Home Discussion Forum Is this the kind of educational reform Obama means to promote?

Related Posts

Is this the kind of educational reform Obama means to promote?

And is Obama’s connection to the infamous terrorist, William Ayers, more serious than the liberal media lets on?
William Ayers applied for $50 million for Chicago. The purpose of his application was to secure funds to “raise political consciousness” in Chicago’s public schools. After he won the grant, Ayers’s group chose Barack Obama to distribute the money. Between 1995 and 1999, Obama distributed the $50 million and raised another $60 million from other civic groups to augment it.
Now (ACORN) to pair with schools and conduct programs to radicalize the students and politicize them.
Reading, math and science achievement tests counted for little in the CAC grants, but the school’s success in preaching a radical political agenda determined how much money they got.
Barack Obama should have run screaming at the sight of William Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn. Ayers has admitted bombing the U.S. Capitol building and the Pentagon, and his wife was sent to prison for failing to cooperate in solving the robbery of a Brink’s armored car in which two police officers were killed. Far from remorse, Ayers told The New York Times in September 2001 that he “wished he could have done more.”
Ayers only avoided conviction when the evidence against him turned out to be contained in illegally obtained wiretaps by the FBI. He was, in fact, guilty as sin.
That Obama should ally himself with Ayers is almost beyond understanding. The former terrorist had not repented of his views and the education grants he got were expressly designed to further them.
So let’s sum up Obama’s Chicago connections. His chief financial supporter was Tony Rezko, now on his way to federal prison. His spiritual adviser and mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of “God damn America” fame. And the guy who got him his only administrative job and put him in charge of doling out $50 million is William Ayers, a terrorist who was a domestic Osama bin Laden in his youth.
Even apart from the details of the Obama/Ayers connection, two key points emerge:
a) Obama lied and misled the American people in his description of his relationship with Ayers as casual and arm’s-length; and
b) Obama was consciously guided by Ayers’s radical philosophy, rooted in the teachings of leftist Saul Alinksy, in his distribution of CAC grant funds.
Since Obama is asking us to let him direct education spending by the federal government and wants us to trust his veracity, these are difficulties he will have to explain in order to get the votes to win.
Now that Obama is comfortably ahead in the polls, attention will understandably shift to him. We will want to know what kind of president he would make. The fact that, within the past 10 years, he participated in a radical program of political education conceptualized by an admitted radical terrorist offers no reassurance.
Why did Obama put up with Ayers? Because he got a big job and $50 million of patronage to distribute to his friends and supporters in Chicago. Why did he hang out with Jeremiah Wright? Because he was new in town, having grown up in Hawaii and Indonesia and having been educated at Columbia and Harvard, and needed all the local introductions he could get to jump-start his political career. Why was he so close to Rezko?
Because he funded Obama’s campaigns and helped him buy a house for $300,000 less than he otherwise would have had to pay.
Not a good recommendation for a president.
Change is something we need absolutely. But your fluffy bumper sticker slogan for “change” lacks substance. We need the RIGHT change, and McCain is it.
Great going dodging the question by the way. Wouldn’t expect anything less from ideologue zombies.


  1. That you even compare William Ayers with Osama Bin Laden is just sickening. You really need to get over the fact that we need a change in this country. Barack Obama is by far not the most qualified candidate but he is about change and we need a new direction. Unless you consider the last 8 years successfull?

  2. Not only Ayers and Rezko. How about Reverend Wright and his screaming hate sermons (hard to sleep through all of that noise!) and Louis Farrakhan, Head of the Nation of Islam. A hate-filled radical to say the least and Obama’s church awarded him a Lifetime Acheivement award. To may stinking skeletons in his closet. As I have said:
    You walk like a duck, quack like a duck, smell like a duck and hang out with ducks —- your probably a duck
    Your known by the company you keep
    Birds of a feather flock together.

  3. Pinstripe, the Ayers/Osama comparison holds up. Both are terrorists. Both attacked the United States of America. Both are unrepentant.
    What part of that don’t you understand?
    Oh yes, one more. Both are low down dirty dogs!
    As to the original question, it scares me half to death to think what Obama will do towards indoctrinating our children into his political agenda. No thank you. Vote McCain Palin, the only choice for a renewed and strong America. Vote for the RIGHT change!

  4. It is unlikely since you ahve grossly misrepresented the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the role Ayers played.
    Let’s start with where the grant came from. The Annenberg foundation was named for its founder (who was president and chairman at the time of this activity), lifelong Republican and former Nixon appointee and Reagan advisor Walter Annenberg. Hardly a group that was involved in “radicalizing” our youth.
    The panel that determined the winning grant was made up of Vartan Gregorian – president of the Carnegie Corporation, Ted Sizer a former dean of Harvard School of Education and former Bush Sr appointee and Xerox CEO David Kearns – again hardly a radial left wing bunch.
    Next Ayers’ role. He co-authored the bid with a former director of the Wiebolt Foundation and Warren Chapman, an advisor the Annenberg Foundation. So of the three, only Ayers was by any stretch of the imagination a leftist.
    Ayers played absolutely no role in selecting Obama to chair the board for the project. Ayers also was not a board member (as Republicans consistently claim) but rather an advisor who did attend some board meetings but with no voting power.
    Your representation of the goals of the program are way of the mark. Rather than “politicizing children” the project aimed at “encouraging collaboration among teachers and better professional development; reducing the isolation between schools and between schools and their communities; and reducing school size to improve learning.”
    That you have to so blatantly misrepresent the CAC and the roles that people played in order to sustain this gutter level attack on Obama does nothing other than to demonstrate how tenuous the link really is and how desperate and despicable the Republican’s campaign of lies has become.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Posts