Crossposted from Flopping Aces

(well, Obama and Obama-McCain stories. It is election season, after all.)

Media catching on to the real Obama/Ayers relationship

Two days ago – October 6th – I posted my observations that the Obama-Ayers link was less about breaking bread with an unrepentent terrorist, and more a statement on Obama’s very dangerous socialist views on education and indoctrinating America’s youth with a particular… and very socialist/Marxist… political slant. Truth is, the more Obama talks of the federal funds he wants to inject into pre-school and early years education, the more uncomfortable I get.

In case I had moments of thinking I was just being paranoid… and I’m quite sure that I’m not that well read as a mere blogger amongst trillions… I’ve been rewarded by my own thoughts being echoed in some very major venues.

From my own post, read Obama-Ayers: Education=Activism for Social Injustice.

Yesterday, the Investor’s Business Daily editorial page picked up on the same train of thought, with their article, Obama’s Real Problem with Ayers.

“School reformer” is how Brokaw identified the co-founder of the Weather Underground, the radical organization that, among other activities, bombed government buildings, banks, police departments and military bases in the early 1970s.

Yeah, right: Ayers is a school reformer in the same sense, as City Journal’s Sol Stern put it, as Joe Stalin was an agricultural reformer.

An idea of what Ayers has in mind for America’s schools was provided in his own words not 40 years ago when Obama was eight years old, but less than two years ago in November 2006 at the World Education Forum in Caracas hosted by dictator Hugo Chavez.

You’ll notice that the video interviews mentioned by IBD were those I embedded in the original post. Not the same segment as Hot Air’s Ed Morrisey reported on over a year ago. But there were 12 installments of that interview. And it took serious patience to view them before I settled on Ayer’s comments on the US public school system as the most damning evidence of Ayers current agenda for America.

There are even more videos than just the two that I used… which included Ayers tribute to Rosa Luxemburg, co-founder of the Communist Party of Germany in the late 19th/early 20th century. I certainly urge you to visit YouTube and view them all. (Note: there are 12 in all, so make sure you find those not showing on this linked page…)

More from Investors Business Daily…

Ayers told the great humanitarian Chavez: “Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions large and small. La educacion es revolucion.” It is that form of socialist revolution that Ayers, and Obama, have worked to bring to America.

Ayers, now a tenured Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, works to educate teachers in socialist revolutionary ideology, urging that it be passed on to impressionable students.

As Stern points out, “Ayers and his education school comrades are explicit about the need to indoctrinate public school children in the belief that America is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive.”

Yup… that’s pretty much Luxemburg in a nutshell. The duty of the teacher is to not only teach, but to be an activist. And, of course, in the world of both Ayers and Luxemburg, they are active anti-capitalism.

But the real stunner was listening to Rush Limbaugh this AM. I swear I had to shake my head, wondering if this guy somehow snuck into my thoughts.

Then see this from Andrew McCarthy at the National Review.

Now either I’m a real political trendsetter with some media bigwigs feeding on the Flopping Aces site for the latest opines … or *some* of the media is finally catching on to the real story of Obama and Ayers. And that story is stripping Obama bare revealing him as an unabashed socialist. To the public, it’s masked by the well-fitted designer suit and Greek columns. But in history? The linkage is clearly an unbroken pattern of socialist beliefs.

Read the links, and ponder the reality of a nuanced Obama, who provides little about his past, and instead relies on soaring ideals of “middle America” in well written and presented speeches.

Then add the latest news surfacing of Obama’s documented ties to the Democrat Socialists of America (one of Ayers/Alinsky spin offs), and the New Party when running for the Illinois Senate.

Think about the six degrees of separate of an Ayers/Obama… living around the corner from each other in New York, with Obama a member of a party that is a Weather Underground offshoot… and somehow magically meeting in Chicago. A time when Ayers and the CAC tapped a supposed “unknown” newbie community organizer for ACORN, Barack Obama, to distribute millions of dollars of funds for an educational experiment headed up by Williams Ayers, the “social injustice” advocate.

