In Part 5 below, I outline points 12) to 16), five more troubling actions of Barry Soetoro prior to his election.
12)Soetoro's refusal to wear an American flag lapel
Not only did Soetoro refuse to wear an American flag lapel pin, he actually admitted the omission was done purposely:
"'I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest,' the Democratic presidential candidate told the reporter Tuesday in Iowa City, Iowa. 'Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great. Hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.'
"'I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest,' the Democratic presidential candidate told the reporter Tuesday in Iowa City, Iowa. 'Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great. Hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.'
Obama touched upon the exchange again Wednesday at a speech in Independence, Iowa.
'I haven't worn that pin in probably a very long time. I wore it right after 9/11. But after a while, you start noticing people wearing the lapel pin but not acting very patriotic,' he said. 'My attitude is that I'm less concerned with what you're wearing on you lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those ones who serve.'"
That logic is so bizarre, how could it not be likely to be representative of a desire by Soetoro to be unpatriotic or anti-American?
It's true that patriotism is better demonstrated by acting patriotically rather than simply wearing the lapel; but why wouldn't one do both? Why wouldn't a patriotic person act patriotically and wear the pin?
How could Soetoro not be unpatriotic, or worse, anti-American?
Now listen, I certainly think that people have the right to be upset with many or most governmental actions conducted by their country. I am certainly disturbed by many actions the US government has engaged in over the years.
But if that's the case in Soetoro's situation, why would he act unpatriotic? Does that mean that he doesn't like his own country, and wouldn't want to improve it? Wouldn't he want to improve the country?
If he does want to improve it, is it wise to act unpatriotic? Exactly whose votes is he aiming to receive? Foreigners from anti-American nations can't vote in the US election, after all!
And if he is disturbed by the USA's actions, is he upset with the government or the people? The government certainly isn't representative of the people. Aside from being common sense, one need only look at the public's very low approval ratings of Congress.
If he is upset with the people, then what's the point of being elected? Why govern people you dislike? For control? For payback? To destroy them? What exactly is Soetoro's agenda?
So Soetoro actually admitted that he acted intentionally when refusing to wear the American flag lapel. And people actually voted for him!
While the National Anthem was sung, and while competitors Bill Richardson and Hilary Clinton placed their hand over their chest, Soetoro refused to place his hand over his chest.
When confronted about this, Soetoro did not deny this! He claims that he has never refused to sing the National Anthem, but when you read closely you'll notice he never actually denies that he didn't place his hand on his chest!
Of course, it's not realistic to believe that a US Senator did not know that etiquette is for one to place the hand over the chest. Obviously, he would've seen this transpire dozens of times over his career.
But even if one mistakenly didn't place their hand over their chest, what would one do if later confronted about it? Would one admit the mistake and be sure to clarify the situation, or would one just be silent about it, implying that it may have been done purposely? The obvious answer should be clear.
And we know what Soetoro didn't do. He didn't deny his actions. At least not in the letter referenced in the article above.
So, Soetoro refused to place his hand over his chest while the National Anthem was sung, even though his actions were blatant by comparison with the actions of his competitors (who did place their hands over their chest). And people actually voted for him!
First: who is Bill Ayers? Answer:
"In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group."
According to Wikipedia, Ayers' memoir "Fugitive Days" says that "Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972."
It is unclear as to whether Ayers still supported terrorism at the time Soetoro started campaigning for President. During 2001, Ayers had made comments that could be interpreted as suggesting that he didn't regret the bombings, that he wished more bombs had been set. However, Ayers said that the comments were taken out of context, and he condemned terrorism in 2008. Did he repent only as a result of pressure?
Look at this picture of Ayers standing on the American flag. Remind you of anyone? It reminds me of Soetoro's refusal to wear the American flag lapel, his refusal to place his hand over his chest while the National Anthem was sung, and his wife's unpatriotic comments.
In 2009, Ayers was barred from entering Canada.
So, what is Soetoro's connection to the former terrorist?
Soetoro and Ayers were described as friends with similar political interests. Soetoro visited the home of Ayers, and both Ayers and Soetoro served on the board of a Chicago foundation.
"Obama and Ayers served together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty foundation established in 1941. Obama had joined the nine-member board in 1993, and had attended a dozen of the quarterly meetings together with Ayers in the three years up to 2002, when Obama left his position on the board, which Ayers chaired for two years."
"The two also appeared together on academic panel discussions, including a 1997 University of Chicago discussion on juvenile justice. They again appeared in 2002 at an academic panel co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library. One panel discussion in which they both appeared was organized by Obama's wife, Michelle."
So, they knew each other at least fairly well, and saw each other at least fairly often. Was their friendship very strong? Did they both support terrorism? That is not clear.
Perhaps one should ask Soetoro himself what their relationship was.
