I highly recommend you read the Stanley Kurtz piece, “Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism on Schools.” In his article Kurtz demonstrates (1) the dishonesty of Barak Obama on the subject of his association with William Ayers and (2) the underlying radicalism of the Ayers-Obama joint project.
Last April, Obama dismissed the unrepentant terrorist Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." But in fact, Ayers and Obama were partners in the Chicago Annenburg Challenge (CAC), an organization whose mandate was the reformation of Chicago's public schools.
Obama was CAC's first board chairman, serving in that capacity for four years and remaining on the board for two more. Ayers was the founder of CAC and, according to Kurtz, its guiding spirit. Moreover, the archive do ents Kurtz reviewed show that Ayers was part of a working group of five that assembled the initial board. Ayers then sat as an ex-officio member of the board Obama chaired through CAC's first year. He also served on the board's governance committee with Obama. The two worked together to craft CAC bylaws.
These findings – facts of record -- demolish the Obama campaign claim that Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to the board.
Obama's personal attempt to write Ayers off as some guy in his neighborhood fares no better. Ayers helped put Obama in the top position of an organization that distributed more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical activists. Moreover, Kurtz shows that Ayers did not bow out of the process after helping to install Obama. To the contrary Ayers collaborated with Obama in determining how to distribute this money. During this period, Ayers co-chaired something called the "Collaborative," which worked with Obama's group to shape education policy. In essence Ayers formulated the policy that would inform the distribution of funds; Obama headed the body that distributed the money accordingly.
It's true, as the Obama campaign notes, that the Collaborative lost its "operational role" at CAC after the first year. Thereafter, it was relegated to an advisory role. But CAC's own evaluators found that Obama's board continued to adhere to the grant policies Ayers had put in place.
In any case, no honest person would describe the Ayers-Obama relationship the way Obama did. This was not some guy in the neighborhood; this was a partner in the distribution of large sums of money for public policy purposes. And this was someone with whom Obama did exchange ideas -- Ayers spoke to Obama's board; Obama spoke to Ayers' board -- on vital policy matters.
The ideas exchanged, moreover, were radical ones. As Kurtz explains:
CAC funded Ayers' teacher training programs -- the ones designed to promote "resistance" to an oppressive system. The minutes Kurtz reviewed show that, under Obama and pursuant to Ayers' principles, proposals from groups that focused on math/science achievement were turned down, while CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN).
Indeed, Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with ACORN, and ACORN members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. Meanwhile, according to Kurtz, "external partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afro-centricity and bilingualism than traditional education."
How well did CAC perform in the end? In educational terms it failed. According to Kurtz, when CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students, they found no evidence of educational improvement.
But CAC wasn't about education, it was about politics, and by this measurement it cannot be rated a complete failure. CAC may or may not have contributed to the radicalization of Chicago's schools, but it did serve as a political springboard for Barack Obama, albeit one that now represents a potential political embarrassment.
Kurtz has obtained a statement on Obama's CAC participation that he quotes in full and to which he provides his extended response in “Obama’s challenge.” Peter Kirsanow highlights three takeaways:
- Obama had a long-term working relationship with William Ayers.
- The Chicago Annenberg Challenge ("CAC"), the only executive experience on Obama's resume, was an objective failure despite the expenditure of millions of dollars.
- Through the CAC, Ayers and Obama financed radical organizations, including one with a history of engaging in voter fraud.
Kurtz’s work is a challenge to mainstream journalists and the rest of you Obamamaniacs on the left. A candidate for the presidency has a demonstrated working relationship with — indeed funded — an unrepentant terrorist, yet the media have spent more time reporting about Sarah Palin's hair styles. What’s up with that?
Note, too, that there is now a straight line between Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright and Bill "fight American repression" Ayers. And that line is Barak Hussein Obama. Obama would have us believe that he wouldn't have listened approvingly to Wright preaching against America. But Kurtz's work confirms that he not only listened to "God damn America" rhetoric, he funded it to the tune of many millions of dollars.
By the looks of the crowds he’s now drawing, this message is getting out, in spite of his media collaborators.
Great post Yoni. Probably too much for the Obamanites to read. Anything after "Hope and Change" seems to lose most of them.
I read it. It seems to me there is no hard evidence Obama and Ayers "collaborated" on anything. There is all this, "Well Ayers started this thing. Obama got appointed to the board. Ayers wasn't on the board but he clearly was telling Obama what to do." It's horse without any actual evidence that Ayers and Obama were doing things together.
don't forget "bush" and "same"
How can you be on the board of something and NOT know the guy who started it?? He is obviously more than "Someone who was from my neighborhood."
