Bill Ayers: Yeah, I wrote “Dreams from My Father” 
 
 posted at 9:08 pm on March 28, 2011 by Allahpundit 
 
 Via the American Thinker. I think John Hawkins is spot on in detecting the sarcasm here, but if you’re inclined to believe that Ayers is The One’s ghostwriter, you’re bound to detect a “deeper truth” in his tone. In fact, Ayers has been baiting people with this same corny line about splitting the royalties for ages. Back in October 2009, a conservative blogger spotted him in Reagan Airport and approached him. As soon as she mentioned that she was conservative, he offered, unprompted, that he had written the book, that Michelle Obama had put him up to it, and, yes, that he’d be happy to split the royalties with the blogger if she could prove it. When she countered that she thought he had at least edited it, he egged her on by insisting that no, he had written the darned thing. I think he enjoys mocking people who push this idea and enjoys it doubly when they can’t detect the mockery. In fact, I’d bet that this is his stock response anytime the book is mentioned in his presence — insisting that he wrote it to see if the listener laughs and then toying with them if they seem credulous. But as I say, your mileage may vary. 
 
 Related Posts: ||||| In the face of widening evidence of Trump campaign culpability in the Russia investigation, Republicans have churned through a frequently mutating series of conspiracy theories to defend him. The latest, and possibly final, such theory, involves an informant used by the FBI to report on the campaign’s connections to Russia, whom Trump has promoted to “spy,” or possibly multiple spies. “A lot of people are saying they had spies in my campaign. If they had spies in my campaign, that would be a disgrace to this country,” Trump told reporters yesterday. “That would be one of the biggest insults that anyone has ever seen.” Trump has mixed his insinuations with dark threats of revenge. “Look how things have turned around on the Criminal Deep State,” he tweeted this morning, “They go after Phony Collusion with Russia, a made up Scam, and end up getting caught in a major SPY scandal the likes of which this country may never have seen before! What goes around, comes around!” 
 
 Trump’s ability to comprehend objective reality is characteristically cracked. But his confidence that the array of forces are shifting to his benefit, and that he may turn the tables on his enemies, has a real basis in reality. He is bringing his party, and the powers it commands, around to his warped manner of thinking. 
 
 The spy theory holds that the FBI, working on orders from the Obama administration, implanted a spy into the Trump campaign in order to help Hillary Clinton’s campaign: 
 
 ...Follow the money! The spy was there early in the campaign and yet never reported Collusion with Russia, because there was no Collusion. He was only there to spy for political reasons and to help Crooked Hillary win - just like they did to Bernie Sanders, who got duped! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 23, 2018 
 
 This does not explain why the FBI failed to announce either the results of its spying campaign, or even the existence of the investigation, in time to help Clinton win, rather than allowing the probe to remain secret until well after the election. It likewise fails to elaborate on what exactly was done to poor Bernie Sanders. 
 
 Trump’s allies have seized on the procedural offense of the “spy.” The FBI was probing the Trump campaign because the campaign had brought on multiple figures who had suspicious financial or political connections to Russian intelligence — Carter Page (who had been on the FBI’s radar as a potential Russian agent for years), Paul Manafort (who had run a campaign on behalf of Russian interests in Ukraine), and Michael Flynn, among others. The defense has ignored all this evidence of guilt, and instead focused on the question of why Trump was being investigated at all. 
 
 “We can’t recall a similar case, even in the J. Edgar Hoover days, when the FBI decided it needed to snoop on a presidential campaign,” complains The Wall Street Journal editorial page. That this disparity could be explained by the fact that there haven’t been any recent presidential campaigns swarming with criminality is not a possibility the Journal contemplates. 
 
