Tuesday, September 30, 2008

NObama 08 Blogburst

I cannot ever remember a time in my lifetime, where the stakes in a Presidential election have been any higher. With radical jihadists seeking to kill innocent Americans and a banking crisis that has not been seen since the stock market crash of 1929, there is no time in my life where we have been in such dire need of quality leadership.

This November, we will have two viable choices to fill this void. And as this campaign had unfolded from the first votes in Iowa, it has become clear that there is one choice that poses as high of a risk, as putting your life savings on green at a roulette table.

One candidate has actively put up smoke screens. He has exaggerated and embellished qualifications. He has actively lied about his past associations and affiliations. And he has triangulated and reversed his positions solely for political purposes, specifically to win an election and no other reason.

His name is Barack Hussein Obama, who the mainstream media has openly and lovingly embraced as a saviour of epic proportions, while ignoring the serious questions that many Americans have about him.

For this reason, Political Yen/Yang joins with several others in a NObama 08 blog burst each Tuesday of the week until Election Day. If we cannot obtain the truth about our politicians from an unencumbered press, then we’ll form a cooperative to distribute information independently.

Stanley Kurtz is a journalist and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mr. Kurtz’ article in the Wall Street Journal explains why Barack Obama is untrustworthy for the office of the President of the United States. He lacks integrity … and if it is one thing we do not need in the White House, it is yet another dishonest politician.

Mr. Kurtz writes:

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.

The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago's public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy.

The CAC's basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda.

One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.

In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead, CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity, and bilingualism than traditional education. 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.

CAC also funded programs designed to promote "leadership" among parents. Ostensibly this was to enable parents to advocate on behalf of their children's education. In practice, it meant funding Mr. Obama's alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, to recruit parents to its overall political agenda. CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents "organized" by community groups might be viewed by school principals "as a political threat." Mr. Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Mr. Weber's objections.

The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC's first year. He also served on the board's governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative.

The Obama campaign notes that Mr. Ayers attended only six board meetings, and stresses that the Collaborative lost its "operational role" at CAC after the first year. Yet the Collaborative was demoted to a strictly advisory role largely because of ethical concerns, since the projects of Collaborative members were receiving grants. CAC's own evaluators noted that project accountability was hampered by the board's reluctance to break away from grant decisions made in 1995. So even after Mr. Ayers's formal sway declined, the board largely adhered to the grant program he had put in place.

Mr. Ayers's defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin.

Mr. Ayers is the founder of the "small schools" movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to "confront issues of inequity, war, and violence." He believes teacher education programs should serve as "sites of resistance" to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his "Teaching Toward Freedom," is to "teach against oppression," against America's history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

But this alone is not enough to solicit my active participation in this activity. If Barack Obama would just openly admit his past associations honestly and transparently, or the mainstream media would accurately report them, I may not have felt compelled to be a part of this anti-Obama movement. I say this because, if this were the case, I firmly believe the American people would soundly reject him and his ideology as being the solution to the problems this nation faces.

But now, we have learned that "so-called" truth squads have been formed in Missouri . These have been formed for the specific purposes of curbing free speech and debate on these serious questions that have arisen about Sen. Obama and intimidating people to stay silent. These tactics are reminiscent of the Black Shirts of Mussolini's Italy and the Hitler Youth of Nazi Germany, because these so called truth squads have prosecutors as members. These kinds of maneuvers severely undermine freedom and liberty and I am not willing to sit passively by, allowing this to happen without some active resistance.

So if this is something that you, too, are not willing to allow unchallenged, if you are not too keen on having this nation evolve into the People's Socialist Republic of America or the Union of Soviet States of America, join PYY and these other fine bloggers every Tuesday until the election:

Always on Watch

And Rightly So

Big Girl Pants

Confessions of a Closet Republican

Farmer’s Letters



Has Everyone Gone Nuts?

Papa Frank

Paleocon Command Center

Pondering Penguin

Social Sense

The Amboy Times

The Crank Files

The Jungle Hut

The Logic Lifeline

The Merry Widow


Greg said...

Probably b/c I'm a pedantic lawyer, one of the first things that came to my mind when I heard about this story was the inherent conflict of interest of Ayers sitting on a board that gave money to Ayers' projects. Perhaps the money even paid Ayers' salary. I didn't know until I read your post that this had actually come up at the CAC and they had eventually moved Ayers into an advisory role. I assume that only happened after substantial funds had gone his way.

I agree with you that this is a major issue. It's hard to tell, what with BHO's "moderation" of all his policy positions, whether he is a moderate of a far-leftist (perhaps communist). His work with Ayers and his radical teaching projects is quite damning. Why am I not surprised that something so damaging has not been reported by the MSM (I have seen it on Fox, however)?

Another issue I'm interested in is how BHO made it into Harvard. He waited 5 years after Columbia to apply to the most selective law school in the world. He won't release his Columbia transcripts, probably b/c they show he didn't have the grades to get into Harvard Law. (BTW, Fox interviewed 400 of BHO's Columbia classmates, and not one of them remembers him). (Also, BTW, Ayers has substantial connections to Columbia, and it is at least possible that that is where the two first met, casting further doubt on BHO's already discredited story about his relationship with the terrorist). Anyway, did one or more of BHO's far left community-organizing contacts help him get in? If so, who? Or was BHO a beneficiary of racial preferences?

Anyway, the point for me is that, on the one hand, I see a guy who I know pretty well; who has a track record I can look at; who has proven his dedication to our country. On the other hand, I have a guy who is not well known, and is trying to become POTUS while giving us the least amount of information about himself as possible. Maybe I'm just being a typical white person, but I'm suspicious. How do I know BHO isn't the Manchurian Candidate?

Also, I see you mentioned The One's middle name. Dude, that is totally racist to mention his middle name. ;)

LASunsett said...

//Another issue I'm interested in is how BHO made it into Harvard. //


Hadn't heard that one.

A.C. McCloud said...

Don't worry LA, the MSM is on it..