I find it interesting that these news sources are out in the open about Obama's associations with William Ayres. I wonder why none of this was pointed out before the election? Now William Ayres is denied emeritus status at University of Illinois. The reasons why are what makes this whole thing worth reading.

In a very unusual move, University of Illinois trustees Thursday denied giving emeritus status to controversial retired professor William Ayers.

The vote, at a U. of I. board meeting in Urbana, was unanimous and came after a passionate speech by board chair Christopher Kennedy, who invoked the 1968 assassination of his father, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, in saying that he was voting his conscience.

The other trustees, without comment, also voted against the appointment.

Ayers, the Vietnam War-era radical, had been an education faculty member at UIC since 1987. He retired effective Aug. 31 and then sought the emeritus faculty status, a largely honorific title that includes some benefits such as library privileges.

This is strange, I wonder what why William Ayres is controversial?

A co-founder of the Weather Underground anti-war group, Ayers was frequently in the media spotlight and, as such, was one of the university's best-known faculty members.

While trustees regularly vote on emeritus appointments, they rarely comment about them.

But in an emotional statement, Kennedy discussed his reasons for voting against Ayers' request.

"I am guided by my conscience and one which has been formed by a series of experiences, many of which have been shared with the people of our country and mark each of us in a profound way," Kennedy said.

He said he could not confer the title "to a man whose body of work includes a book dedicated in part to the man who murdered my father."

Kennedy was referring to a 1974 book co-authored by Ayers, "Prairie Fire," which was dedicated to a long list of people including Robert Kennedy assassin Sirhan Sirhan and "all political prisoners in the U.S."

Ayers became a controversial figure in Barack Obama's presidential campaign because they worked on a school-reform initiative together, leading opponents to say Obama was linked to a "terrorist." UIC was forced to release more than 1,000 files detailing the activities of that group. The university also faced questions in 2001 after Ayers wrote in his memoir about helping with the non-fatal bombings of government buildings.

According to the UIC faculty handbook, the granting of emeritus status is "based on merit" and is "an extraordinary title that is given for extraordinary service."

It would appear that Obama was indeed involved with a terrorist. Ayres wrote in his book that he helped in the bombings of government buildings. What else do you need?

Obama announced his bid for senate in the living room of William Ayres' house.

Obama’s connections to Ayers and Dorhn have been noted in some fleeting news coverage in the past. But the visit by Obama to their home — part of a campaign courtship — reflects more extensive interaction than has been previously reported.

How can anyone NOT question Obama's love of country when he hangs out with people who have written books about their dislike of America -- and how to strategically take it down? People who obviously get along well with him.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I was wondering the other day; how are the democrats are going to attempt to spin their tax strategy?

Let's use the democrat premise for a minute. If the extension of The Bush Tax Cuts are, in effect, now The Obama Tax Cuts; why was their expiration not considered a tax increase just months ago?

The democrats reasoning behind the extension of The Bush Tax Cuts (for the middle class) is that it will help middle income earners by allowing them to keep more of their money and increase economic activity. Is this not an admission that increased taxes cause decreased economic activity? If so, why not keep taxes lower for everyone and spur even more economic activity? We are indeed in an economic downturn; why would the government want to do anything which results in decreased economic activity?

Taxes are money taken out of the free market by government. Tax money is then redistributed by the government as the government sees fit. If the so called "tax cuts for the rich" are going to cost the government 700 billion dollars, are they not also keeping 700 billion dollars in the free market --where economic activity is generated. To compound this; the Bush Tax Cuts included dividend and capital gains tax reductions. Dividends and capital gains are effected by inflation, so taxing them at a rate higher than income will result in a reduction of capital investment. In other words, with dividends or capital gains, you are being taxed on the money your earn on your investment. This tax rate does not take into effect inflation. So, capital gains and dividends are taxed at an ever increasing rate because the tax rate does not account for inflation.

If you pay close attention to what the democrats are saying, it makes no sense at all. On many of the Sunday talk shows numerous democrats have pointed to tax increases for millionaires and billionaires, and then talk about tax increases for those making over 250 thousand dollars a year. have you ever heard of any millionaires much less billionaires who make 250k a year. Another point to ponder is this. The democrats claim that tax increases on those making more than 250k a year will not have much of an effect on small business owners. Are there that many people out there making more than 250k who are working for someone else? Are there many people out there working behind a desk making 250k a year? The truth is that the majority of people making more than 250k a year are small business owners.

