I know a few friends who are Democrats; not many, but a few. Early on in the Democrat primary, when stuff about Father Phlager and Reverend Wright came out, and when Michelle Obama declared that this was the first time in her adult life that she was proud of her country, I started seeing signs of something amiss on the Barak Obama front. I openly told my Democrat friends that Barak Hussein Obama isn’t the Democratic Party’s strongest candidate – Hillary Clinton was. One thing after another started popping up in Barak Obama’s background, especially his ties to far-left radical types.
From looking at the guy, Obama seems thoughtful, intelligent, and reasoned. He doesn’t use the same clichéd comments that most leftist radical types use. But boy, does the guy seem surrounded by them.
Then along comes Bill Ayers, infamous Weatherman bomber.
I told my friends that Obama was a bad pick for the nomination – he’s weak. His campaign team is staffed by a bunch of young ideologues (from what I’ve seen thus far) who are inexperienced, and radical. Obama himself, as shown in the recent televised town hall-style debate, doesn’t have the off-the-cuff reaction time that John McCain does. Take away the teleprompter, and he gets lost…easily. He’s no Bill Clinton, that’s for sure. I was pretty clear to my Democrat friends that Hillary Clinton was the best candidate for the job. She could hit McCain, and hit him hard. That’s what she and Bill know how to do best: play political hardball. But, most importantly, Hillary Clinton was the “evil” that you knew. Books had been written about her life, and her past both for and against. Time had fully vetted her, as well as John McCain. There were no lurking surprises out there between either of the two politicians.
Barak Obama is relatively unknown. Jeremiah Wright was the first pall cast over his presidential aspirations.
Enter Stanley Kurtz. Mr. Kurtz is presently doing a little investigation into the relationship between William Ayers, and Barak Obama. And apparently, there’s more to the Ayers / Obama relationship than anyone has previously known. So, after gaining recent access to an extensive amount of files and records that involve Obama’s participation in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), Mr. Kurtz decided to go on a local radio show called “Extension 720”, hosted by an individual named Milt Rosenberg.
That’s when all hell broke loose.
An Obama-sponsored campaign to shut down the radio show went into effect, requesting participants to say the following:
- William Ayers was involved with the Weather Underground when Barack Obama was eight years old, and Barack has roundly condemned their actions.
- Last night on Fox News, Kurtz tried to radicalize an education reform program in Chicago called the Annenberg Challenge. The Challenge was funded by Republican Walter Annenberg, introduced by Mayor Daley and Republican Governor Jim Edgar, and one of its initiatives was even praised by John McCain.
- Kurtz claimed on Fox News that William Ayers recruited Obama to the Annenberg Challenge — a flat out lie. Ayers did not serve on the board of the Challenge, and he had
It ended up jamming the phone lines. By all accounts, when Kurtz read to some of the callers from the documents discovered at the University of Illinois Chicago (where the CAC documents were housed), the callers went silent. When asking the callers to refute the information, none of them could. Instead, many of them cried foul of the “character assassination” that Kurtz was alleged to be doing. However, none of his points were refuted.
So what’s so terrible about what Kurtz found? National Review Online put out an article that described the “attack” on Kurtz when he appeared on WGN. The juiciest bits are as follows:
Kurtz has written extensively, and with characteristic attention to factual detail, about Obama’s early career as a “community organizer,” his cultivation of benefactors in the most radical cauldrons of Chicago politics, his long-time pastor’s immersion in Black Liberation Theology, his ties to anti-American zealots, and the years in the Illinois state legislature this self-styled agent of change spent practicing the by-the-numbers left-wing politics of redistribution and race-consciousness, remaining soft on crime and extreme on abortion.