 Instead, Trump’s defenders implicitly assume that the level of covert Russian influence in Trump’s campaign was completely typical, and that the only difference is that Trump was somehow subjected to scrutiny. “For those ok w the FBI spying on the Trump campaign,” reasons Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, “how ok would you have been if in 2008 the FBI decided, because of Bill Ayers and terrorism, they needed to spy on the Obama campaign?” Let’s see. If Bill Ayers was a member of the 2008 Obama campaign, which he was not, and if his Weatherman terrorist cell was still operating, which it also was not, and if there was reason to believe the Weathermen were using Ayers to gain some kind of secret influence over Obama, then, yes, it would have been okay for the FBI to covertly probe his role. (Especially if it took care to keep the probe secret through the election, as the FBI did with its investigation of Trump.) 
 
 But since none of the hypothetical parallels Fleischer suggests are actually valid, then all he is doing is positing the existence of one set of right-wing fever dreams in order to justify another. His comparison between Obama in 2008 and Trump in 2016 actually shows how Republican paranoia inverted reality. Obama, whom the right suspected of harboring dark, secretive un-American influence, was completely loyal, while Trump (for all his blustering nationalism) allowed all sorts of secret hostile foreign influences to take hold. The irrational fear they projected onto Obama has actually come to life, and their response is to demonize the FBI as a nefarious secret police. Republicans today sound, ironically, a lot like Bill Ayers. 
 
 And this, amazingly enough, is the moderate version of the pro-Trump conspiracy. The case revolves around the premise that the FBI had no business snooping on Trump. It follows that any evidence Robert Mueller produces is the fruit of an illegitimate investigation. It is a legal principle much like the exclusionary rule, which requires prosecutors to disregard any evidence the police obtained improperly. 
 
 Trump may be forming an even more radical theory. Gabriel Sherman reports that Trump’s team “is attempting to build the case that anti-Trump forces in the F.B.I. entrapped his advisers using informants to plant evidence about Russian collusion.” Let this roll around in your mind for a moment. Trump is not merely accusing the FBI of planting a spy, but of planting evidence. 
 
 “The president himself is convinced that the secret F.B.I. informant who reportedly met with several Trump campaign advisers in 2016 was not merely an informant, but an Obama political operative,” Sherman reports. “One administration official told me the theory has become so widely accepted that people in the West Wing are paranoid that the F.B.I. has multiple informants working to take down Trump.” 
 
 Planting evidence? Multiple spies? Obama political operatives? You might think this is all so unhinged Trump could not possibly believe it, but then, you would have to explain Trump’s longtime infatuation with the conspiracy theories he imbibes in his binge-watching of Fox News, where hours of air time can pass by without the appearance of anybody who is hinged. And you might also think Trump could not get his party to go along with this theory, to dismiss all the evidence of culpability as having been fabricated by a pro-Obama cabal in the FBI. But then you would be ignoring how far down the Trump rabbit hole the Republican Party has gone so far. ||||| Barack Obama’s $65 billion-a-year “Global Tax” proposal is creating a firestorm on the 
 
 Internet, sparked by articles by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media in 
 
 February. In response, left-wing supporters of Barack Obama are feverishly 
 
 striving to defuse the controversy, attempting to discredit, dismiss, or 
 
 diminish the story first revealed by AIM’s Kincaid. 
 
 In what may be his 
 
 only achievement in national politics, Senator Obama introduced S. 2433, the “Global 
 
 Poverty Act,” in 2007. Then, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) rammed Obama’s “Global 
 
 Poverty Act” through his committee as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
 
 Committee—without any hearings. S. 2433 is expected to reach the full Senate 
 
 floor for debate any day. A similar bill already passed the U.S. House of 
 
 Representatives, making final passage a dangerous possibility. The pressure on 
 
 President Bush to sign it would be intense, especially from Obama’s supporters 
 
 in the media. 
 
 If the contents of legislation could be judged by the title dreamed up 
 
 by spinmeisters, anything named “Global Poverty Act” would involve noble goals 
 
 of alleviating poverty. However, we were taught from childhood not to judge a 
 
 book by its cover. We must also not judge legislation by its title. 
 
 The Hidden Agenda 
 
 Obama’s Global Poverty 
 
 Act is in fact a stunning and sweeping step toward socialism and one-world 
 
 government. When we look beyond the seductive title, and read the actual 
 
 contents, we discover that Obama and Biden are setting America up for 
 
 imposition of a global tax, controlled by the United Nations. For the first 
 
 time, the U.S. 
 
 could be forced to adopt a global tax at the behest of an international body. 
 
