A few days ago I got a call asking whether I knew anything about the Ayers family mailman. I had heard of him, I said. I remembered liberal blogger Steven Diamond having interviewed the fellow a few years back, but I paid it little mind, as the information seemed too limited to pursue.
The caller then sent me a video interview with the mailman by WND sleuth Jerome Corsi. The video made me sit up and pay attention. The mailman is a real person. His name is Alan Hulton. He seems entirely credible, and he has a story to tell.
Hulton delivered mail in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, from 1962 to 2001 with a couple years off to serve in the military. During roughly ten of those years, he delivered mail to the home of Tom and Mary Ayers, Bill Ayers’s parents. Hulton talked to Tom once, Mary several times, their daughter-in-law Bernardine Dohrn a few times, and Bill Ayers not at all. Memorably, he talked once to one of their visitors, but more on that in a moment.
As Hulton tells Corsi — and he has sworn an affidavit to the same — he met Tom Ayers not long after the Ayerses moved to the neighborhood. Until he retired in 1980 at the age of 65, Tom Ayers was the CEO and chairman of Commonwealth Edison. Tom, however, was not your garden-variety plutocrat. According to Diamond, who knows his way around Chicago politics, Tom was a “lifelong liberal” — one deeply involved in the same educational reform movement that engaged son Bill and, briefly, Barack Obama in 1988. Tom Ayers was comfortable enough with Bill’s lifestyle to live with him in Hyde Park until Tom died in 2007.
When Hulton met Tom Ayers, they talked about working conditions at the Post Office. “I couldn’t believe how he responded,” Hulton told Diamond. “He started to talk about workers having to struggle to survive and about peasants and the proletariat. It made me think later that he might be a Marxist!” Hulton would tell Corsi, “I had this uncomfortable feeling that he thought he knew about my situation as a working person better than I did, that he knew what was best for me.”
Hulton also recalls one particular conversation with Mary Ayers. “She was enthusiastically talking to me about this young black student that they were helping out,” he tells Corsi, “and she referred to him as a foreign student.” Adds Hulton, “I was taken aback by how enthusiastic she was about him.” Within a year of this conversation, Hulton had a fateful meeting with the young man he presumed Mary was talking about.
According to Hulton, he encountered the fellow on the sidewalk on the front of the Ayers home. In that it was extremely rare to see a black man in this tony neighborhood, Hulton believes that the man felt the need to explain his visit to the Ayers household. Hulton describes him as friendly and neatly, although casually, dressed. Hulton tells Corsi, “I am absolutely positive that it was Barack Obama.”
Hulton was sympathetic. After he had come out of military service, he was a supporter of Martin Luther King, who had pressed for fair housing in the Chicago area in the 1960s. “I took some flak about my support for civil rights from my fellow workers at the time,” remembers Hulton.
Obama explained to Hulton that he had taken the train out from Chicago to Glen Ellyn in order “to thank the Ayers family personally for helping him with his education.” What shocked Hulton was that when casually inquiring into the young man’s plans for the future, Obama answered, “I am going to be president of the United States.” As Hulton tells Corsi, “[i]t came across like this was something that’s already been determined.” Adds Hulton, “I was speechless.”
Hulton told Diamond and Corsi essentially the same story. What gives the Corsi interview added value is that we see Hulton tell it. Although just a year older than Bill Ayers, he seems to come from a different generation. He has little to gain — and a lot to risk — by going public. Corsi warns Hulton that by quoting Mary’s comment that Obama was a “foreign student,” he has put himself at some risk. Says Hulton, “I am only telling you what I distinctly remember her saying — that he was a foreign student.”
Hulton’s interviews with Diamond and Corsi are consistent in every major detail save for dates. Hulton suggested to Diamond that the sidewalk meeting took place in the mid-’80s, but Corsi suggests to Hulton that it was in the early 1990s, and Hulton does not correct him. Hulton clearly does not remember the date. If I were to speculate, I would guess 1988, the year Obama started Harvard Law School. Presuming Hulton actually met Obama, the “education” in question would almost surely have been law school.