This has led Kurtz, naturally, to scrutinize the relationship between Obama and one of his early political sponsors, William Ayers. Ayers, as we have previously detailed, is a confessed terrorist who, having escaped prosecution due to surveillance violations that came to light during his decade on the lam after a bombing spree, landed an influential professorship in education at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). As he has made clear several times before and after helping to launch Obama’s political career, Ayers remains defiantly proud of bombing the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, and other targets. He expresses regret only that he didn’t do more. Far from abandoning his radical politics, he has simply changed methods: the classroom, rather than the detonator, is now his instrument for campaigning against an America he portrays as racist and imperialist.
Obama supporters risibly complain that shining a light on the Obama/Ayers relationship is a “smear” and smacks of “guilt by association.” A presidential candidate’s choice to associate himself with an unrepentant terrorist would be highly relevant in any event — does anyone think the Obamedia would keep mum if John McCain had a long-standing relationship with David Duke or an abortion-clinic bomber?
But we are talking about more than a mere “association.”
Bluntly, Obama has lied about his relationship with Ayers, whom he now dismisses as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” Ayers and Obama have made joint appearances together; they have argued together for “reforms” of the criminal justice system to make it more criminal-friendly; Obama gushed with praise for Ayers’ 1997 polemical book on the Chicago courts; and they sat together for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a left-wing enterprise that distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to their ideological allies. Most significant, they worked closely together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC).
What’s the CAC all about, you ask? Well, here’s a little background from the same story:
The CAC was a major education reform project, proposed by Ayers, which was underwritten by a $49.2 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation, complemented by another $100 million in private and public funding. The project ran for about five years, beginning in 1995. As the liberal researcher Steve Diamond has recounted, Ayers ran its operational arm, the “Chicago School Reform Collaborative.” Obama, then a 33-year-old, third-year associate at a small law firm, having no executive experience, was brought in to chair the board of directors, which oversaw all “fiscal matters.”
By the time the CAC’s operations were wound down in 2001 it had doled out more than $100 million in grants but had failed to achieve any improvement in the Chicago schools. What little is known about the grants Obama oversaw is troubling. As Diamond relates, one of the first CAC awards in 1995 was $175,000 for the “Small Schools Workshop,” which had been founded by Ayers and was then headed by Mike Klonsky. It was only the beginning of the CAC’s generous funding of Klonsky — a committed Maoist who had been an Ayers comrade in the radical Students for a Democratic Society (the forerunner of Ayers’ Weatherman terrorist organization), and who hosted a “social justice” blog on the Obama campaign website until his writings were hastily purged in June after Diamond called attention to them.
What this does is establish one more link between Barak Obama, and a known, confessed, unrepentant domestic terrorist.
I warned my friends: Barak wasn’t vetted. My gut instinct tells me that this relationship he and his wife have with the Ayers family (Bill Ayers’ wife is also a radical with the Weathermen Underground) is just the tip of the iceberg.
Oh, the Democrats will scream “swift boat”, because of what happened to John Kerry. It’s important to know that the people behind the Swift Boat flap had been after Kerry since about 1968, when he went in front of Congress and provided “testimony” about what he and others “encountered” in Vietnam (much of which he could not, or would not prove). It seems that in the process of calling his military brothers a bunch of soulless murderers, a few of them decided to harbor a grudge. The planets just happened to align properly for them to get their pound of flesh when he could ill afford it.
The whole “swift-boating” worked because Kerry wouldn’t release his military records, and tried to cover up some of the information as it pertained to his combat experiences. The fact is that there was some truth to the allegations, so they stuck. Had Kerry released the documentation concerning his three Purple Hearts (in three months, no less), and his other commendations, the whole thing would have fizzled out not long after it started.
But Kerry kept his records under seal. One wonders why? It probably didn’t help his cause when he claimed that he was in Cambodia during the Nixon administration (it was “seared in his mind”) when Nixon wasn’t even president during that time.
Now we have a similar situation: the Obama camp trying to shut down information concerning his past. It will make people wonder why, which isn’t a good thing.
Lord knows what else is sitting out there, just waiting to be uncovered.
I’ve linked to a podcast of the program in question.
I don’t know how long it will remain available.