Soccer Dad

1. Obama challenges the 2nd Amendment ... The Right To Bear Arms.

2. Obama challenges the 1st Amendment ... The right of Free Speech.
Obama pressures all media who accepts NRA advertising.

3. Obama wants a Civil National Security Force ... with the same budget as the Pentagon.

So, Obama does not want any opposition, so he stops Freedom of Speech.
Then, to make any opposition defenseless, he wants to take away our right to bear arms.
Next, he wants a Civil National Security force to put down any insurrection.

Sounds like the stepping stones to a leftist dictator taking over this country.

Part of the problem is that the media has decided not to exercise its own freedom of speech and instead chooses to reflect Obama's own talking points.

Instead of providing information or doing investigative reporting, the media now sees its role as a mentor to their audience on what they should be doing (and thinking).

I don't know that material that is clearly libellous is protected by the 1st Amendment. While prior restraint is disfavored in the law, the "right" (i.e. renewable privilege) to broadcast over airways owned in perpetuity by the public at large is not analogous to the printing press.

I have not seen any substantiation for the claims made in the Ayers ad other than that they sat on a board together. If you've ever sat on a board, you know that it's a far cry from being "friends"; generally, it's a matter of staying awake and drinking enough coffee to sit through the meetings.

What does it mean to "launch" a campaign? Does it mean that two future donors sat in a room together?

Here's a question: if this Ayers business has any truth, why isn't McCain using it? I don't mean the dirtballs who send fake Internet rumors to influence low-information fools; I mean John Sidney McCain, POW and war hero, Mr. Straight Talk Express? Why hasn't McCain put out an ad on his own with this? Why didn't McCain use this as an example of Obama's naivete and unfitness for national leadership? "My friends, do you want a President who is naive enough to associate with left-wing terrorists? That's not change we SHOULD believe in!" could be a tag line.

My theory? It's 100% buncombe and McCain doesn't want to get called out for repeating the buncombe that you always leave to the cheap seats operatives and 527, like the Swiftboating garbage in 2004 or the bogus rumors about McCain's illegitimate children in 2000 in South Carolina. That's why Obama's going after it directly.

Bruce,

First of all, the connection between Obama and Ayers is far more than sitting on the same board. As reported in the Wall Street Journal:

"Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home."

That would be the same Ayers that Obama describes as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood."

(Obama misrepresented about his close relationship with Rashid Khalidi as well.)

Stanley Kurtz has written:

"the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle"

Second, the McCain campaign HAS talked about Ayers--as far back as April.

We can only hope that McCain will continue to bring this up.

Adolf Hitler did the same thing before he started killing Jews. Civil National Security Force = Hitler's SS shock troops, Wow the similarities are endless, the 1940 antichrist and the new one. Good choice CLOWNS!