There is a good deal at stake here. According to Snopes (a Soros network affiliate) and the other fact-check sites, Bill Ayers and Obama did not meet until the mid-1990s. This is a talking point that both Ayers and Obama have upheld. When Ayers appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America in 2008, he put the date of their first meeting in 1995 at a fundraiser in Ayers’s own home. “I think he was probably in 20 homes that day as far as I know,” said Ayers. “But that was the first time I really met him.”
As it happens, I stumbled into my own discovery of Ayers’s involvement in the writing of Obama’s 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, which appears to be presently out of print….? odd!?!, when I was investigating how Obama got into Harvard Law School and who paid his way. What had piqued my interest was an interview with veteran New York power-broker Percy Sutton on a local New York City show called Inside City Hall. The interview took place in late March 2008 but did not surface until August 2008.
Perry Sutton told how twenty years prior he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.” The friend’s name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, “the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men.” The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to “please write a letter in support of [Obama] … a young man that has applied to Harvard.” Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.
A few months before the election, it should have mattered that a respected black political figure like Sutton had publicly announced that a fanatic black separatist, backed by an ambitious Saudi billionaire, had been guiding Obama’s career perhaps for the last twenty years. It did to the Obama-friendly media, but not in a way in which it would have to real journalists. Moving in swiftly to kill the story were Politico, an insider D.C. journal run by Washington Post alums, and Media Matters for America, an alleged watchdog group founded by the recovering radicalized Troopergate author, David Brock. (We all know that Media Matters is really a radical progressive book died to George Soros.)
Ben Smith, then of Politico, took the lead. Shortly after the story broke, Smith ran the disclaimer that “Barack Obama’s campaign is flatly denying a story told by former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton.” After some conspicuous waffling, al-Mansour denied the story as well. A self-appointed “spokesman for Sutton’s family” by the name of Kevin Wardally sent an e-mail to Smith that read in part: “As best as our family and the Chairman’s closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview.”
For Smith, even though Wardally had gotten Sutton’s age wrong by two years, this e-mail was proof enough that Sutton’s highly specific claim was manufactured. Wrote Smith, Wardally’s e-mail “seems to put the story to rest for good.” Media Matters, meanwhile, scolded those conservative bloggers who did not accept the various denials at face value.
Like the man about to be carted away in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, the Percy Sutton story was not quite dead yet. Sutton’s son and daughter told conservative reporter Ken Timmerman that no one in their family even knew who Kevin Wardally was, let alone authorized him to speak on behalf of the family. “I’m getting better,” pled Monty Python’s nearly dead man. No, he wasn’t. Nor was this story. With Hillary out of the race, no newsroom in America felt compelled to dig up dirt that could sully Obama.
About that time, I found a diary entry that caught my attention. Radical-turned-actor Peter Coyote entered it at the time of the 1996 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Coyote wrote, “I inform Martha that I’m dragging her to the apartment of old friends, ex-Weathermen, Bernadine [sic] Dohrn and Bill Ayers, hosting a party for Senator Leahy. Perhaps Edward Said will be there.”
Said had taught Obama at least one class at Columbia. I had earlier seen a photo taken during an Arab-American community dinner in Chicago in 1998 on the fiftieth anniversary of the Palestinian nakba, or disaster. The photo shows Obama sitting next to Said, seemingly engaged in an animated conversation at dinner. The intimacy surprised me. At the time of the photo, Obama was an obscure state senator while Said, according to the Nation, was “probably the best-known intellectual in the world” and the star of that evening’s show. He would speak on this occasion, as the Los Angeles Times would later report, “against settlements, against Israeli apartheid.”
All of this got me to wondering whether an Ayers-Obama-Said-al-Mansour cabal had formed in the early 1980s back in New York City. If so, such a combine might have generated enough momentum to push Obama’s career along. To see if Obama and Ayers had crossed paths before Chicago, I ordered a copy of Bill Ayers’ 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days. It was then that I began to realize the depth of Ayers’s involvement in Obama’s rise to power.