Think back to the cut and paste Saul Alinsky phrases in both Obama’s and his wife’s campaign speeches.

Just how coincidental is all this? And just why hasn’t the media noticed that the issue is not that Obama hangs out with an admitted domestic terrorist. It’s that he actively works, and endorses Ayers’ educational philosophy, founded on unbridled socialism.

Then ask… is this what you want for your children or grandchildren?

also:

Victim of Obama’s Terrorist Friends Speaks

Is killing a legitimate political tool? Ayers thinks so. Obama’s political patron has blood on his hands!

“I Don’t Regret Setting Bombs … I Feel We Didn’t Do Enough.”
–William Ayers, September 11th, 2001

TERROR VICTIM’S QS FOR BARACK
Ayers: Terrorist aided O’s rise.
By MAGGIE GALLAGHER
NY Post
October 8, 2008

WHEN John Murtagh was 9 years old, Bill Ayers’ friends tried to kill him.

“I remember my mother’s pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn’t leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside,” wrote Murtagh recently in City Journal.
As best he recalls, Bernardine Dohrn, who’s now Ayers’ wife, first claimed credit for bombing John’s home in 1970.

John Murtagh is a now lawyer and Yonkers city councilman running for the state Senate on the GOP ticket. I reached him this week through his campaign. It wasn’t hard.

It wasn’t personal. John’s dad was a judge presiding over a trial of some Black Panthers. John still remembers the red graffiti on the sidewalk the next morning: “Free the Panther 21; The Viet Cong Have Won; Kill the Pigs.”

Has Barack Obama ever tried?

Obama was only 8 when Murtagh’s house was bombed. He has nothing to do with the trauma the Murtagh family went through. But Obama was a grown man when he decided his path to power lay through Bill Ayers’ connections.

In the Chicago establishment, which embraced former terrorists like Ayers and his wife, Obama was encouraged to look beyond the obvious – the lawlessness, the attacks on cops, judges, army outposts – to embrace larger goals.

What were these goals? How does Obama come to continue to associate with Ayers – a man who can’t bring himself to say to John Murtagh or to John’s mother or any other kin of the attacked: I’m sorry. I was wrong. It was a terrible thing to do.

Obama’s campaign is busy fudging. His top political adviser claims Obama just didn’t know Ayers’ history when they first met. Bomber? What bomber? Right.

“If that’s true, Obama has to be the dumbest man who ever graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School,” snorts Murtagh. “I don’t buy that at all.”

Murtagh believes the relationship between the Obamas, Ayers and Dohrn goes back 30 years, to Michelle Obama’s time at Sidley Austin, a law firm that also employed Dohrn.

Murtagh doesn’t blame Obama for what Ayers and his friends did. He blames Obama for picking a man like Ayers as a friend and mentor – and then covering up the friendship.

In politics, things get complicated. Truth becomes hard to find. But not this.

“The night they attacked our home, they also firebombed an army recruiting station out in Brooklyn and police patrol cars outside of Greenwich Village,” notes Murtagh. “Three weeks later, they accidentally blew themselves up. They intended to attack the officer’s club at Fort Dix.”

Lay your cards on the table, says Murtagh. “Obama’s free to associate with Dohrn and Ayers; that’s his right,” he tells me. “But don’t hide the relationship, and be forthcoming and let people decide the significance of it for themselves.”

also:

Obama’s Ties To Chicago Socialist Party

No Quarter has a piece up about Obama’s ties to a Socialist party in Chicago….shocker right?

Barack Obama was an active participant in the 1990s, and a direct political beneficiary, of the Chicago New Party and, importantly, the Chicago DSA, a group of socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America.

