It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breitbart Confidant: Tapes Of Obama Will Be Released Soon

page: 17
71
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I think the tapes will show a much cozier relationship with Ayers. Ayers called Obama a family friend, indicating that he knew him through his family. Since I don't think he was in kenya much he must mean the Dunham's. Since grandma and grandpa can be ruled out that leaves Ann, Barry's mother.

So now we not only have connections to terrorists, we have mom consorting with terrorists. The values a child carries with him through life come from his parent's and his environment.

The fact that people don't see the problem here amazes me.

These connections are like blueprints for anarchy. You have the involvement of 2 very wealthy foundations, Ford and Annennberg, run by 3rd and 4th generation money. The stage when old money rebellion begins, the offspring become ashamed of their family's wealth and use it to fund causes. Some put out new age videos about lost knowledge and aliens, and some believe in a more radical approach.

If you want proof of that look at the Sea Shepard Conservation Society. A militant fringe "anti just about everything" group that engages in paracy on the high seas. They got one season of TV coverage out of Whale Wars and the donations flooded in. Not just a few bucks here and there, 7 figure gifts at a pop. These bored rich people can be dangerous when they start throwing that money around, they rarely think of the big picture consequences of their actions. Or, they're so spoiled and convinced they are right they just don't care.

I've alway's wondered how Obama got into Columbia, and how he paid for it. But it's starting to make sense now, he had handlers setting his path.
edit on 4-3-2012 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL

Originally posted by Grumble
Breitbart was a totally untrustworthy propaganda merchant. He would say anything to make a buck, and he was known to intentionally obfuscate the truth for his own purposes.

But whatever, he was going after that 'n-word' in the white house, and that is all you guys care about, so just keep eating the # the Breitbarts of the world are serving you.


wow are you that racist you feel the need to use the N-Word, while attacking others.
i am somewhat ashamed but not surprised.

his history has been mentioned it is no reason for his death the MSM do the same very thing daily on the news why not write a thread on their Obfuscating the views of millions?
edit on 3/4/2012 by -W1LL because: (no reason given)


The context of my using the 'n-word' was to point out that THIS is the real reason for the otherwise irrational hatred of our president. I tried to deny it, I didn't want to believe it, but now I have accepted the truth. The hatred of Obama is pure bigotry.

The MSM do not do the same as Breitbart on a daily basis. Breitbart was not a journalist, he was a propaganda artist. Such people exist on both sides, so it is not like he was alone in this, but to find moral equialency between him and the MSM is laughable.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Grumble
 


I'm curious.
Who do you consider to be a trusted news source?


To some extent, the BBC, ABC/CBS/NBC, the remaining big city newspapers (not tabloids), other periodicals like the Economist. But I don't really trust any of them and I read opposing viewpoints and news from other countries in order to try to get the real story. Breitbart, Drudge, Fox News, Rush = not news sources. Neither are Olberman, Maddow, MSNBC, etc.

The problem is that people are not reading and listening broadly enough to draw their own conclusions. With all of the choices now available, people stick to sources that reinforce their existing prejudices, so we end up with completely isolated political cultures and the radicalization of the parties.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I skimmed quickly, but if Breitbart was killed as part of a conspiracy wouldn't it be logical for those who killed him to go after the person with the tape or find a way to damage the tape before it's released?

If the tape is as incriminating as those who allege, so much so that Breitbart had to die for it, it doesn't make sense for the tapes to be released without any damage to the tape or the person releasing them.

I personally don't think the tapes, if they even exist, will be that interesting. All it will do is confirm your dislike of Obama if you disliked him to begin with and those who like to defend him will continue to do so with the release of the tape.

Even if it turned out that Ayers and Obama were the best of friends during his college years that doesn't mean much as people change with age. I've known people in college to become much more conservative as they get older and vice versa.

Plus, we all seem to forget, that a lot of people do the most stupid things in college, especially when involved in the party scene or simply living out those first years of freedom. There is a college kid somewhere right now doing something so embarrassing and stupid that if it were taped and released 20 years later he/she would be mortified.

I feel sorry for anyone age 19-22 today that wants to run for president in the future. You literally cannot make any mistakes lest they haunt you decades later and be shown as signs of your incompetence and lack of fidelity to your country. Could you imagine if we saw what JFK or even Reagan did when they were younger and less experienced?

We would have never voted for them.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

I meant that you're the type of person who is able to rationalize anything in your mind in order to make it seem not so evil.


Not even close. I already stated, for example, that I don't condone the bombings. They take an already propagandized ideology and add more fuel to the fire. I also know that at one point Ayers did justify killing at one point as well. I disagree on that as well and feel that thought is despicable. But the truth is he never killed anyone or directly influenced anyone to do so.


You're writing his statements off as jokes when that has never been discussed by either Ayers or anyone else, yet you've decided that he was kidding. How are you able to come to this conclusion? If it was a joke, don't you think he would say that instead of stating that he doesn't have any memory of making these statements and encouraging bombings and murders?



"Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,' is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but 'it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,' he said. 'It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.'"