Obama would have needed help to get into Harvard. Friendly biographer David Remnick tells us that Obama was an “unspectacular” student in his two years at Columbia and at every stop before that going back to grade school. A Northwestern University professor, John L. McKnight, although a friend of Obama’s and a fellow Alinskyite, reinforces the point, telling Remnick, “I don’t think [Obama] did too well in college.” As to Obama’s LSAT scores, Jimmy Hoffa’s body will be unearthed before those are.
How such an indifferent student got into a law school whose applicants’ LSAT scores typically track between the 98th and the 99th percentile and whose GPAs range between 3.80 and 4.00 is a subject the media have chosen not to explore. Nor have they asked how Obama paid for that education. Maybe it is time they ask the mailman.
It doesn’t always happen quick enough, but the truth always surfaces… Stand-up America and pay attention… the tide is changing! Now it is up to us. AskMarion~
On a side note… More secrecy and interesting facts… The Crazy Just Keeps on Gonging:
URGENT: If the President of the USA declares that he NO LONGER needs Congressional approval for A DECLARATION OF WAR – That approval of the UN is all he needs, would you hear about it on the NEWS?
If Congress started IMPEACHMENT proceedings against Obama would you hear it on the NEWS?
Don’t be too sure
Go to Library of Congress to see = H.CON.RES.107 … 2012
Or see video link below:
This thread was pulled – very quickly too! On the thread someone mentioned that Malia’s name was Malia Ann Obama – so here initials are : MAO !!!
An AFP report that President Barack Obama’s 13-year-old daughter, Malia, is spending spring break in Oaxaca, Mexico appears to have been completely scrubbed from the Internet news sites that first reported it. Pictures have appeared in Mexican magazine Quién.com allegedly showing Malia visiting Oaxaca. AFP, the French news agency, first reported around mid-day Monday that Malia Obama was vacationing in Mexico with 12 friends under the protection of 25 Secret Service agents and a number of local police officers. The International Business Times reported that “the group arrived in Oaxaca on Saturday and reportedly visited the architectural site of…
And More at the Blaze: Why Is the Story About Malia Obama Vacationing in Mexico Disappearing from the Web?
And at the ConservativeTree House: Whoopsie: Down The Rabbit Hole Alice – Media Scrubs News Of Malia Obama Mexican Vacation. Why? Perhaps Because “Non-Essential Personnel Travel by government personnel and their families are prohibited” ???
My first reactions to this story are:
- Sounds like another diversion to take the public and media’s minds off the issues, especially the latest EO.
- How can the leaders of the Nanny State, Michelle and Barack Obama, who think their parenting skills are superior to all of ours setting, themselves as ‘the example of perfect parents, let a 13-year-old participate in a ‘Spring Break” outing with friends… I don’t care if they are with the secret service or chapperones, and especially in a country with all the cartel and violence problems like Mexico? How?
Update @10:40am Politico is reporting the News Sites were scrubbed at the request of the White House: Kristina Schake, Communications Director to the First Lady, emails to confirm this was a White House effort:
From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest. We have reminded outlets of this request in order to protect the privacy and security of these girls.
But, did the President’s own US State Department change its travel advisory wording to protect the President from criticism and embarrassment from his daughter’s Mexico visit, because governmental family personal travel is prohibited?
I’ve never seen so many websites scrub a news story in an almost simultaneous fashion. Now two stories have been created. The first is the original story of the First Daughter taking 12 friends and 25 Secret Service agents, along with the entourage of security vehicles, etc to Oaxaca, Mexico. It was initially posted around noon on Monday, and began disappearing around 5pm the same day. We posted at 4pm
The second and becoming more rapidly intriguing story is the literal scrubbing of any information from the web placed by main stream news outlets after they initially reported the story. Why scrub it?
