Ayers Is No Education &#8216;Reformer&#8217;

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed or Email Feed.

William Ayers Just a “Guy in the Neighborhood”, NOT!

Posted October 17, 2008

Comments(0)

The Wall Street Journal published the following Opinion article by Sol Stern. It amazes me how much effort the Obama camp and the DNC have put into covering up these leftist radicals. I am very scared for our young people. Here we have a domestic terrorist (who should still be behind bars) shaping education in our schools. We, in California, have a ballot measure this election, proposition 8, that will eliminate same-sex marriage. But, if it doesn’t pass, it will set precedent for the country and our education curriculum will forever be changed. I’m not certain I want my children being taught that same-sex marriage is OK by constitutional standards. I still believe that this lies in the relm of religion and acceptance within a religion. We still have separation of church and state, at least until the Messiah is elected, where upon we’ll all be melded into one church-state. We cannot allow the Democrats to control all branches of government. They are far too radical and just plain too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions. Please make a wise choice when you vote on November 4th. The future of our and our children’s country is at stake…

Ayers Is No Education ‘Reformer’

The new media spin is worse than Obama’s original evasion.

One of the most misleading statements during the presidential debates was when Barack Obama claimed that William Ayers was just “a guy in the neighborhood.”

But that piece of spin is nothing compared to the false story now being peddled by Mr. Obama’s media supporters that Mr. Ayers — who worked with the Democratic nominee for years to disperse education grants through a group called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge — has redeemed his terrorist past. In the New York Times, for example, Frank Rich writes that “establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform.”

David G. Klein

I’ve studied Mr. Ayers’s work for years and read most of his books. His hatred of America is as virulent as when he planted a bomb at the Pentagon. And this hatred informs his educational “reform” efforts. Of course, Mr. Obama isn’t going to appoint him to run the education department. But the media mainstreaming of a figure like Mr. Ayers could have terrible consequences for the country’s politics and public schools.

The education career of William Ayers began when he enrolled at Columbia University’s Teachers College at the age of 40. He planned to stay long enough to get a teaching credential. But he experienced an epiphany in a course offered by Maxine Greene, who urged future teachers to tell children about the evils of the existing, oppressive capitalist social order. In her essay “In Search of a Critical Pedagogy,” for example, Ms. Greene wrote of an education that would portray “homelessness as a consequence of the private dealings of landlords, an arms buildup as a consequence of corporate decisions, racial exclusion as a consequence of a private property-holder’s choice.”

That was music to the ears of the ex-Weatherman. Mr. Ayers acquired a doctorate in education and landed an Ed school appointment at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC).

Chicago might seem to be the least likely place for Mr. Ayers to regain social respectability for himself and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. After all, the Windy City was where their Weathermen period began in 1969, with Mr. Ayers, Ms. Dohrn and their comrades marauding through the Miracle Mile, assaulting cops and city officials and promulgating slogans such as “Kill Your Parents.”

Counterpoint

My Friend Bill Ayers 10/15/2008 – By Thomas Frank

But Chicago’s political culture had already begun to change by the time the couple returned in 1987. And the city would change even more dramatically when Richard Daley Jr. became mayor in 1990.

Daley the son has maintained as tight a rein over the city’s Democratic Party machine as did his father, doling out patronage jobs and contracts to loyalists and tolerating as much corruption as in the old days. But unlike his father, he was ready to cut deals with veterans of the hard-core, radical left who were working for their revolutionary ideas from within the system they once sought to destroy from without. There is no lack of such veterans. One of Chicago’s congressmen, Bobby Rush, is a former chairman of the Illinois Black Panther Party; Louis Gutierrez, a former leader of a Puerto Rican liberation group, the Puerto Rican Socialist Party, is another.

In this Chicago, where there are no enemies on the left, Mr. Ayers’s second career flourished. It didn’t hurt that his father, Thomas Ayers, was the CEO of the Commonwealth Edison company, a friend of both Daleys and a major power broker in the city.

Mr. Ayers was hired by the Chicago public schools to train teachers, and played a leading role in the $160 million Annenberg Challenge grant that distributed funds to a host of so-called school-reform projects, including some social-justice themed schools and schools organized by Acorn. Barack Obama became the first chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge organization in 1995. When asked for an opinion on the Obama/Ayers connection, Mayor Daley told the New York Times that Mr. Ayers had “done a lot of good in this city and nationally.”

In fact, as one of the leaders of a movement for bringing radical social-justice teaching into our public school classrooms, Mr. Ayers is not a school reformer. He is a school destroyer.

He still hopes for a revolutionary upheaval that will finally bring down American capitalism and imperialism, but this time around Mr. Ayers sows the seeds of resistance and rebellion in America’s future teachers. Thus, education students signing up for a course Mr. Ayers teaches at UIC, “On Urban Education,” can read these exhortations from the course description: “Homelessness, crime, racism, oppression — we have the resources and knowledge to fight and overcome these things. We need to look beyond our isolated situations, to define our problems globally. We cannot be child advocates . . . in Chicago or New York and ignore the web that links us with the children of India or Palestine.”

