Would you be friends with an unrepentant terrorist bomber?

“Anytime a bomb is used like this, it is an act of terror.”

Then why is he “family friends” with unrepentant terrorist bombers?

Ayers made those comments in the New York Times on 9/11/2001… the very day that New York was bombed again… that time with two airplanes. Coincidence? Maybe yes, maybe no. Examine the facts and draw your own conclusion.

If someone you knew admitted in 2001 that they were unrepentant about their previous terrorist bombing activities, would you remain their “family friend”?

Why did Obama remain “family friends” with Ayers after what Ayers was quoted as saying to the New York Times in 2001?

Before the 2008 election, the media tried to downplay the Obama-Ayers association, but after the election Ayers admitted the truth about their relationship.

Sarah Palin was right.

And CNN Fact Check was wrong.

It doesn’t matter how old Obama was when Ayers and Dohrn exploded their bombs, some of which killed innocent people.

It matters how old Obama was when Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Ayers said that in 2001, and Obama was indeed still “palling around” with his “family friend” in 2008.

If Obama truly believes what he said today, “Anytime a bomb is used like this, it is an act of terror”, then why did he remain friends with an unrepentant terrorist?

Would you be friends with an unrepentant terrorist bomber?

Would you vote against legislation that was intended to prevent infanticide?

Would you vote for someone who answered “Yes” to both of those questions?

If you voted for Obama, you voted for someone who voted against legislation intended to prevent infanticide, and remained friends with an unrepentant terrorist bomber.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Would you be friends with an unrepentant terrorist bomber?

  1. chrissythehyphenated says:

    “The New York Times is very good at what it does — which nowadays involves a lot of lying in service to a leftist agenda. There are the outright lies (such as the paper’s recent distortion of a police bias trial to make the NYPD appear racist), the lies of omission (such as its lack of full reporting on the Obama administration’s fatal acts of malfeasance and dishonesty in, say, the Benghazi and Fast and Furious scandals), and the atmospheric lies (such as its rose-colored reporting on the disastrous economy in bluer-than-blue California). Altogether, these lies combine to make the paper something like the Matrix: a plausible imitation of reality intended to deceive people so that their substance may be milked to feed an overweening state.”

    Dunno if you’re interested in the rest of the article, which is about New York theater. But I thought you’d get a kick out of the Matrix comparison. :)

    frontpagemag.com/2013/andrew-klavan/the-new-york-times-vs-david-mamet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s