viol8r: blog viol8r's blog
the obama-ayers connection
Published Oct. 8, 2008Is this REALLY the man you want in the White House?
By Dick Morris
In the best tradition of Bill Clinton’s famous declaration that the answer to the question of whether or not he was having an affair with Monica depended on “what the definition of ‘is’ is,” Barack Obama was clearly splitting hairs and concealing the truth when he said that William Ayers was “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”
The records of the administration of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), released last week by the University of Illinois, show that the Ayers-Obama connection was, in fact, an intimate collaboration and that it led to the only executive or administrative experience in Obama’s life.
After Walter Annenberg’s foundation offered several hundred million dollars to American public schools in the mid-’90s, 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. In doing so, he was following Ayers’s admonition to grant the funds to “external” organizations, like American Community Organizations for Reform 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.
61 Comments
(11 votes) gunman shoots raleigh pizza parlor employee
(10 votes) gas prices getting pumped up again
(8 votes) two marines accused of shooting horse
(4 votes) army ranger killed in iraq
(3 votes) camp lejeune marine dies at kuwait base
(3 votes) obama stimulus plan critical for n.c.







































Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
Given the choice we've got, you betcha!
GOLO member since July 29, 2007
October 8, 2008 9:54 a.m.
Ah, another brillant contribution from the smartest man alive. Name calling, lying, ranting.....you have that market cornered.
GOLO member since May 8, 2008
October 8, 2008 9:49 a.m.
He does claim to be a ... uh ... it’s hard to type this with a straight face ... but he does claim to be a Christian. Maybe Jesus tells him to do it.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...
Generally, though not always (have to account for people that are just plain mean, but otherwise intelligent), the unprovoked use of invectives is a sign that the person doesn’t have a sound and logical argument. You see that a lot on GOLO.
GOLO member since August 16, 2007
October 8, 2008 9:41 a.m.
Steve Crisp comes on here to show his “Christian” love by calling people names and insulting them. When his lies and misinformation are exposed by the facts, instead of addressing them, he just calls more names.
That COMPLETELY in context quote of Steve’s was just one of his negative remarks about women. The only thing that could be remotely out of context about it is that Steve Crisp might only apply it to Democrats. Given he’s a proven hypocrite, he gives Republicans such as Palin a pass. Palin has several kids, one of which is a mentally challenged baby, another is an underage knocked up teenager. Please tell us why Palin gets a pass on not staying home to be “caretaker of the household she has voluntarily chosen to form”. Why doesn’t she have a “duty to remain out of the workforce in order to properly fulfill those responsibilities or raising children properly.”?
GOLO member since August 16, 2007
October 8, 2008 9:32 a.m.
Steve, what is it with the name calling? Don't you understand how juvenile you're acting by calling names, and not realizing that you've lost this battle? Just get over it and move on!
GOLO member since December 11, 2007
October 8, 2008 9:23 a.m.
October 8, 2008 9:20 a.m.
October 8, 2008 9:19 a.m.
From MY OWN EXPERIENCE, just about every liberal I’ve met has been religious. They go to church and all that. I’m Independent, but I am liberal minded. I vote slightly left of center. Until I came on GOLO, I hadn’t met anyone else like me (i.e. that also shared my disbelief in invisible spooks in the sky).
GOLO member since August 16, 2007
October 8, 2008 9:19 a.m.
Viol8r posts a blog that is dead on correct. Several idiotic leftists come in here and refute the facts of that blog by simply stating they are lies. I jump in and note that such is the standars operating procedure of leftists -- just lie until people hear it so often that it becomes truth. Then some pinhead takes a quote of mine completely out of context (as leftists are wont to do all the time as well) and that supposedly shows that I lost a debate?
Are you delusional as well?
GOLO member since July 3, 2007
October 8, 2008 9:18 a.m.
GOLO member since April 24, 2008
October 8, 2008 9:10 a.m.
Please log in to add comment.