The readings Mr. Ayers assigns to his university students are as intellectually diverse as a political commissar’s indoctrination session in one of his favorite communist tyrannies. The list for his urban education course includes the bible of the critical pedagogy movement, Brazilian Marxist Paolo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”; two books by Mr. Ayers himself; and “Teaching to Transgress” by bell hooks (lower case), the radical black feminist writer.

Two years ago Mr. Ayers shared with his students a letter he wrote to a young radical friend: “I’ve been told to grow up from the time I was ten until this morning. Bullshit. Anyone who salutes your ‘youthful idealism’ is a patronizing reactionary. Resist! Don’t grow up! I went to Camp Casey [Cindy Sheehan's vigil at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas] in August precisely because I’m an agnostic about how and where the rebellion will break out, but I know I want to be there and I know it will break out.” (The letter is on his Web site, www.billayers.org.)

America’s ideal of public schooling as a means of assimilating all children (and particularly the children of new immigrants) into a common civic and democratic culture is already under assault from the multiculturalists and their race- and gender-centered pedagogy. Mr. Ayers has tried to give the civic culture ideal a coup de grace, contemptuously dismissing it as nothing more than what the critical pedagogy theorists commonly refer to as “capitalist hegemony.”

In the world of the Ed schools, Mr. Ayers’s movement has established a sizeable beachhead — witness his election earlier this year as vice president for curriculum of the American Education Research Association, the nation’s largest organization of education professors and researchers.

If Barack Obama wins on Nov. 4, the “guy in the neighborhood” is not likely to get an invitation to the Lincoln bedroom. But with the Democrats controlling all three branches of government, there’s a real danger that Mr. Ayers’s social-justice movement in the schools will get even more room to maneuver and grow.

Mr. Stern is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. He is writing a book, to be published by Encounter, on William Ayers and social justice teaching.

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed or Email Feed.

Obama’s 95% Illusion

Posted October 13, 2008

Comments(0)

I just knew it was a shell game. It depends on what the meaning of ‘tax cut’ is. He’s a greasy con artist that has the welfare crowd eating out of his hand. If he gets elected, I can just see all of the crying and whining when he doesn’t fulfill on his promises. This article was posted in the Wall Street Journal and is the best breakdown of the proposed Obama tax cuts I’ve seen…

One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.

AP

It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to “make work pay” that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A “savings” tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A “clean car” tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be “refundable,” which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this “welfare,” or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a “Demogrant.” Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable “tax credits” would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as “tax credits,” the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends “refundability” on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit — his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We’ve written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain’s proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don’t now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn’t create a new one.

There’s another catch: Because Mr. Obama’s tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge “marginal” tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of “making work pay,” but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you’re a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery — among many — of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama’s 95% illusion to go unanswered.

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed or Email Feed.

One Woman’s Research On Obama

Posted October 8, 2008

Comments(2)

Friends, this is every important, please take the time to read it.

This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking ‘where did the money come from for Obama’. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

I started looking into Obama’s life.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. ‘Barry’ (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a ’round the world’ trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate’s family, then off to Africa to visit his father’s family. My question – Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack – not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It’s not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.

By ‘chance’ he met Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named ‘Entrepreneur of the Decade’ by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association‘. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented ‘Rezar’ which Rezko’s firm. Rezko was one of Obama’s first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with ‘seed money’ for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans – Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko’s wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama’s new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama’s boss. She is now Obama’s chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was ‘sacked’ after the press found out he was having regular contacts with ‘Hamas’, which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama’s visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will ‘Take care of things’.

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those small’ Internet campaign contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?

And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on ‘This Week’ with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, ‘My Muslim faith’. When questioned, ‘he made a mistake’. Some mistake!

All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it – Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times – Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times – September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question – If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven’t all of our ‘intelligent’ members of the press been reporting this?

-anonymous

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed or Email Feed.

Why I’m Voting Democrat

Posted October 8, 2008

Comments(0)

I’m voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I’m voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I’m voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they’re doing because they now think we’re good people.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

I’m voting Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe three or four pointy headed elitist liberals need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that when the terrorists don’t have to hide from us over there, they will come over here and I don’t want to have any guns in the house to fight them off with.

I’m voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my horse.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

Makes ya wonder why anyone would EVER vote Democrat, now doesn’t it?

-anonymous

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed or Email Feed.

Impeach Congress

Posted October 8, 2008

Comments(0)

Impeach Congress

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed or Email Feed.

The Real Obama — No Surprise Here!

Posted August 5, 2008

Comments(0)

This email was forwarded to me by my father. The message was forwarded to him by a mutual friend who knows the family of the author. It just sickens me to think that this asshole would spend taxpayer dollars to go to Afghanistan and Iraq and grandstand in front of our true American Hero’s for his own political gain and then not even give them the time of day, let alone say thanks.

Vote NOBAMA!

———- Forwarded Message ———-
Hello everyone,

As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to ‘The War Zone’. I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.

As the Soldiers were lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn’t say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the Clam Shell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers [or] to thank them for their service.

So really he was just here to make a showing for the American’s back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.

I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don’t understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.

If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.

In service,
CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
American Soldier

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed or Email Feed.

Vote NObama 2008!!!!

Posted July 24, 2008

Comments(0)

The following video exemplifies just how wrong Obama is for America. He is a socialist aligned with Marxist views. You absolutely should not vote for “flip flop” Obama…

NOBAMA!! NOBAMA!! NOBAMA!!!!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed or Email Feed.

$Asshole Obama Won\'t Even Say The Pledge of Allegience!$

Asshole Obama – Vote No Fucking Way!

Posted July 14, 2008

Comments(0)

If you support this guy, you ought to rethink your American values cause he sure as hell is going to take them away from you. He doesn’t give a shit about America or the American People. Can you believe that the socialist left media support this guy; making up excuses for actions like these.

People, please don’t vote this asshole into office! He will work to take away every liberty we have left in this country. Who does he think he is? Fucking prima donna Asshole.

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed or Email Feed.

Yet Another Example of how Washington Screws Us on Oil Development

Posted June 9, 2008

Comments(0)

Americans for American Energy is a good site to monitor the state of our domestic energy development. The following press release is yet another example of the politicians in Washington working against the interests of the American people and specifically for the special interest groups. This has got to stop or we’ll never gain our energy independence from our enemy’s.

NEWS
For immediate release: June 9, 2008
Contact: Greg Schnacke, 866-416-0659

Western Legislators Condemn Sen. Salazar For Trying To Block Oil Shale, Natural Gas Development In The West

Salazar effort ‘will directly help foreign terror groups,’ charges one Western legislator

DENVER, Co. (June 9, 2008) – While consumers battle $4-a-gallon gas prices, a single U.S. Senator is trying to block America from developing oil shale, an American resource that could single-handedly end America’s dependence on expensive foreign oil.

Colorado’s Ken Salazar (D) is reportedly trying to use the U.S. Defense Authorization Bill to put oil shale development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming on permanent hold by blocking commercial oil shale leasing on public lands.

Salazar also plans to use the Defense Authorization bill to block the efficient development of an estimated nine trillion cubic feet of clean-burning natural gas in the U.S. Naval Oil Shale Reserve, located in Western Colorado. That gas is enough to heat four million homes for 20 years.

“I fear that Ken Salazar has been misled by environmental extremists who don’t seem to care about seeing America come more energy independent,” said Wyoming State Senator Bill Vasey (D), Board Chairman of Americans for American Energy (AAE). “The leaders of some of these groups actually want consumers to get hit with higher prices, because they believe that this is the only way to force people to conserve. That’s not right. We should be looking to increase the supply of American energy for America, which will help reduce the upward pressure on prices.”

“The U.S. Defense Authorization bill is not the place to be adding amendments that restrict the domestic energy production that our Armed Forces need,” Vasey added. “This flies directly in the face of the reason for the creation of the U.S. Naval Oil Shale Reserves in the first place.”

“If Ken Salazar succeeds, consumers from coast-to-coast will end up getting two black eyes,” said Colorado State Senator Bill Cadman, a member of the Board of AAE. “I can’t understand how anyone would hamstring America from becoming more energy independent at a time when prices are soaring. This is simply inexcusable.”

“Blocking oil shale development from proceeding and bottling up natural gas in the Naval Oil Shale Reserve helps America’s enemies and will put more money directly into the pockets of terrorist groups that are trying to kill Americans right now,” said Utah State Representative Aaron Tilton. “It’s just that simple. This man is aiding and abetting the sworn enemies of our nation. Whose side is he on?”

“We have American troops in harm’s way right now in part to defend America’s access to foreign oil, and to stabilize a situation in the Middle East that is in effect creating higher and higher fuel prices here at home,” said Utah State Representative Mike Noel (R). “Using a defense bill to block responsible development of over a trillion barrels of oil from oil shale is not only wrong but it is exactly the kind of crackpot ideas the folks have come to expect from the out-of-touch Washington, D.C., crowd.

“The defense bill is about defending America, not making us more dependent on foreign oil and in effect weaker. Senator Salazar and every member of Congress should be rolling up their sleeves and looking at ways to tap into the 200 years of oil resources located within the boundaries of the United States, which makes us stronger as a nation.”

The Department of Defense Authorization Bill is expected to be called up Senate action as early as this week, according to Congressional sources.

Salazar championed action in Congress last year to place a commercial leasing moratorium for oil shale development, effectively stopping all meaningful research and development activity by private industry due to lack of commercial development potential.

Regarding the Naval Oil Shale Reserve, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has adopted the most restrictive Resource Management Plan in its history, taking nearly seven years since Congress directed the agency to lease the NOSR for responsible oil and gas development. Blocking leasing of the area could cost the federal government over $1 billion in lost lease bonus revenue and billions of dollars more over the life of the project in lost royalties.

# # #

Contact: Greg Schnacke, 866-416-0659

Americans for American Energy
350 Indiana Street, Suite 640
Golden, CO 80401
info@americansforamericanenergy.org

Close Bookmark and Share This Page