 The planned amount is 0.7% of America’s 
 
 Gross National Product (GNP) or $65 billion per year, in addition to America’s 
 
 current foreign aid budget. 
 
 Obama’s legislative 
 
 record in this regard is so damaging that the left-wing blogosphere has gone 
 
 into over-drive to muddy the waters. The left-wing “Media Matters” has gone on 
 
 the attack, and others have taken up the chorus. When Senator Biden’s opponent 
 
 for election, Christine O’Donnell, revealed Biden’s promotion of Obama’s Global 
 
 Tax on Fox News, Media Matters attacked within minutes. 
 
 Rather than addressing 
 
 the substance of Kincaid’s revelations, Obama’s defenders invent a straw man to 
 
 knock down instead. Media Matters argues that S. 2433 does not directly impose 
 
 any tax. But Kincaid never said that it did. As Kincaid revealed, S. 2433 is 
 
 clearly intended to engineer, or lay the groundwork for, a global tax. Kincaid 
 
 never suggested it would happen in a single step. Yet S. 2433 can have no other 
 
 long-range purpose. 
 
 As Kincaid explained, 
 
 the bill does not attach a dollar figure—and does not need to—because that is 
 
 contained in the 2002 so-called “Monterrey Consensus,” which grew out of the 
 
 2000 Millennium Declaration, which is cited in the bill. Understanding this 
 
 critical fact is a simple matter of reading the appropriate U.N. documents. The 
 
 sponsors could count on the major media not to do so. 
 
 The Millennium 
 
 Declaration, which was issued in 2000, specifically called for a “Financing for 
 
 Development” conference, which was held in 2002 in Monterrey, Mexico, 
 
 and produced the “Monterrey Consensus.” This document committed nations to 
 
 spending 0.7 percent of Gross National Product (GNP) on official development 
 
 assistance (ODA), otherwise known as foreign aid. It says, specifically, that 
 
 “We recognize that a substantial increase in ODA and other resources will 
 
 be required if developing countries are to achieve the internationally agreed 
 
 upon development goals and objectives, including those contained in the 
 
 Millennium Declaration.” It goes on to call for “concrete efforts towards the 
 
 target of 0.7 percent” of GNP as ODA and proposes “innovative sources of 
 
 finance” to pay for the increased foreign aid, a reference to global taxes. 
 
 The Price Tag 
 
 Jeffrey Sachs, who ran 
 
 the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” which monitors compliance with and progress 
 
 toward these goals, says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased 
 
 foreign-aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already 
 
 spends. “We are short by $65 billion each year, which may seem like a vast sum, 
 
 but it represents just 0.5% of our GNP,” says Sachs. 
 
 As Kincaid, using 
 
 Sachs’s figures, calculates it, over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the 
 
 U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 
 
 2015, when the U.S. 
 
 is expected to meet the Millennium Development Goals, this amounts to $845 
 
 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs himself wrote, is 
 
 through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. 
 
 Obama claims that S. 
 
 2433 merely declares U.S. 
 
 policy to fight poverty. But if that were true, then S. 2433 does nothing at 
 
 all. The U.S. 
 
 has already been fighting poverty around the world for many decades. Starting 
 
 with the Marshall Plan after World War II, and accelerated by John F. Kennedy’s 
 
 idealism, Americans have spent gigantic fortunes on ending poverty globally, 
 
 for at least 60 years. Does Obama really not know what the U.S. has 
 
 already been doing for decades on the world stage? Why would Obama propose what 
 
 the U.S.A. 
 
 has already been doing without him? 
 
 S. 2433 is clearly 
 
 setting the stage for a global tax, by backing the U.S. into a corner. Once the U.S. commits 
 
 through international diplomacy to the goal of contributing 0.7% of its GNP and 
 
 the Congress enforces this goal through Obama’s legislation, the U.S is on the 
 
 road to accepting the global tax to pay for it. 
 