When it was exposed that Soetoro attended the function at Ayers' home, Soetoro's chief strategist, Axelrod said:
"Well I mean, when he went, he certainly — he didn’t know the history."
Can you believe that?! That is not very believable at all. How could an up and comer not know the terrorist history of a well known person in the neighborhood?
Also in support of my points, note these points:
1) In Bill Ayers' book "A Kind and Just Parent", Ayers mentions the prominent people that live in his neighborhood, and mentions "writer Barack Obama." (Regardless of the timeline, it suggests that Ayers may have known Obama personally at one point).
2) Soetoro, as state Senator, reviewed Ayers' book and provided a positive review.
It is very clear they knew of each other.
During a debate, Soetoro was asked about his relationship with Ayers. He said:
"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.
Now, I don't know what your impression is, but my impression is that that doesn't exactly sound like a stinging rebuke of Bill Ayers, even with the inclusion of the word "detestable".
Worse, Soetoro fails to address the fact that Soetoro's choice to 1) attend a function at the home of a terrorist, 2) sit on the board with a terrorist and 3) attend panel discussions with a terrorist are all events that could easily, perhaps likely, reflect on Soetoro and his values. Soetoro made these choices as an adult, not as an eight year old.
Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! He had chosen to associate with a former terrorist many times over the years. And people actually voted for him!
Reverend Wright was the Pastor at the church that Soetoro attended for decades. He said
"blacks should not sing 'God Bless America'" but rather "'God damn America.'"
Here is some text from Wright's sermons:
'We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans..."
State terrorism against Palestinians? First, it's arguable as to who should be able to live in Israel proper. But we do know that Israel's occupation of some added territories (such as the West Bank) occurred after Israel was attacked by several Arab countries. We do know that terrorist attacks by "Palestinians" in Israel far outnumber terrorist attacks by Israelis in the territories. And we do know that people of "Palestinian" descent can live and vote in Israel, unlike most, if not all, of the Arab world.
And Wright actually believes that the USA supported state terrorism against the Palestinians? Where and when and how?
Here are more comments:
"'The government gives them the drugs...'"
“'Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary ain't never been called a n——-.'”
“'Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary ain't never been called a n——-.'”
“'They will not only attack you if you try to point out what’s happening in white America. U.S. of KKK A.'”
"'We started the AIDS virus...'"
What was Soetoro's response to the expose of his relationship with Wright?
During March 2008, Soetoro said:
"'The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.'"
Now, Soetoro named his book after the first sermon of Wright ("The Audacity of Hope"); Wright wedded Soetoro and his wife, and baptized his children. Also, Soetoro donated $22,500 to Wright's church. Is it reasonable to believe that Soetoro would be unaware of Wright's hostile views? Of course not.
During his famous speech in March 2008, Soetoro defended the man but not his words, claiming:
"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."
"Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way."
Now, since Soetoro was talking about the possibility of switching churches during the past, it's clear the context is the past. But notice that Soetoro strongly implies that he actually did hear the troubling sermons of Wright (during the past)!
This is implied by the comment: "...if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets..." This implies that he knew of the sermons, but knew of other information as well. He goes on to imply that he overlooked those sermons as a result of other aspects of Wright's personality!
This is very important, of course, because Soetoro had previously denied that he had been aware of Wright's troubling comments! This is the very first time that I've ever seen this gaffe exposed!
Soetoro said:
"Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect."
Is that believable? Not likely.
Later in 2008, during a debate, Soetoro said:
Gibson:
But more than a year ago, you rescinded the invitation to him to attend the event when you announced your candidacy. He was to give the invocation. And according to the reverend, I'm quoting him, you said to him: 'You can get kind of rough in sermons. So, what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public.' I'm quoting the reverend.
But what did you know about his statements that caused you to rescind that invitation? And if you knew he got rough in sermons, why did it take you more than a year to publicly disassociate yourself from his remarks?"
If there was any doubt, it seems that Soetoro was aware of the Reverend's comments after all.
Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! He had chosen to associate with a Pastor who made many troubling, anti-American comments. And people actually voted for him!
During the 2008 Democratic nomination process, Michelle Obama said:
"'For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."
Now, is it believable that Soetoro would've been unaware of her unpatriotic views prior to marrying her?
No, it's not very believable. Now, Michelle Obama has a right to be unhappy about things her country has done. The problem is this: I find that people who are verbally unpatriotic also tend to be people who are dangerously illogical left-wing radicals. Conversely, I find that people who are logical (and are unhappy with many aspects of their country) tend to be verbally patriotic.
Remember, during his campaign, Soetoro was campaigning on a platform of honesty and transparency and change! He had chosen to marry a woman who may have been an unpatriotic, radical anti-American woman. And people actually voted for him!
In Part 6 of "The Troubling Election of Barack Obama", I will conclude with an analysis of the voter mindset during the 2008 election process.
No comments:
Post a Comment