[Vision2020] An Obama Dilemma

[No Weatherman]

> "Terrorist" describes their goals: they were attempting to change
> policies through use of public fear. "Vandalism" describes their
> methods: they did property damage, and didn't kill anyone other than
> -- incompetently -- themselves. Ex post facto, they claimed that they
> were going to step up and start killing people, but they didn't
> actually do that; that may be conspiracy commit murder. Incidentally,
> that's also what G. Gordon Liddy did with regard to Jack Anderson.

Clever parsing but it doesn't meet the dictionary test:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

Just because they didn't murder anyone (except the Brinks job) doesn't
mean their hands are clean and you conveniently forget that they
declared war against the USA, resolving to overthrow the government.
They were terrorists all the way. Their agenda was no different than
the 9-11 terrorists.

> Incidentally, I don't see that you've made any further defense of your
> assertion that Liddy was a great patriot.

Please show me where I defended Liddy or wrote that he was a great
patriot. I gave HIS justification for his behavior and made no attempt
to justify him.

> As a former nonprofit executive, I'm quite aware of what the fiduciary
> duties of such an executive are. They do not involve the selection of
> a nonprofit board: the board must be selected independently of the
> executive. Incidentally, the CAC did this the opposite way most
> nonprofits do it: usually, the president forms a board, then hires an
> executive. I suspect it was done this way because Ayers, as a
> potential grantee, *could not* be president of the board.

I'm not inclined to use your experience as a board member as a
standard to establish Ayers' purity. He was a terrorist and fugitive,
and then all of a sudden Mr. "Kill Your Parents" wants to influence
children's education. Do you really think he planned to play by the
rules? Seriously, given your understanding who do you think appointed
the board?

And I don't think you read this article because it documents that
Ayers did play a role in recruiting board members before he got the
money:

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamaayers-update-obama-campaign-has.html

Ayers wrote to the President of Brown University:

"We have given careful thought to the issues you raise in your letter.
We are working with Adele Simmons, Deborah Leff, and Pat Graham on
issues of management and governance to ensure that Chicago's Annenberg
Challenge initiative is successful . . . . a five to seven person
Board of Directors of highly respected Chicagoans is being assembled.
Pat Graham, president of the Spencer Foundation, has agreed to serve
and is willing to work with the Board."

Diamond writes,

"Graham, a prominent historian of education at Harvard, was President
of the Spencer Foundation at that time.  Thus, it is possible that
Ayers may have asked Simmons, Leff and Graham for ideas about board
members. But it was Ayers' responsibility to make sure an appropriate
board was, indeed, appointed.  That was not Graham's responsibility
nor Leff's."

Ayers had his filthy hands all over the operation. He's a control
freak who wants things done his way.



>
>> Interestingly, I noticed that you ignored this salient point from Diamond:
>>
>> "In social science and law, written contemporaneous records are
>> considered a more credible source than ex post recollections by only a
>> small number of the individuals involved. I thought the same standards
>> applied in journalism as well."
>
> Incidentally, Diamond's "evidence" takes this form:  "Bill Ayers had
> an executive role at CAC; that executive role conferred a fiduciary
> duty on him; that fiduciary duty must have given him a primary role in
> selecting the board of directors; Ayers must have selected Obama,
> QED."

Your construction on Diamond is incomplete. Read the article above.
And if you've read it then your construction is dishonest. He points
out too many holes in the Obama story.

> This is convincing to anyone without a whit of knowledge regarding
> nonprofit boards. The board of directors cannot be selected by someone
> with a financial stake in the nonprofit; doing so creates an inherent
> conflict of interest. The operative section of the tax code is here:
>
> "A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated
> for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the
> creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated
> individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such
> private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3)
> organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or
> individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a
> personal and private interest in the activities of the organization."

Right, Ayers is an upright citizen who was concerned about following
the letter of the law. I'm a believer.