I wrote this post about Obama and Ayers – the relationship between an almost-there-to-the-Presidency and an unrepentant bomber that wishes to install a radical agenda upon our culture
There seemingly a more deeper and more involved relationship between this unrepetent radical bomber (Ayers) and the former community organizer / lobbyist Obama.
Remember, Ayers first used physical bombs to kill soldiers and police to force a change in American society; now he uses educational bombs to replace reading, writing, and ‘rithmatic with revolution – social engineering presiding over real academics (after all, he who controls the children controls the future). And Obama has said that instead of trying to influence the levers of powers from the outside to change society as a community organizer / lobbyist, it was better to go inside and grab those levers. Put the two together and there’s a problem for traditional American culture (you know, the one that made us the greatest nation the world has ever known)!
Anyways, this seems to be rankling the hackles of Commenter Putney:
Skip: Putney, Didn’t you ever play connect the dots? Collaboration here, politics there, the Woods Foundation, the Annenburg connection – after a while, even the true believers have to admit that the relationship between Ayers and Obama is far more than a couple of chance meetings.
Putney: Yes they are not chance meetings, but I fail to see any relevance to this presidential campaign – and so do most Americans. McCain/Palin are getting pretty desperate.
Earth to Putney – relationships count. So do the ideas that bind those relationships together. Here’s a good summary:
"Does anybody really seriously believe that Barack Obama is a secret left-wing radical?"
You’re right, David. Why would anyone think this guy is a left-wing radical? Just because sought (and got) an endorsement from the Chicago branch of the Socialist International, got his training from ACORN and a Saul Alinsky outfit, wanted to surrender to terrorists, thinks the Constitution vests alien combatants with rights against the American people, fought a law prohibiting infanticide, praises Bill Ayers’ views on education and the criminal justice system, approved millions in subsidies for hard Left education "reform" projects, wants to nationalize the healthcare industry (for starters), wants to transfer $850B to the international community through the good offices of the UN, and (having voted against Roberts and Alito) says he thinks the key qualifications for a Supreme Court justice — after considering a candidate’s positions on affirmative action, reproductive rights, and the rights of the disabled — are "empathy" and "what is in the judge’s heart"?
What on earth was I thinking?
I’ll give you this much, though: I don’t think there’s much "secret" about where he’s coming from.
- Member in the Chicago New Party (The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left.)? More here.
- Barack himself was an active participant in both the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America.
- One of Obama’s main mentors, while in Hawaii, was Frank Marshall Davis a member of the Communist Party USA.
- Worked for and with Bill Ayers in multiple capacities (Woods Foundation, Joyce Foundation, Annenberg Challenge, political events)
- Obama believes that American wealth, in the form of our taxes, should be used as charity and a redistribution of wealth big time with his Global Poverty Act at $840 Billion.
- Sat in Rev. Wright’s church, a pastor preaching a racist anti-American theology, for 20 years (does anyone really believe Obama when he says he has no idea of these messages?)
- Was hired ACORN to do their training (you know, that group that is constantly under indictment for illegal voter registration tactics and information – current in being brought to justice in Nevada, Connecticut, Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Mexico, Indiana, Missouri, et al) and they turned out voters for Obama.
- More on Ayers that makes it absolutely plain that Ayers does not have the best interest of the American way of living at heart:
An idea of what Ayers has in mind for America’s schools was provided in his own words not 40 years ago when Obama was eight years old, but less than two years ago in November 2006 at the World Education Forum in Caracas hosted by dictator Hugo Chavez.
With Chavez at his side, Ayers voiced his support for "the political educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how . . . all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane."
Ayers told the great humanitarian Chavez: "Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions large and small. La educacion es revolucion." It is that form of socialist revolution that Ayers, and Obama, have worked to bring to America.
Ayers, now a tenured Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, works to educate teachers in socialist revolutionary ideology, urging that it be passed on to impressionable students.
During Obama’s tenure as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers’ own education projects received substantial funding.
As Stern points out, "Ayers and his education school comrades are explicit about the need to indoctrinate public school children in the belief that America is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive."
Biting the hand that feeds it. So Putney, ask yourself these questions and then tell me that he believes in the traditional American values system?
If Obama was a radical, it was because of his extremist positions. So I think it’s a fair question: If you accept the premise that he was a radical, how has he changed such that he should no longer be considered a radical? Obviously, he is very smooth and he presents himself as a reasonable, moderate fellow. But that doesn’t affect substance. (After all, he also poses as a uniter when his record is uninterrupted, hard-ball partisan. The question has to be what he does, not what he says and how he packages himself.) Have you seen some of this stuff he funded at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? His position on infanticide was a fringe position — as was the position he took on surveillance reform only a few months ago. And his Global Poverty Act proposal is about as way out as it gets….
Another observation and concern:
One is that he has quietly ditched his former radicalism for a more mainstream left-liberalism. Another is that he remains as radical as he was years ago but is concealing his basic orientation for political reasons.
So Putney – do the dots matter?