Nobody goes on a job hunt for jobs grossing 250k a year, because they already know that they won't find one.

The democrats are hinging on the hope that you will buy their faulty logic. The democrats hope that you have enough hatred for those making more than 250k a year that you will punish them with tax increases via elected officials. I don't think that there is that much hatred out there. I don't think that the American public is as stupid as the democrats would hope. Let's keep surprising them!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Do you ever wonder what Obama is thinking? Well now you can see for yourself. This article, by Dinesh D'Souza, is the most brilliant explanation of how Obama thinks. You can't read this and not learn something.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is now telling America what qualifies as hallowed ground. Every time Rauf speaks, he makes more and more people angry.

NEW YORK – It is two blocks from ground zero, but the site of a proposed mosque and Islamic center shouldn't be seen as "hallowed ground" in a neighborhood that also contains a strip club and a betting parlor, the cleric leading the effort said Monday.

While opponents of the project see it as insulting the memories of the thousands killed by Muslim extremists in the 2001 terrorist attacks, Rauf said he doesn't see the spot as sacred memorial space.

"It's absolutely disingenuous, as many have said, that that block is hallowed ground," Rauf said, noting the nearby exotic dance and betting businesses. "So let's clarify that misperception."

He said the Islamic center's organizers were surprised and saddened by the uproar and might not have pursued it had they known what was coming. But he declined to detail any strategy for quieting the clamor — or say whether that might include moving the project.

Public receptiveness toward Rauf's idea of creating a hub of moderate Islam "is being undermined by his inability to take a quick decision," said Muqtedar Khan, a University of Delaware political scientist and author of "American Muslims, Bridging Faith and Freedom." "It's time for him to be very specific: Is it staying, or is it moving?"

While not answering that, Rauf suggested the locale's high profile served an important purpose for the proposed $100 million Islamic center, which will feature prayer space as well as a swimming pool, culinary school, art studios and other features.

"We need to create a platform where the voice of moderate Muslims would be amplified," Rauf said.

Rauf is completely incoherent. He claims that the proposed site is NOT a sacred memorial space, defending the location of the mosque. Then he says that the Islamic center's organizers were surprised and saddened by the uproar and might not have pursued it had they known what was coming. He goes on to say that the locale's high profile served an important purpose for the proposed $100 million dollar Islamic center.

If the mosque's organizers picked that location for its strategic significance, why would they be surprised when people took notice? Rauf says, "We need to create a platform where the voice of moderate Muslims would be amplified." Pushing the mosque issue is the best example of how Rauf feels about America as a whole.

It seems to me that Rauf is spinning a web a little too big for him to keep in check. He has contradicted himself far too many times to be honest.

At his point the mosque is being used to force an Islamic center on New York, and America. An Islamic center that a majority of New Yorkers and Americans don't want. An Islamic center, being built in spite of its proposed purpose.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Terry Jones, the pastor who "says" he'll burn the Koran on 9/11 is getting much more than he expected. I'm not referring to all of the negative publicity from U.S. leaders, but that of leaders overseas. What's happening here should be noted.

The president of Indonesia, home of the world's largest Muslim population, called on the United States to ensure that no burnings took place.

"I continue to urge the government and the people of the United States to ensure the prevention of such an incomprehensible, irrational and immoral act," Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said in a speech.

Both Muslim and Christian groups in Pakistan, another large mainly Muslim country, also denounced the planned action.

(Reporting by Ahmad Elham and Sayed Salahuddin; Additional reporting by Jakarta and Islamabad bureaux, Editing by Paul Tait and Ron Popeski)

We have a foreign leader saying that he wants the U.S. government to stop Terry Jones! Think about that for a minute. Where are the 1st Amendment Rights groups on this one?

I'm still wondering if the U.S. Constitution is going to be the law of the land? We DO NOT live in a theocracy. It would seem that the president of Indonesia doesn't understand our legal system, or is it that he doesn't care?

A foreign leader is feels as if the U.S. government should play a direct role in whether or not Terry Jones gets to torch the Koran. That foreign leader is not worried about what will happen in the United States or to the United States, they are worried about what will happen within their own countries.

That is the most telling part in all of this. Terry Jones is causing some in the world to take a second look at Islam.

When foreign leaders of majority Muslim populations are worried about violence in their country because 50 out of 340 million Americans get together to torch a book; you start to get the picture.

Why are some foreign leaders worried about violence when their countries are inhabited (primarily) with the followers of "The Religion of Peace"?!

Tell me what you think in the comments.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.