The company he keeps 3

Read the devastatingly revealing bio of Valerie Jarrett – Obama’s closest adviser and the person who got Van Jones into the White House – by Ben Johnson at Front Page Magazine. It concludes:

An international, rootless wanderer abandoned by his father, and occasionally his mother, in search of authenticity, he [Obama] never felt at home until he found his roots, and himself, in the milieu of Hyde Park – a neighborhood big enough to encompass everyone from Marilyn Katz [see below] to Bill Ayers, from Tony Rezko’s vacant adjoining property to Louis Farrakhan’s wandering “security” force. And Valerie Jarrett. Is this what Jarrett reminds the Obamas of: the neighborhood that has been the president’s only true home and shaped or reinforced their values and identity? An elitist sanctuary of pampered radicals, racists, and terrorists, liberated of working class stiffs who bitterly cling to their guns and religion? Increasingly, it seems as though this is what “makes them who they are,” and is becoming the atmosphere Obama, with Jarrett’s help, is recreating in his administration.

Who is Marilyn Katz?

Who is this person to whom Jarrett is so indebted – and whom, we shall see, she calls a personal friend? Marilyn Katz provided “security” for Students for a Democratic Society at the 1968 Democratic Convention. Undercover Chicago policeman William Frapolly told prosecutors that during the Days of Rage, Katz showed protesters a new weapon to use against the police: “a cluster of nails that were sharpened at both ends, and they were fastened in the center.” Police later reported being hit by golf balls with nails through them, as well as excrement. Years later, Katz would insist her “guerrilla nails” were merely “a defensive weapon” to prevent “possible bad behavior by the police.”

Filling a niche 0

We suspect that Obama would have liked to appoint his long-time friend and some-time colleague William Ayers, the Commie terrorist, as education secretary, but hasn’t got that much audacity. Next worst choice, the one he made, is Arne Duncan, for reasons touched on politely by Investor’s Business Daily.

Note the ‘reform’ idea of Duncan’s to educate homosexuals separately

Duncan’s record has been unimpressive. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), Chicago Public Schools have remained below the national average during Duncan’s term.

Under Duncan, Chicago schools’ average reading scores rose just one point on average from 2002 to 2007, to 250 out of 500. The national average in 2007 was 263, and 75% of Chicago students scored less.

In math, scores rose from 254 in 2003 to 260 in 2007. But the national average that year was 280. Again, 75% of Chicago students scored below the national average. In writing, the story was the same, with about half falling below the national average.

One notable reform proposal of Duncan’s — a separate-but-equal high school for gay, lesbian and transgendered students. "If you look at national studies, you can see gay and lesbian students with high dropout rates … I think there is a niche there we need to fill," the Chicago Tribune quoted Duncan as saying in October.

Duncan also had ties to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, founded and financed through the efforts of ex-Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers [and Barack Obama]. Ayers saw the CAC as a chance to radicalize Chicago public school teachers and students.

In a recent Education Week article, Ken Rolling, the executive director of the CAC and a former associate director of the Woods Fund, which Ayers was also involved with [as was Obama], said Duncan relied on the CAC to build the Chicago Public Schools agenda.

Like most efforts to improve the government monopoly by throwing money at it, the CAC was a failure, and a costly one at that. The CAC ultimately threw $160 million at the problem.

A report on that effort said "the Challenge had little impact on student outcomes." The report added on page 15: "There were no statistically significant differences between Annenberg schools and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain."

But in rates of indoctrination ‘gain’? Betcha! 

 

Posted under Commentary by Jillian Becker on Thursday, December 18, 2008

Tagged with , , , , , ,

This post has 0 comments.

Permalink

There’s more than one way to subvert your country 2

 From Power Line:

More than any other cartoonist now working, I think, Michael Ramirez makes incisive points with his drawings. Like this one; click to enlarge:

toon111708.gif

It’s an excellent point: the real Bill Ayres scandal is not that he is pals with a guy who turned out to be President; it’s that he has had, over a period of years, a considerable influence on how children in Chicago have been educated. And that influence has been entirely pernicious. Ayers’ radical, racially separatist curriculum has been studied and has been found to be educationally worthless. In today’s liberal world, of course, that doesn’t put him out of business. On the contrary.

Bill Ayers happens to be famous, by virtue of his relationship with Barack Obama and the fact that some years ago, he bombed the United States Capitol and other landmarks. But how many other "educators" share Ayers’ perspective and values, but have never bombed anything and don’t happen to be friends with the President-elect? That number is huge. No one is tracking their influence on our youth, but isn’t it obvious that the influence of leftists in our public and private schools is both vast and malign?

Posted under Commentary by Jillian Becker on Saturday, November 15, 2008

Tagged with , , , ,

This post has 2 comments.

Permalink

Ayers and Obama – red revolutionary comrades 2

As the ‘mainstream media’ refused to publish facts about Barack Obama that might dissuade voters from voting for him, it  was up to the McCain Campaign to make them known. But apparently no one running the McCain Campaign thought of doing it until Sarah Palin came along and brought up the name of William Ayers in a speech that simply could not be ignored.