In other words he doesn't remember having said it, but he did hear it back then and recalls it being in the context of a joke. Upon reading this again I realize he's actually jokingly saying that he is beginning to believe he actually said it because so many people have attributed it to him.


Ayers had some radical ideas and I don't believe that you or anyone should rationalize his statements and actions as jokes or things kids do on a playground with their GI Joe dolls.


His ideas on things like bombings were definitely too radical for me, and I'm not a communist myself, but his ideas on democracy and worker control, for example, are in line with my ideas. There's nothing wrong with radical beliefs. The founding fathers of the US were the radicals of their day. Were their views bad because they opposed the governance that ruled over them?


In today's time, people can joke about having a bomb in their luggage and nobody's laughing. Yet, you believe Ayers should be forgiven for his views about bombs and murder.


And I don't think people should be punished for that, no matter how much it is in poor taste.


Interesting word choice


It's a pretty common word. Typical conservative thinking for you to assume because I used a word I'm automatically associating myself with a specific set of beliefs.

I also just noticed that the background where your avatar would be is red.
Are a supporter of communism?

I am not, but my beliefs are most closely related to mutualism which is a form of left-wing anarchism/market socialism, and yes, the red is there to symbolize that.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Has this been mentioned and I missed it? Ayers admits to writing
BHO's book about his father. And don't forget, Ayers knows Obama's
children but wont say how?

Are they all cons...liars? Yes and so much worse!



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
Has this been mentioned and I missed it? Ayers admits to writing
BHO's book about his father. And don't forget, Ayers knows Obama's
children but wont say how?

Are they all cons...liars? Yes and so much worse!


Most people would like to forget the theory that Ayers scribes Obama's contrived "Dreams..." Analysts have compared Obama's book with the many writings of Ayers and claim to get a dead match. (No writings from Obama to really compare it to).

There is definitely a con job going on. Ayers and Obama have a clear history together as does Ayers' wife and Michelle Obama. Yet, Obama tried to distance himself once from Ayers by simply calling him a man who lives on my street an acquaintance. Yeah... That's utter BS when you consider their work together with the Annenberg Challenge.

For your reading pleasure


Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.

The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago's public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy.

In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.


How dumb does Obama think we are?
Read on..
online.wsj.com...
www.nationalreview.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 



How dumb does Obama think we are?
Dumb enough that he has a statistical chance of re-election in November, with his poor track record for the last 3+ years!
I guess he isn't so wrong.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
The Vetting, Part I: Barack's Love Song To Alinsky

www.breitbart.com...


Prior to his passing, Andrew Breitbart said that the mission of the Breitbart empire was to exemplify the free and fearless press that our Constitution protects--but which, increasingly, the mainstream media denies us.

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” – “Who guards the guardians?” Andrew saw himself in that role—as a guardian protecting Americans from the left’s “objective” loyal scribes.




In 1998, a small Chicago theater company staged a play titled The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the life and politics of the radical community organizer whose methods Obama had practiced and taught on Chicago’s South Side.

Obama was not only in the audience, but also took the stage after one performance, participating in a panel discussion that was advertised in the poster for the play.

Recently, veteran Chicago journalist Michael Miner mocked emerging conservative curiosity about the play, along with enduring suspicions about the links between Alinsky and Obama. Writing in the Chicago Reader, Miner described the poster:

Let's take a look at this poster.

It's red—and that right there, like the darkening water that swirls down Janet Leigh's drain [in Psycho’s famous shower scene], is plenty suggestive. It touts a play called The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, Alinsky being the notorious community organizer from Chicago who wrote books with titles like Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. On it, fists are raised—meaning insurrection is in the air.

And down at the very bottom, crawling across the poster in small print, it mentions the panel discussions that will follow the Sunday performances. The panelists are that era's usual "progressive" suspects: Leon Despres, Monsignor Jack Egan, Studs Terkel . . .

And state senator Barack Obama.

Miner obscured the truth. His article only reveals only a small portion of the poster. Here’s the whole poster:


“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” – “Who guards the guardians?”
edit on 083131p://bMonday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


And they mis spelled Obama's name on the poster !!!

"Sen. Baraka Obama"

"Sen. Baraka Obama"

How many names does he have now ?

"Baraka



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


And they mis spelled Obama's name on the poster !!!

"Sen. Baraka Obama"

"Sen. Baraka Obama"

How many names does he have now ?

"Baraka




Very observant,



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

The problem is that people are not reading and listening broadly enough to draw their own conclusions. With all of the choices now available, people stick to sources that reinforce their existing prejudices, so we end up with completely isolated political cultures and the radicalization of the parties.


This is just too profound to be lost in a thread. I think you should make this a part of your signature, seriously.
beautiful summation.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grumble

Originally posted by -W1LL

Originally posted by Grumble
Breitbart was a totally untrustworthy propaganda merchant. He would say anything to make a buck, and he was known to intentionally obfuscate the truth for his own purposes.