1. Barack Obama attended and participated in meetings of the Chicago New Party and the Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America.
2. Barack Obama sought the endorsement of the Chicago DSA which required rigorous scrutiny by the party’s Political Committee as well as Mr. Obama’s signature on a contract promising “a visible and active relationship with the NP.”
3. Barack Obama actively used the endorsement from the Chicago DSA.
4. Barack Obama won his DSA-endorsed and -backed campaign to secure his seat in the Illinois State Senate.
5. Barack Obama continued his involvement with the Chicago DSA — including directly asking the group to join “his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration” — and received their endorsements in subsequent campaigns.

Obama’s participation in and endorsement from the Chicago New Party and Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America (which is the U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International) is quite clear:

1. According to the write-up on the July 1995 meeting of Chicago DSA and New Party membership, Barack Obama was one of about 50 people attending out of their then-300 member local group. Other documents below will demonstrate Barack Obama attended and participated in subsequent meetings.
2. The New Party rigorously evaluated its candidate endorsements and claimed “a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections.” This was no passive endorsement.

Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.—New Ground

3. Candidate Barack Obama participated as a panelist at the DSA-sponsored Town Meeting on February 25, 1996, entitled “Employment and Survival in Urban America”. As reported in New Ground
4. Obama subsequently secured his endorsement from the Chicago DSA
5. The local Democratic Socialists of America affiliate issued their Chicago DSA Endorsements in the March 19th Primary Election:
6. Barack Obama Continued Attending Membership Meetings of the Chicago DSA New Party
   Obama attended membership meeting on April 11, 1996 where he expressed his gratitude for their support. The report shared that “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”

So basically Mr. Obama won the election in Chicago with the help of the DSA. For a more detailed look at the DSA and what they are read on:

Describing itself as “the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International,” the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States. “We are socialists,” reads the organization’s boilerplate, “because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.” “To achieve a more just society,” adds DSA, “many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed. … Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States.”

Formed in 1983 during the Cold War by merging splinter factions of the Socialist movement, DSA brought together what it calls “former Socialists and Communists, former old leftists and new leftists, and many who had never been leftists at all.” In its early years, DSA supported the Soviet-backed nuclear freeze program that would have consolidated Soviet nuclear superiority in Europe – under the banner of promoting “peace.”

DSA summarizes its philosophy as follows: “Today … [r]esources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic Socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. … While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.” …

DSA seeks to increase its political influence not by establishing its own party, but rather by working closely with the Democratic Party to promote leftist agendas…

In the wake of 9/11, DSA characterized the terror attacks as acts of retaliation for American-perpetrated global injustices. “We live in a world,” said DSA, “organized so that the greatest benefits go to a small fraction of the world’s population while the vast majority experiences injustice, poverty, and often hopelessness. Only by eliminating the political, social, and economic conditions that lead people to these small extremist groups can we be truly secure.”

Strongly opposed to the U.S. War on Terror and America’s post-9/11 military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, DSA is a member organization of the United For Peace and Justice anti-war coalition led by Leslie Cagan, a longtime committed socialist who aligns her politics with those of Fidel Castro’s Communist Cuba.

DSA publishes a quarterly journal titled Democratic Left, which discusses issues of concern to the organization and its constituents. The Founding Editor of this publication was Michael Harrington. DSA has also created a youth association called Young Democratic Socialists…

Another association not reported on, nor even investigated, by our MSM.

How about this election?

The names of four former top leaders of the Weathermen terrorist organization are listed as signatories on an online petition calling for an “independent grassroots effort” to help strengthen Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign.

The petition was initiated by Progressives for Obama, an independent organization acting to ensure the Illinois senator’s election.

Progressives includes among its ranks many former members of the 1960s radical organization Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, from which the Weathermen splintered, as well as current and former members of other radical organizations, such as the Communist Party USA and the Black Radical Congress.

“We agree that Barack Obama is our best option for president in 2008, and that an independent grassroots effort can help strengthen his campaign,” states the online petition. “It can also strengthen the mandate for his programs for stopping war, promoting global justice and securing our rights, liberties, and economic well-being.”

Oh joy….

He associates with criminals, racists, terrorists, and socialists.

What a wonderful leader of the free world he will make huh?

