“Barack: Guilty By Association?” [Reader Post]

THREE exposes about Barack Obama have hit the top 20 lists virtually overnight. This brings back the whole question: ‘Whom did Barry know, and why did he know them?’ Some cried foul when these connections were first brought up, and continue to do so, but they are ignoring some common sense about associations.

There seems to be some confusion as to what ‘guilty by association’ means. It is a phrase used in the study of “Logic”. (Logic used to be taught in high schools. If it is found at all nowadays, it is taught in college Philosophy departments.) ‘Guilty by association’ is an “informal fallacy” of logic; it means that you reject someone’s logical argument because of those with whom he associates. I think we can all see how that is unfair and illogical.

However, we have the ability, and at times even the obligation to assess someone’s associations; we’ve always done it and we need to do it.

Probably the best example is getting a job. In every resume, we are required to provide “References”. We all know what these are: they are our closest associations, people who can vouch for our basic character and virtue. If I as an employer were to criticize you for the kind of people you hang around with, could you respond that he is using the ‘guilty by association’ card? Of course not! ‘Just because all of my closest associates are drug dealers doesn’t mean you can make anything of it!’ [Yeah, right! And I don’t have to give you a job, either.]

Other examples can be found when we have trials in courts of law. We can grill witnesses, jurors, lawyers and judges about who they know and why. One of the basic things we do is make judgments on associations because it is a basic way of getting at the truth. It’s something we have always done and there is no doubt it is something we have to do.

Now, Barack Obama is applying for the biggest job in the world! Also, part of the genius of our political system is the informal trial by fire candidates are forced to go through. We should take a good look at his references; the media should be forcing him to explain and account for his associations. These new books should be tested, studied and used to confront Obama and his campaign. What do we know so far? Let’s do a cursory review, shall we?

– In his own book, Obama identifies a strong influence on his youthful years, a man named “Frank”. We now know this is Frank Marshall Davis, who was a Communist Party member.

– We have all heard of Reverend Wright, but most have missed the main point: the main characteristic of “liberation theology” is that it is Marxist not Christian. (Obama has expressed doubts about the afterlife; is that a clue?) There is no way to miss this from a multitude of the church’s own statements. Obama donated large amounts of money to this group. When trouble broke about it, once again, Obama at first tried to deny knowing anything about what they teach; that it is “not particularly controversial”.

– Fr. Fleger is also part of this “liberation theology” cabal and everyone on the South Side knows it. As a state senator, Obama funneled hundreds of thousands of earmarks to Fr. Fleger and now claims to reject his message.

– William Ayers & Bernadette Dorn are unrepentant Marxist bombers. Obama’s attempts to pass them off as casual friends are totally disingenuous. He worked for Ayers for eight years, was associated with him in several other official ways and chose his house to launch his political career.

– Tony Rezko is a shady operative who has connected Obama to a host of radical figures. For instance, he used Rezko to make a large contribution to Hamid Dabashi (the one who invited Ahmadinijad to Columbia).

– At first, you could go to Obama’s web site and see many of this ilk featured. His main blogger on the site was an open Communist. (His site went down for ‘maintenance’ and ‘lost’ him; we can assume a lot of things have ‘disappeared’.) Remember the Che Guevera flag at his campaign headquarters in Texas and all the references to him on the site? Many of his ‘bundlers’ (those who get around contribution laws by putting large donors together) have been Communists or Marxists.

– During his “community organizer” stint, Obama made the choice to associate himself with the Saul Alinsky-style “revolution not revelation” model. Alinsky emphasized confrontational, polarizing, racially divisive tactics with a conscious Marxist bent. He is quoted as saying, “Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds (Communists) is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things….”

Now tell me this: would Barack Obama be able to get a job for the FBI or CIA with this Marxist background? And he wants us to hire him to lead the free world?

To be fair, basing a presidential choice just upon associations is not enough, but associations and ideology are, no doubt, going to have an affect on policy and on character. One possible complication in judging is that Marxism sanctions dishonesty about what one is really doing! Did you notice the globalist, redistrubutionist and other socialist references in his speech in Berlin? I won’t spend the time here to search for all the clues. I’ll leave it to all of you to decide where you see evidence of a ‘Marxist effect’.

In ancient Greece the Sophists tried to push the supreme power of Rhetoric. They said the power of persuasion is everything, no matter what the truth is. They were opposed by others who evolved into the line of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who said what is important is Truth, Character and Virtue. Let us not make the same mistake – let us choose Virtue and not Rhetoric. No matter what game he’s talking, we should find out if Obama is ‘guilty by association’.