But whatever, he was going after that 'n-word' in the white house, and that is all you guys care about, so just keep eating the # the Breitbarts of the world are serving you.


wow are you that racist you feel the need to use the N-Word, while attacking others.
i am somewhat ashamed but not surprised.

his history has been mentioned it is no reason for his death the MSM do the same very thing daily on the news why not write a thread on their Obfuscating the views of millions?
edit on 3/4/2012 by -W1LL because: (no reason given)


The context of my using the 'n-word' was to point out that THIS is the real reason for the otherwise irrational hatred of our president. I tried to deny it, I didn't want to believe it, but now I have accepted the truth. The hatred of Obama is pure bigotry.

The MSM do not do the same as Breitbart on a daily basis. Breitbart was not a journalist, he was a propaganda artist. Such people exist on both sides, so it is not like he was alone in this, but to find moral equialency between him and the MSM is laughable.



This is almost to funny to respond to. The truth of the matter is obamas simply the worse President we've ever had. (Which should make jimmy carter feel better) He's added more debt in three plus years then President Bush did in eight. Has done nothing to help this country: Ban on drilling here in the US, turned down the Keystone Pipeline, created a new form of welfare by extending unemployment to over two years, gutting our military. But if that makes me a bigot for pointing out just a few of obamas screw ups then so be it.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Why not release the tapes now - today this second???

They must be working hard on the edits or money is changing hands!



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by jibeho
 



How dumb does Obama think we are?
Dumb enough that he has a statistical chance of re-election in November, with his poor track record for the last 3+ years!
I guess he isn't so wrong.



If Obama continues to lose the Independent supporters who tossed him a bone in 2008 he will continue to ratchet up his campaign to hit the bottom of the barrel.

Honestly, I thought he would have been forced into a primary election by now. There are plenty of Democrats who are not pleased with Obama and his policies. Obama infuriated the left when he launched attacks on Libya and Ghaddafi. I thought that was going to be the moment to bring out an opponent. For some reason they all backed off...

Will the aforementioned groups just stay home in November??



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
Why not release the tapes now - today this second???

They must be working hard on the edits or money is changing hands!


Or they are just making Obama's campaign team and his spin doctors sweat a little. Meanwhile, the Breitbart Bunch is kicking back and sipping mint juleps.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I think the tape will be edited by some very scared little editors
as the cartels that eric holder recently armed say: "silver or lead"
rich or dead



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
Why not release the tapes now - today this second???

They must be working hard on the edits or money is changing hands!


Timing is everything in politics.

My guess is that they are assessing the best time to release them so they achieve maximum effect.

Maybe Super Tuesday will be a factor, depending on how it turns out.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
My point is Breitbart sleeps with the fishes & if you release that tape you will join him.

Are we ever going to see it - I have my doubts. Holder could be putting flame to it as we speak.

Peace



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
i feel like i'm in the damn Twilight Zone. it perplexes me that Breitbart, for whom there is substantial evidence that he doctored almost every piece of evidence he ever presented against his opponents, is not only held up as a credible source, but even praised as a hero and now a martyr, as if there's some conspiracy theory behind his death. you right-wing nutcases truly baffle me.

he was out of shape, had a history of heart conditions, and as it seemed from all the times i ever saw him in video, he was a highly stressful person. he died of a heart attack and this isn't a mystery. there was no plot here. no, the timing wasn't mysterious, because Obama isn't stupid enough to give two #s about this guy who, to everyone that has any inclination to vote for him, recognizes that Breitbart was deceitful and stupid. he's also trying to rehash a line that FAILED MISERABLY back in 2008. why did Breitbart and co think it would work this time around?? Obama has no serious opponents. it would be nice to see Ron Paul take Obama's place as i do not care for Obama much myself, but we all know that won't happen and Romney is going to end up being his only contender (at least that will be better than the idea of Santorum or Gingrich taking office), and we also all know that Romney doesn't stand a chance either, and honestly, despite how bad Obama has been, it's better than having anyone on the GOP ticket (except, as i said, Ron Paul). and to those saying Obama is the worst president our country has ever known, get real. people were saying that for Bush 4 years ago as well. look at history. we've had a sleuth of horrible presidents that contend with or even trump the two most recent ones, though i will admit both Bush and Obama rank pretty poorly. look at Hoover, Grant, Truman, Nixon, Johnson, Carter, and just for you hardcore Friedmanite conservatives, Reagan. they all have sucked pretty bad as well as many others. the problem isn't who is in office, it is the very system they operate in. we're not going to see anything better than Obama out of any other candidates. even Ron Paul's presidency would be a let down because the system itself is rigged to prevent his policies from being all that effective, and there are a lot of things i highly disagree with that he believes as well. that's the problem with electoral politics. if we are not given more direct control, we won't get what we want, even with the most benevolent masters.

building ties between Obama and Ayers, which has already been tried and failed, is not going to have any effect. the same people that plan to vote for him will vote for him and the same people that will vote against him will simply have another reason to vote against him. the only thing that Breitbart is going to do with this video is give Ayers some publicity and therefore give him a stronger voice, which i don't mind because i agree with his ideas (though not necessarily with what he and the Weather Underground did) far more than i agree with Obama's. i personally wish Obama was actually a bit more like Ayers.

anyways, here's a TYT video that sums up my attitude towards Breitbart's death nicely:




new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join