Finally:

Obama’s Links To Group That Tried To Subvert The 2nd Amendment

An important new report (PDF) has been released by Second Amendment lawyer Dave Hardy of Of Arms and the Law. He found that while Obama was serving on the Joyce Foundation’s Board of Directors, Joyce had a specific agenda. To control published research on the 2nd Amendment so that sooner or later the Supreme Court would be influenced by the overwhelming amount of research favoring the gun control dummies.

In 1998-2001, while Barack Obama sat on the board1 of the $750,000,000 Joyce Foundation, the Foundation formed a plan to use millions to influence the outcome of a future Second Amendment Supreme Court case. The plan involved using its assets to buy up legal and historical academia, and even universities and their foundations.

Joyce Foundation realized a future Second Amendment Supreme Court case was probable; the Court would consult legal scholarship, i.e. books and law reviews; that scholarship had overwhelming concluded that the Second Amendment reflected an individual right, a result Joyce Foundation did not want.

The solution was simple: Joyce would lavish money on cash-starved law reviews and Universities, provided that they published only results acceptable to Joyce. In some cases, Joyce pressured the institutions to reject articles, and even to cancel academic presentations, that were contrary to its desires. Joyce also poured millions into creating shell organizations to support its views.

What we see today in the briefs in District of Columbia v. Heller, the DC gun case, is largely the product of that plan. Several amici who filed briefs are entirely the creation of Joyce’s money, and their briefs rely upon articles that Joyce paid to have written.

~~~

The Joyce Foundation years ago realized that a Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment was likely, and decided to use its millions to buy the case indirectly. It created a supposed academic research center as its wholly-owned subsidiary. It corrupted law reviews, dictating their content, and even trying to dictate who could speak at universities accepting Joyce’s money. It laundered its money through its Center and thru a University’s Foundation.

An attorney named Barak Obama was right in the middle of the plan.

Joyce paid for a research center at the Ohio State University and then used the center to provide scholarships to those who agree with the collectivist interpretation of the Second Amendment (which basically states that the amendment only applies to the federal government). He then used the center to purchase more influence at other law review centers.

Joyce continued purchasing legal scholarship to support its intended result. In 2004 Fordham University Law Review brought out a Second Amendment issue. It at least acknowledged “The conference was funded by a generous grant from The Joyce Foundation.”

Two years later, Joyce bought the Stanford Law and Policy Review. The price had gone up, and the laundering of money become more sophisticated: its 2004 grants (now offline) listed:

Ohio State University Foundation John Glenn Institute for Public Service & Public Policy Columbus, OH $125,000. To host a symposium at Stanford Law School on the connections between the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, to publish papers in a major law review, and
disseminate findings via the Web. (2 yrs.)”

Note that the funds were now being laundered via the University’s Foundation. The issue was apparently a “customized” one. Stanford Law & Public Policy Review is a small journal, publishing twice a year. That year, however, it had three issues.

The Stanford publication made no acknowledgment that Joyce was underwriting the issue; with the money being laundered through OSU’s Foundation, the editors may not even have been informed. The discovery of the funding did embarrass the Review enough to cause its present editors to publish an open letter online,10 which asserted that they had been told that OSU (not Joyce, note) offered to defray the cost of printing this special third issue. The editors noted that Saul Cornell had organized the conference for the Review, and that his Center had paid for it, They also noted that the Review does not now receive any payments supporting it, underscoring the unusual nature of the earlier grant. Essentially, Joyce money had been laundered through OSU’s Center to organize the conference itself (with Prof. Cornell hand-picking the presenters), and more Joyce money had been laundered
through the OSU Foundation to print a special issue of the Review with those papers. It is hard to envision a more perfect corruption of the academic process.
This comes on the heels of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and Obama’s work with Ayers in which they funneled millions to radical left wing organizations to indoctrinate students into the, as Ayers would say, Communism with a little “c”.

What kind of friends and influence will he bring into the White House if elected?

Too scary to imagine.