 This is the critical 
 
 point: S. 2433 mandates that the president actually implement these goals and 
 
 not merely discuss them. A future president— possibly a liberal like Obama 
 
 himself— would be obligated to actually “make it happen.” Obama’s bill does not 
 
 just declare policy. It mandates actual implementation of the $65 
 
 billion-a-year “contribution” to foreign aid by the next president. If the U.S. 
 
 has already agreed to this through Congress, the final step in international 
 
 negotiations over implementation of a global tax will become difficult, if not 
 
 impossible, to resist. 
 
 No Hearings 
 
 Disputes about the real meaning of Obama’s legislation might have been 
 
 avoided if Joe Biden hadn’t slipped the bill through without any hearings. If 
 
 the goal were innocent, Obama and Biden would have wanted maximum 
 
 publicity—even campaign “photo ops.” Instead, they quietly slid the bill 
 
 through unnoticed, in a hurry. Why? 
 
 Of course, the United States 
 
 is already the most generous nation on Earth. S. 2433 is not needed to declare U.S. foreign 
 
 policy to fight poverty. Helping poor countries is why the U.S. government priced U.S. 
 
 manufacturers and exports out of the market with a strong dollar policy and 
 
 encouraged imports of products from poor nations. 
 
 Unfortunately, projects to 
 
 develop Latin America, for example, turned out 
 
 to be like plowing the sea. The cause of poverty was not lack of U.S. funding, 
 
 but their socialist governments and unjust legal systems. We must export the 
 
 real causes of our success, not just send money. Certainly, the United Nations 
 
 will be part of the problem in this, not part of the solution. But Obama seems 
 
 to trust the United Nations. 
 
 OBAMA PLAYS REAGAN ON WORLD STAGE 
 
 By Cliff Kincaid 
 
 An interesting contribution to Barack Obama’s campaign shows up in the records of 
 
 the Federal Election Commission. Casey Kauffman of Al-Jazeera, who lists his 
 
 occupation as a journalist in Doha, gave the Democratic candidate $500 in February. 
 
 Al-Jazeera, which most 
 
 U.S.-based cable and satellite providers have rejected for airing because of 
 
 its terrorist links and anti-American programming, probably won’t be playing 
 
 much of a role in the American presidential campaign. But the contribution is 
 
 indicative of the bias that infects the media here and around the world. 
 
 The depth of the 
 
 deception that is now underway can be understood by analyzing the significance 
 
 of Obama’s “I love America” anti-communist foreign policy speech in Berlin, 
 
 Germany, in view of the fact that the candidate and his media acolytes continue 
 
 to conceal the central role that a Stalinist Communist by the name of Frank 
 
 Marshall Davis played in his upbringing. 
 
 In Berlin, 
 
 Obama almost sounded like Ronald Reagan, who became a strong anti-communist by 
 
 fighting them in Hollywood. 
 
 “And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the 
 
 western part of the city,” Obama noted. “They cut off food and supplies to more 
 
 than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom 
 
 in Berlin. 
 
 The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet 
 
 retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. 
 
 Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All 
 
 that stood in the way was Berlin. 
 
 And that’s when the airlift began—when the largest and most unlikely rescue in 
 
 history brought food and hope to the people of this city.” 
 
 Flip-Flop 
 
 Obama sounded like a 
 
 veteran anti-communist. But in his record has he ever shown hostility to 
 
 communism? His remarks were completely at variance with what we know about him. 
 
 Obama closely associated with communists for much of his life and career. We’ve 
 
 heard about some of them, including communist terrorists Bill Ayers and 
 
 Bernardine Dohrn. But one communist that few in the media want to talk about is 
 
 Frank Marshall Davis, his mentor and father-figure. Davis 
 
 actually wrote a poem in honor of the Soviet Red Army that Obama denounced in Berlin. 
 
