Associated Press Investigates Palin’s “Flawed Bid Process,” Suppresses Bill Ayers’ Violent Bid to Overthrow American Society

This article represents a great example of in-depth investigative reporting. An AP writer identified a potential issue with Palin’s Alaskan pipeline project, and dove into it, uncovering a seeming wealth of information on how the bidding process was organized to favor a firm friendly to the Palin administration.

This is a particularly impressive bit of work considering how bidding processes can often be complex affairs that do tend to favor one firm over another. Having been involved with writing and responding to numerous bids over my career, including government bids, I’m well aware of how particular firms are sometimes uniquely positioned to accomplish a given task. Sometimes, bids are written that align fairly consistently with a given firm’s capabilities.

That is to say, uncovering bias in a bidding process requires a great deal of work that goes beyond simply reading a request for proposal and seeing if it matches one firm better than another–particularly considering that the company that wins a bid should, by definition, best match the bid specifications. 

Now, the pertinent consideration is this: The AP spends considerable time, energy, and money investigating a bid process as conducted by the Palin administration, which is a rather dry, highly procedural situation that is fraught with coincidence and administrative–but innocent–mistakes. At the same time, however, they forego the significantly less intense task of simply Googling Bill Ayers to discover his violent, radical, anti-American communist manifesto that not only demonstrates that the man–unrepentant to this day–was not simply anti-war but was rather organizing for the destruction of American freedom and the enslavement of the American population.

Consider that the number one hit from “Bill Ayers communist manifesto” is this site, which provides a scanned copy of the document produced by Ayers in the ’70’s and then republished in 2006. I spent all of 15 seconds to conduct that search, and another minute or so to scan the page and realized that there’s something here worth looking into. Forget the blog’s commentary if you want, and look solely at the contents of the document itself, which includes such gems as:

We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years. We are deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism.

Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack it from the inside.

Already, this sounds less like the innocent anti-war radical, like any other hippie of the 1960’s and ’70’s, than a violent terrorist no better than Osama bin Laden and in many ways far worse. He is, after all, an American citizen.

Here’s another:

The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war.

 And more, showing his affinity with Obama and the egalitarianism that forms the cornerstone of his campaign (absent the violent aspects, of course). The bolded portions could have been taken from an Obama stump speech:

Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit. Socialism means control of the productive forces for the good of the whole community instead of the few who live on hilltops and in mansions. Socialism means priorities based on human need instead of corporate greed. Socialism creates the conditions for a decent and creative quality of life for all. [Emphasis added.]

On Ayers’ foreign policy recommendations:

Self-determination for the Palestinian people. U.S. out of the Mideast. End aid to Israel.

And the compare this with his current position, conveniently quoted on the same Web site (see the site for references):

I considered myself partly an anarchist then and consider myself partly an anarchist now. I mean I’m as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist…. I’m very open about what I think and nobody here is surprised by what I think. 
… 
Is one of those regrets that I took extreme measures against the United States at a time of tremendous crisis? No it is not. I don’t regret that. The people of the world are being exploited and oppressed and militarized by the great imperialist powers, led by the United States. That is the situation today in my view. 
… 
And I’m not sorry about anything that I participated to try to end that war or against that government that was waging that war.

And then, there’s this chilling piece, quoted from an undercover agent who had infiltrated the Weather Underground:

I bought up the subject of what’s going to happen after we take over the government. We, we become responsible, then, for administrating, you know, 250 million people. 

And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics; how are you going to clothe and feed these people. 

The only thing that I could get, was that they expected that the Cubans and the North Vietnamese and Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States. 

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education centers in the southwest, where we would take all the people who needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking and teach them… how things were going to be. 

I asked, well, what’s going to happen to those people that we can’t re-educate; that are die-hard capitalists. And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill. 25 million people. 

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people. 

And they were dead serious.” [Emphasis added.]

Now, contrast this evidence for the hateful, evil, violent nature of an unrepentant Obama supporter, who Obama should have explicitly, actively, forcefully, publicly repudiated, against the “hard-hitting” bit of investigative reporting about alleged political favoritism on the part of the Palin administration in Alaska. Read Ayers again, and then consider this bit of information:

Despite promises and legal guidance not to talk directly with potential bidders, Palin had meetings or phone calls with nearly every major candidate, including TransCanada.

Seems pretty tame, doesn’t it? Pretty pedestrian, really, and it’s even a bit embarrassing to point out that it’s actually quite common for such communications to occur, even when the original bid rules prohibit them. They happen simply because the need for clarification often arises, and given that Palin had contact “with nearly every major candidate” demonstrates that the process was essentially fair and open.

Then, further supporting the contention such bids are often necessarily skewed to one or a few major players, there’s this bit:

There were never more than a few players that could execute such a complex undertaking — at least a million tons of steel stretching across some of Earth’s most hostile and remote terrain.

In the end, regardless of its merits, such an article nevertheless demonstrates that the mainstream press is capable of conducting investigations and bringing information to the American people that might sway their vote on November 4. The important fact is this: they’re not bringing the same kind of information about Obama, which is far more incendiary, and far more important in judging a candidate as to his moral ability to serve as the President of the United States

In my opinion, this borders on sedition. For me, it is the clearest example not of a “liberal bias,” but of a purposeful, collusive, conscious effort to sway the election and put in place a government meeting the ideological goals of the Left. The media has set aside its vitally important task of acting as a private check against government power, and has become part of the political process itself. Bill Ayers would be proud of their revolutionary spirit.

We, however, should be appalled, and I submit: if one were to take up a cause today, none could be more important nor valuable than the creation of an objective source of news.

Speak Your Mind

*