The scrubbing query has been picked up by The Blaze, The Daily Caller, and PJ Tatler to name a few. But pictures of Malia and friends in Mexico are posted on the Mexican news website Quien.com . One of the more funny ironies is a Yahoo news story; Yahoo initially reported the vacation story and is now reporting on the scrubbing of the vacation story.
So what is the risk to the White House and why scrub the story?
Perhaps because the Department of Public Safety, a Texas law enforcement agency, issued a warning last Tuesday against students celebrating their spring breaks in violence-torn Mexico?
Or, even more alarming, perhaps because the US State Dept. has banned personal travel for government personnel and their families.
The Huffington Post reported that in February, the United States State Department “recommended that Americans avoid travel to all or parts of 14 or 31 Mexican states. It’s the widest travel advisory issued by the U.S. since Mexico stepped up its drug war in 2006.”
For the second time in less than a year, the U.S. State Department has expanded its travel warning for Mexico, urging Americans to stay clear of 14 Mexican states engulfed in an ongoing drug war between transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) and government authorities.
“Gun battles between rival TCOs or with Mexican authorities have taken place in towns and cities in many parts of Mexico, especially in the border region,” the travel warning reads. “Gun battles have occurred in broad daylight on streets and in other public venues, such as restaurants and clubs. During some of these incidents, U.S. citizens have been trapped and temporarily prevented from leaving the area.”
The warning provides further information about how U.S. travelers can avoid kidnappings, carjacking and highway robberies, advising people to avoid displaying any evidence of wealth and to stay off the roads at night.
According to the advisory, 120 U.S. travelers to Mexico were reported murdered in 2011, up from 35 murders in 2007.
But what is more alarming is this paragraph within the State Department Report itself: February 8th 2012
This Travel Warning supersedes the Travel Warning for Mexico dated April 22, 2011 to consolidate and update information about the security situation and to advise the public of additional restrictions on the travel of U.S. government (USG) personnel. […]
Effective July 15, 2010, the U.S. Mission in Mexico imposed restrictions on U.S. government employees’ travel. U.S. government employees and their families are not permitted to drive for personal reasons from the U.S.-Mexico border to or from the interior of Mexico or Central America. Personal travel by vehicle is permitted between Hermosillo and Nogales but is restricted to daylight hours and the Highway 15 toll road (cuota).
U.S. government personnel and their families are prohibited from personal travel to all areas described as “defer non-essential travel” and when travel for official purposes is essential it is conducted with extensive security precautions. USG personnel and their families are allowed to travel for personal reasons to the areas where no advisory is in effect or where the advisory is to exercise caution.
So what does that say about the judgement of President and Michelle Obama, against the backdrop of a State Department Travel Warning?
It is, after all, President Obama’s own State Department that is warning against travel to Mexico, and yet Mr. and Mrs. Obama defy their own administrations’ travel warning. Could that be the reason?
Update: And this is where it gets really interesting. At 3pm the US.GOV official travel advisory site had “Oaxaca” listed in the advisory. Immediately preceding the news scrubbing the text has been changed to the following:
Oaxaca: Oaxaca, Huatulco and Puerto Escondido are the major cities/travel destinations in Oaxaca -see map (PDF, 286 kb) to identify their exact locations: No warning is in effect.
Note that on all other cities and counties the word “advisory” is present. Sometime yesterday the wording was changed and it now reads no “warning” is in effect. Implying that an “advisory” might still be present. Odd no? Why for this city, and only this city, that happens to be the place where Malia Obama is vacationing for spring break.
Did the President’s own US State Department’s change its travel advisory wording to protect the President from criticism from this visit, because governmental family personal travel is prohibited?
Hello? Media? Please set aside your bias and actually do some questioning here. Changing an official State Department travel advisory to avoid embarrassment is a much bigger deal than a 13-year-old wanting to take a Mexican Spring Break vacation.
- More on the travel advisory here RUETERS
- US State Dept. Travel Advisory HERE
- Mexican Translated News Story HERE