Yes he was. They know each other. But what is being claimed here is not simply that they knew each other.
From a 1997 article in the University of Chicago Chronicle. Obviously they have close ties and have the same opinions on many things.William Ayers, author of A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court (Beacon Press, 1997), says "We should call a child a child. A 13-year-old who picks up a gun isn't suddenly an adult. We have to ask other questions: How did he get the gun? Where did it come from?"
Ayers, who spent a year observing the Cook County Temporary Juvenile Detention Center in Chicago, is one of four panelists who will speak on juvenile justice at 6 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 20, in the C-Shop. The panel, which marks the 100th anniversary of the juvenile justice system in the United States, is part of the Community Service Center's monthly discussion series on issues affecting the city of Chicago. The event is free and open to the public.
Ayers will be joined by Sen. Barack Obama, Senior Lecturer in the Law School, who is working to combat legislation that would put more juvenile offenders into the adult system; Randolph Stone, Director of the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic; Alex Correa, a reformed juvenile offender who spent seven years in Cook County Temporary Detention Center; Frank Tobin, a former priest and teacher at the Detention Center who helped Correa; and Willy Baldwin, who grew up in public housing and is currently a teacher at the Detention Center.
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/971106/justice.shtml
ing liberals!!! I say fry 'em all. Are you saying that because Ayers joined Obama in wanting to fight juveniles being seen as adults, they're both radical leftists who wanna bomb the pentagon?Ayers will be joined by Sen. Barack Obama, Senior Lecturer in the Law School, who is working to combat legislation that would put more juvenile offenders into the adult system
Any damage done above, to anybody, anytime?
McSenile's economic advisor Phil Gramm snuck in the item to a huge bill in 2000 that nobody caught and that deregulated swaps, leading directly to Enron, WorldCom, and today's disaster.
McSenie's director of transistion took $30K/month as lobbyist from Freddie and Fannie to keep regulations/regulators off their cases.
Any damage done by Enron, World Com, F & F ?
Thanks for your perspective, Clanny, sucks as usual.
the country needs radical change.
thanks for the endorsement!
OMG, they were on the same panel at the university where Obama was teaching. That certainly convinced me! And can you believe the panel was public and free? That sounds socialist! Obama must also be buddy-buddy with that former priest on the panel. I wonder why this former priest is so interested in juveniles.
Lobbyists?? Really?? A lobbyist is a hired gun, they argue for what the people paying them tell them to. They have no loyalties to the company they are working for as a lobbyist. The people you need to be looking at are the people signing the checks and directing the lobbyist. In this case it would have been Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines...I forgot who's side they are on?? Can you remind me??
Anyways...the point is that there is more to it than "Just a guy from the neighborhood."
bull . their success depends on it. you shouldn't be lying this way.
you need to check everything and vote for radical change.The people you need to be looking at are the people signing the checks and directing the lobbyist. In this case it would have been Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines...I forgot who's side they are on?? Can you remind me??
A lobbyists success depends on how well they can get their customer's point accross to politicians. They don't give a what they are lobbying for. If you had enough money you could hire a lobbyist to push for voting rights for dogs and cats.
bull again. their personal success is invested, including if they have any hopes of lobbying again. you're not honest.
If they don't get their employer/customer's point through their reputation suffers and thus they get less business. It doesn't matter what point they are lobbying, as long as they are successful.is an activist usually paid by an interest group to promote their positions to legislatures. A lobbyist can also work to change public opinion through advertising campaigns or by influencing 'opinion leaders' or pundits, thereby creating a climate for the change his or her employer desires. The word lobbyist comes from the chambers in which the act of lobbying usually takes place, an anteroom near legislative bodies, for instance, or even the lobby of hotels where important people are staying. In American politics, most lobbyist organizations are headquartered on or near K Street in Washington DC, so "K Street" has become somewhat synonymous for lobbying.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-lobbyist.htm
Whatever...you are uninformed.
yeah, and if they suck at it they're out. it's personal. just like tax guys that suck are out.
So Ken, are you saying that a person who is a member of the NRA would go work for a gun control related lobby?
^^Why not...they are getting paid. But the gun control related lobby probably wouldn't hire them since they wouldn't get much traction from the politicians.
Interesting.
a lobbyist is not just a cheerleader at a pep rally. they're deal makers. their personal success is critical, so they are invested.
Keating Five.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