At last one of the clues to who and what Obama is, what the political opinions are of the man standing for the presidency of the United States actually are, was reaching the multitudes who knew nothing of him but his gift of the gab. That clue should have been followed by the rest. They’re all there, easy to find. His Kenyan father was a radical leftist. His mother, the 60s hippie, was a New Lefty. His grandfather got an ardent Communist named Frank Marshall Davis to mould the mind of young Barack, who went on eagerly to drink down the red ideology of Saul Alinsky. He sought a launch-pad for his political career among revolutionary leftists and America-haters (Ayers and Dohrn) in Chicago. When he attained the power to do so, he channeled funds to promote the activities and causes of the revolutionary left. He joined a church where revolutionary anti-American ideology was consistently preached. When he needed funds for his campaign in Illinois, they were raised for him in turn by his revolutionary leftist comrades. He trained ACORN staff in techniques of extortion, and ACORN is a radical red organization (see our posts on it) at the very root of the sub-prime meltdown.  

The old saying, ‘if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you can bet it is a duck’  applies here. Obama grew up with red radicals, learnt from red radicals, mixed with red radicals, worked with red radicals, churched with red radicals, strives to achieve the objectives of red radicalism, so what is he?

But even now that one of the clues has been outed with the name of William Ayers, Obama escapes being identified by the company he keeps. He says he just happens to live in the same neighborhood as this terrorist guy. He pretends to be hurt by unfair  ‘guilt by association’. Or if you won’t swallow the ‘just a neighbor’ line, then okay, at worst he  happened to have been washed up by coincidence on the same committees – which just happened to promote the indoctrination of the young with red revolutionary ideology. 

And the McCain people are letting him get away with it!

When they are asked: ‘What does it say about Obama that he associated with the terrorist William Ayers?’  – ‘It shows he has bad judgment,’ comes the reply.

No, it doesn’t. It shows that birds of a red revolutionary feather flock together.

It isn’t only that William Ayers was a terrorist; it’s what he was using terrorism for that needs to be taken notice of.  What was he trying to achieve with it? What was – and is – his ideology?  (Clues: He’s pally with Hugo Chavez; he admires Fidel Castro.)  

So it isn’t just that Barack Obama associates with red revolutionary radicals. Red revolutionary radicalism is his provenance. It’s where he comes from. It’s where he chose to put down his political roots.  It’s what formed his mind. It’s what lies behind his redistributionist, collectivist policies. 

Is it really possible that Americans could vote into power a red revolutionary radical without realizing what they’re doing?  It looks all too possible now, with Obama way ahead in the polls.

How many Americans would knowingly vote for a red revolutionary radical?  How can they be warned in time that that is what Obama is?

The only source of such information is the McCain Campaign, since the MSM – whose job it is – have iniquitously decided to conceal it.

But the McCain Campaign doesn’t seem to get it!

Hello over there! Anybody in the McCain Campaign doing any thinking?

It’s a poor choice for America between a man who thinks like a red revolutionary and a man who doesn’t seem to think at all. 

But – Oh dear! – better the boring guy who’s not too smart than the smart guy who will take America down the long hard slope into the socialist ditch where Europe now lies dying.   

Triumphant end of the long march? 1

 In the 1960s the New Left undertook to change the Western World to be more like the totalitarian East by embarking on ‘the long march through the institutions’.  A target institution would be infiltrated and subverted, turned if possible, or discredited. The prize targets were the media, the universities, local government, the police, national parliaments. Philanthropic organizations like Amnesty International and the charitable foundations were among the easier targets to take over or exploit. Slowly but steadily, taking advantage of the freedom they were dedicated to destroying, the red revolutionaries succeeded. 

To see how the trick was worked on a comparatively small scale, look at the ‘Chicago Annenberg Challenge’.  A respectable charitable foundation was asked for funds for educating the disadvantaged. All-too-innocent trustees responded generously, since that is what they were entrusted to provide funds for. But the people who received and would administer the funds were far left ideologues, among them one William Ayers, a leading and active member of a terrorist organization who escaped being sent to prison through a legal nicety.  He appointed  BARACK OBAMA to head the beneficiary organization. The funds, granted in good faith, were misdirected, not to education – though it looked as if that’s what they were being used for – but to indoctrination. So the far left ideologues brought off another political scam.  The appointment advanced Obama on his personal long march.  

(Here’s a link to an article explaining how Ayers was responsible for the appointment of Obama to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. )

The hands of the subversives are firmly on many of the levers of power. And now the most desirable and essential destination of the long march is within their reach: the presidency of the United States of America. 

Make no mistake about it: whatever Barack Obama says to get himself there, however he seems to be ‘moving to the centre’ and distancing himself from his political origins,  he is a creature of the Revolutionary Left. His policies and his appointees will prove it if he gets there.