 The “Red Army” poem 
 
 goes beyond hoping for the communists to beat the Nazis in World War II and 
 
 hails the Soviet revolution. It says: 
 
 “Show the marveling multitudes 
 
 Americans, British, 
 
 all your allied brothers 
 
 How strong you are 
 
 How great you are 
 
 How your young tree of 
 
 new unity 
 
 Planted twenty-five 
 
 years ago 
 
 Bears today the golden 
 
 fruit of victory!” 
 
 Obama refers to Davis as just “Frank” in 
 
 his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, but does note that he was a 
 
 contemporary of black authors Richard Wright and Langston Hughes. What Obama 
 
 doesn’t mention is that “Frank” stayed with the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) 
 
 while Hughes and Wright broke from it. In fact, Davis was so extreme that he accused Wright 
 
 of “treason” for exposing the CPUSA. 
 
 Davis’s influence over Obama is demonstrated by the fact 
 
 that Obama left Davis in Hawaii, attended socialist conferences and 
 
 picked Marxist professors as his friends in college, went to Reverend Jeremiah 
 
 Wright’s church with his children, and then launched his political career in 
 
 the home of Ayers and Dohrn. 
 
 Dohrn’s Bloody Hands 
 
 While Ayers gets most 
 
 of the attention, it is Dohrn who is more important. She refuses to deny 
 
 credible reports that she planted a bomb that killed a San Francisco policeman. The whole story is 
 
 detailed in our last AIM Report. But is anybody in the media willing to ask 
 
 Obama about her terrorist activities? 
 
 While Ayers and 
 
 Dohrn and their comrades took instructions and advice from Hanoi 
 
 and Havana and even Cuban and Soviet 
 
 intelligence operatives, Davis 
 
 was even more notorious. 
 
 He not only belonged 
 
 to the CPUSA when it functioned as an apologist for Stalin, but Davis took the Stalinist 
 
 line when Stalin made common cause with Hitler. The Germans at Obama’s speech 
 
 might be interested in this aspect of the story. So might an American audience. 
 
 We already knew Davis was a Stalinist. 
 
 NAACP member Edward Berman testified that “comrade Davis” 
 
 tried to take over meetings of the organization in Hawaii “for the purpose of converting it 
 
 into a front for the Stalinist line.” 
 
 But veteran 
 
 anti-communist researcher and author Herbert Romerstein has now brought to our 
 
 attention even more damaging information. He points out that Davis was one of the signers of a statement 
 
 issued by the League of American Writers in June of 1941 during the Soviet-Nazi 
 
 Pact. 
 
 It said in part, “We 
 
 have warned that America 
 
 must be defended not by involvement in this war, or by steps toward 
 
 dictatorship, or by pursuing a course of imperialist expansion, but by 
 
 preserving peace and expanding democracy on the economic, political and 
 
 cultural levels. Today, we must ask whether the present policy of the 
 
 administration and the program of big business are not leading us toward war 
 
 and fascism in the name of resistance to war and fascism.” 
 
 In other words, as 
 
 long as the Nazis and the Soviets were allies, Davis 
 
 didn’t want the U.S. 
 
 to go to war against the Nazis. 
 
 The statement asked a 
 
 number of questions, including, “How best as writers can we resist the drive 
 
 toward war and reaction which threatens our democratic culture?” The statement 
 
 is printed on page 973 of Appendix IX of the Special Committee of Un-American 
 
 Activities in 1944. 
 
 Romerstein comments 
 
 that “This is clear support of the Soviet-Nazi Pact by Davis 
 
 a short time before June 22, 1941, when Germany 
 
 attacked the Soviet Union and the Communist 
 
 Party line changed from peace to war.” 
 
 The point bears 
 
 repeating: once the Soviets came under attack, the CPUSA line, which was 
 
 adopted by party member Davis, turned into one supporting war on the Nazis. 
 
 This is the man that 
 
 Obama’s white grandfather selected as the future candidate’s role model and 
 
 mentor. 
 
 And yet in Berlin, Obama declared himself on the side of those who 
 
 opposed Davis. 
 
 “When you, the German people, tore down that wall—a wall that divided East and 
 
 West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope—walls came tumbling down around the 
 
 world,” he said. 
 
 Davis was an apologist for that tyranny. He read his 
 
 “poems” to a teenage Obama and advised him that his white grandmother had a 
 
 right to fear black people and that black people had a reason to hate white 
 
 people, which certainly helps explain why Obama would eventually end up in 
 
 Wright’s church. 
 
 Has Obama truly 
 
 broken with the forces of international communism, which had so much influence 
 
 over him? If the media don’t ask the question, the increasing numbers of those 
 
 who know about Davis, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn and other questionable Obama links 
 
 and associations will see the media coverage for what the McCain campaign 
 
 labels it—a love affair with Obama. In short, the pro-Obama media bias may 
 
 backfire in a big way. There is evidence it already is. 
 
 Professor Paul Kengor, 
 
 author of a book about Reagan’s anti-communism, examined the work that Accuracy 
 
 in Media has done on the Obama-Davis relationship and concludes that the 
 
 evidence must not be ignored. Yet liberals and “progressives” in the press and 
 
 elsewhere ignore, distort or downplay it. Some reporters, like Dana Milbank of 
 
 the Washington Post, have treated it as a laughing matter. 
 
 Giving Davis 
 
 A Pass 
 
 Kengor wonders what 
 
 the press would think “of, say, a John McCain mentor who had toed the line for 
 
 Hitler? I can tell you that I, as a conservative Republican, would be pretty 
 
 darned disappointed and would demand some answers. I would not turn it into a 
 
 joke. And if McCain did not absolutely, convincingly repudiate it, I absolutely 
 
 would not vote for him.” 
 
 But when it comes to Obama, 
 
 Kengor notes that “The end result is that the bad guys on the communist 
 
 far-left, such as the likes of Frank Marshall Davis, continue to get a pass 
 
 long after they’ve departed this world, as will those who consider them 
 
 mentors. These were extreme leftists who hurt liberalism—who hurt some of the 
 
 dearest liberal causes. Davis, 
 
 in death, is protected, his dirty work covered up, by a press who must now 
 
 protect their anointed one.” 
 
 Obama, of course, 
 
 is the anointed one, for the U.S. 
 
 press as well as reporters for the Arab government-funded Al-Jazeera. Now we 
 
 witness the latest phase of the love affair as Obama, with the help of the 
 
 media, portrays himself as an anti-communist in the Reagan mode who truly 
 
 understands the battle between Soviet tyranny and human freedom and came down 
 
 on the right side. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
 
 The good news is that 
 
 a Rasmussen poll finds that many people aren’t buying it. It found that 49 
 
 percent of voters think that reporters are trying to help Obama win in 
 
 November. 
 
 The Findings 
 
 A July 21 release from 
 
 the firm declared that “The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in 
 
 November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest 
 
 Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy 
 
 involving the New York Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most 
 
 reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a 
 
 month ago. Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little 
 
 changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most 
 
 reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.” 
 
 It also found that 
 
 45 percent say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the 
 
 candidate they wanted to win. 
 
 What could that 
 
 information be? Could it have something to do with Frank Marshall Davis? Or 
 
 Bernardine Dohrn? Are there more red skeletons in the closet?
– Donald Trump isn’t content with questioning Obama’s citizenship—now he’s questioning his authorial accomplishments, too. In an interview with Laura Ingraham yesterday, Trump espoused the theory that Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s memoir, Dreams of My Father, Aol News reports. Obama is only the president “because he wrote a book that is supposed to be a great genius book,” Trump said. “But now it’s coming out that Bill Ayers wrote it.” Trump’s repeating a rumor that’s been circling in right-wing media. Ayers himself said that he had written the book at a speaking appearance last week, though as Allahpundit at the conservative blog Hot Air notes, it sounded a lot like he was being sarcastic. “Would you believe that I wrote it?” he said when asked about the book. “And if you can help me prove it, I’ll split the royalties.” At that the audience burst out laughing. Ayers has reportedly used the line, complete with the royalties punch line, in the past as well. Click for more.