Hannity’s America to Uncover Obama’s “Radical” Past - Is This Appropriate?

Emails are flying around about Hannity’s America going to do a full feature expose of Obama’s “radical” past.

The following video is not actually done by Hannity but it is the same topic as one of the areas Sean is going to cover. The video features a man who was a child when Ayers bombed his family’s house. There is more after the jump … including the question of whether questioning Obama’s associations it appropriate.

I do think it is ok to hammer Obama to answer for his associations with his friends. I do think it is ok to expose that there are connections. But it is not ok to bear false witness.

It’s startling the number of very radical people (in my opinion) Obama is connected with. It’s fact: He went to church, for twenty years under Jeremiah Wright. Wright believes the teachings of a man, Mr. Cone, who says white people aren’t truly saved unless they give all they have to black people. Wright said that we deserved what we got on 9/11 and spoke the curse that God would damn America.

Fact: Obama has a longstanding relationship with Ayers. Ayers launched a full on terrorist attack on United States soil. Ayers, wasn’t as successful but is still a precursor to Timothy McVeigh. While these two, Ayers and McVeigh, aren’t quite along the same ideological spectrum, it doesn’t dismiss that both are homegrown terrorists who targeted innocent people.

When it comes to both Heaven and Earth … Obama doesn’t (or didn’t?) hang around with folks who are enlightened about either in my humble estimation.

At the same time, I don’t think Obama would have ever dreamed of bombing people or truly believes the most extreme tenets of Black Liberation theology. What I do believe is that he is an amazing opportunist willing to walk through certain doors, take certain liberties with rules (Rezko) and quite the strategist in being able to use those resources to propel him further on the political left. I say that because, technically, he took opportunities as they arose and is now the most powerful man in the Democrat party.

The scriptures say that you will “know them by their fruit.” If friendships (the “fruit” of relationships) are an indicator of who Obama is … he has a lot of explaining to do. However, he apparently doesn’t feel that in depth explanations are necessary (so far.) We as an electorate have to decide if that is ok with us.

These big philosophical and character issues are not a distraction from the big policy issues. I think we have all heard the big issues ad nauseam and neither candidate explains them past their talking points anyway (through the MSM). You have to go to the websites to actually read them in depth (Obama and McCain). So media attention on policy and character issues will always trend towards simplicity and cynicism.

Character determines a man or woman’s starting point in dealing with any issue. It’s fair to question the character of a person running for the Presidency or Vice Presidency (hello? Sarah Palin has been questioned about her character more than any of them.) It’s fair to question their associations. It’s fair to assume that Obama has been informed of these radical ideas but it is NOT fair to convict him of others sins from the past by implying that he would use the Presidency to accomplish *their* goals. Keep digging but stick to the facts and let them speak for themselves.

    Related posts (automatically generated)

Viewing 9 Comments

 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus