true that the topics sometimes shocked some “egghead Sovs.” Some refused under the pretext that the suggested interpretation of facts would not correspond to reality. Naive people, they sincerely tried to educate their telephone interlocutors, who looked to be complete ignoramuses in their eyes.

    ever wonder why the facts dont match reality and the writers seem to be from another planet… duh.

    and the concept of getting consensus and conciliatory actions (like obama)

    The Soviet penchant for using conciliatory tactics and compromise as a way to seek advantage was best explained in the 1989 monograph The Problem of Compromise in Politics as Seen by Lenin in the First Post-Revolutionary Years (1918-1921),
    The monograph explained the Leninist understanding of compromise as a temporary phenomenon, a “moment of agreement” that occurs when “the new … is not yet strong enough to completely overthrow the old.” It reminded the reader that a Leninist compromise “in no way minimizes revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle.”
    The most powerful enemy can be vanquished only be exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough, careful, attentive, skillful, and obligatory use of any, even the smallest, rift between the enemies, any conflict of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable, and conditional. (pp. 23-24)


    In his speech on “Points of Mutual Advantage: Perestroika and American Foreign Policy,” Secretary of State James Baker highlighted the danger of assuming that the fact that the Soviets used conciliatory slogans meant that they interpreted them in the same way that Westerners did. He stated, with reference to the U.S.-Soviet relationship:

    No relationship has been more difficult, or ultimately more promising. Difficult because traditional Soviet ideology has used the same words as we do – democracy, human rights, freedom, peace and justice – while in practice denying the values behind them.

    a little food for thought when you watch these media battles, and watch obamas fellow travelers take up arms against oponents.

  23. njcommuter Says:

    The worst of it is that someone who tries to teach the facts in the schools today will be accused of political indoctrination. The real indoctrination is passed off as basic education

  24. harry McHitlerburtonstein the Conservative Extremist Says:

    The Obama campaign is attempting to silence Chicago’s WGN radio because a local critic has brought up the Ayers connection.

    This from a article that this comment board will not allow me to link to.

    Obama campaign confronts WGN radio

  25. Paul Gordon Says:


    I’m going to take a shot at your link

    If that didn’t work, here’s an attempt by enclosing it in quotes

    If THAT didn’t work,… HELP!!! 🙁

  26. Paul Gordon Says:


    Well, I appear to have ended up with TWO attempted links, mis-titled.

    The top one (“If that didn’t work”) actually goes to the site.

    The next one (“http…”) misfires because of the trailing quote.


    You once had a sort of primer on this. Maybe you should provide a link to it on your main page.


  27. harry McHitlerburtonstein the Conservative Extremist Says:

    Thats close Gordon. Thanks.

  28. harry McHitlerburtonstein the Conservative Extremist Says:

    Neo’s website is attempting to suppress the truth!!

  29. Paul Gordon Says:

    Damn, Harry!

    Don’t you have a life?

    You’re as bad as me 🙂

  30. harry McHitlerburtonstein the Conservative Extremist Says:



  31. Paul Gordon Says:


    When I said you once had a primer, I think I was remembering a reply you made, not too long ago, on the subject of putting links in the comments.

    I don’t recall if you had elaborated in the reply, or referred to a page on the subject.

    Another reader also commented about another website that allowed previews (that one could then cancel from) allowing one to see beforehand what was going to appear.

    That could be incorporated in a how-to (linked on your main page), if you wish to wite about something other than “The One”, fruit molds, or dancing 🙂

    Just a thought…

  32. Artfldgr Says:

    for those who want to know about the ideology, the history, and such.

    Bloody History of Communism Part 1 of 3

    you can find the others if you like the first…

    note that very few in the west really know much of this, and this is just the basics…

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge