Wednesday, October 08, 2008

The Real Obama

THE OBAMA-AYERS CONNECTION

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on October 7, 2008

Printer-Friendly Version

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.

Sphere: Related Content

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

and i bet you could connect him to Kevin Bacon is less than six degrees!

Jen G said...

Sigh. I am very tired of this "guilty by association" tactic - be it Obama-Ayers, Palin-secessionists, or McCain-Limbaugh. Pretty much everyone (at least in politics) has at some time worked closely (or peripherally) with someone of questionable ethics/practices.
What I find interesting about ANY politician's questionable connections is how they react to them. Frankly, I am disappointed in Obama that he tried to underplay his connection to Ayers. He shouldn't have to. And I am proud of him for not fleeing, as many have suggested he ought to have done, at the first sight of Ayers or at the first "Goddamn America" by Wright.
While Ayers may still have radical philosophies, he has learned that the more effective means of implementing them is to work within the system, rather than bombing it. Just like Rev. Wright, he has an opinion about something he feels is broken within this country, and his opinion deserves to be heard (see Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment).
Now, whether or not you agree with Obama, you have to recognize that he is an intelligent individual. As an intelligent person who has had grand political aspirations for a long time, he has been very decisive in his steps. it would have been very easy for him to flee from Rev. Wright's church or from working with a former terrorist if he thought it might impede his goals. That would have been the traditional, political strategy. Keep your slate as clean as possible. But he stayed. He KNEW that this would someday come up in a campaign and he stayed. That was not an act of stupidity nor negligence. That was a very strategic maneuver to prove that he is willing to listen to and work with those outside the norm. That, my friends, is revolutionary. And if you remember correctly, this country was founded by revolutionaries and radical thinkers.

dan said...

I think you're giving him too much credit. As with the "bitter" comments, I think that this is a guy who really doesn't understand how most of America lives. He knows the city's, but other than that, he has been isolated from much of the nation.

Ayer's is a terrorist. Wright hates America. Associating with them is just as bad as associating with the KKK. It's not like he once gave a speech to a buch of harmless secessionists without endorsing their cause. He worked closely with some very bad people for political gain, and it appears that many of his voters are simply giving him a pass. In the GOP, someone with that history would have never even come close to the nomination.

Jen G said...

"In the GOP, someone with that history would have never even come close to the nomination."

Therein lies the fundamental difference between the right and left wings. The right seems to think it is bad judgment and potentially unsafe to associate (note we're all using the word "associate" here, which is very different from "participate") with radicals, whereas the left considers such behavior to be compassionate, productive and progressive. Those are simply differences of opinion, akin to debating whether orange or green is a better color. It is nearly impossible to change another person's opinion. I do apologize for using generalities, but that is what I have discovered to be the case based on my discussions on this and other blogs, and discussions with real-live people. (I know: how dare I stray from the virtual world and engage in real life!)

Dan said...

That's correct. It's the same argument as the one about the President meeting directly with dictators. We feel that doing so gives credibility to their cause and tactics and elevates them to a place where they endanger more folks than they did before.

Dan said...

That's correct. It's the same argument as the one about the President meeting directly with dictators. We feel that doing so gives credibility to their cause and tactics and elevates them to a place where they endanger more folks than they did before.

barton b said...

I agree that this is a key difference in priorities – maybe not with the representatives of the parties themselves – but with many of the party’s “core” voters.
I don’t give a damn about William Ayers.

I don’t care if Guy A worked with Guy B, who teaches socialism and has radical ideas about education. Our current education system is an insult to the word “education” and last time I checked, it doesn’t hurt anyone to learn about socialism. Knowledge is a good thing. And socialism actually has a lot of good qualities. It isn’t a perfect economic theory, God knows, but then neither is capitalism. Oh, speaking of God - Jesus Christ was a socialist.

As far as Ayers’ past – he was a dumb kid during a crazy time. Fine. Whatever. I mean, The Weather Underground were a really stupid bunch of idiot hippies. No arguments here. I wouldn’t go so far as to call them dangerous. Mostly because they were totally incompetent. They often blew themselves up. But let’s be clear – I’m not saying “Go, Wiliam Ayers, it’s cool to bomb buildings, woohoo, kill the pigs!” I’m saying that between the wall of time that now stands between Present Ayers and Past Ayers and the tenuous nature of Obama’s dealings with him, I just look upon this “connection” as a non-issue.
I do think that’s a difference in ideals and agendas. I’m not threatened by radical ideology the way some knee-jerk conservatives are (sorry for the generalization). I don’t see discussing and arguing the pros and cons of alternative approaches to economics, education, government, etc, as being tantamount to treason. I don’t jump every time someone says “socialism” or “social justice” or…. “justice.” And I generally don’t play the guilty-by-association game. It doesn’t seem very productive. Obama was in Wright’s church. Palin is married to a former secessionist. McCain is one of the Keating 5. Oh well. Everyone’s shifty. If America were populated by angels, we wouldn’t need government.

If you care about these connections, though, than okay. Factor that in to your voting decision. I personally don’t care, and I don’t really see this issue as mattering much to anyone other than the GOP conservative base, and I’m pretty sure that McCain-Palin had them at hello.

knowitall said...

Well Ayers is openly talking about his connection to the left-wing illuminati politicians now that they election is over, and the media somehow sees nothing wrong with it.