According to Wikipedia, it is "a technique used in literature to mislead the audience." It is also a term associated with misleading the audience in conversation, or other communication. But you get the idea. I'm not here to debate how literally we should interpret the term "red herring." You get the idea.
So, let's talk about William Ayers and Barack Obama. Last week, Barack Husein Obama challenged John McCain to bring this issue up "to my face." so I think you can count on nothing less in tomorrow night's debate. But even when it IS brought up, Obama will either 1)not tell the public the true nature and extent of his relationship with an unrepentant terrorist, or 2)point out that the American People want to talk about the economy, and then talk about the economy.
The red herring in this whole issue IS the association between Obama and Ayers. Sure, it is troubling that a man who is as close as Obama is to the White House had ANY kind of relationship with a man who bombed the Capital, the Pentagon, and either conspired to or in fact help create acts of terrors throughout the northeast corridor. Anyone who isn't troubled by this association is either 1)an idiot, 2)hates America as much as Ayers, or 3)is more interested in the "goodies" they feel Obama will give them than national security.
So what's the REAL ISSUE? Glad you asked. Chicago is indeed a big place with MILLIONS of people. You would think two guys wouldn't just keep bumping into one another as Ayers and Obama do. Their kids went to school together, they live in the same neighborhood(along with Louis Farrkhan), their wives worked at the same law firm, Obama had a political event to kick off his Illinois State Senate campaign in Ayers' living room . . . and the two SAT ON TWO(not one) boards together. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Foundation. We'll come back to these two foundations.
The fact that Obama said that Ayers was just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" should be enough to convince ANYONE that he is downplaying the relationship, and make ANYONE wonder WHY he feels the need to be dishonest about it. But apparently HALF of America isn't smart enough to make such inferences. This was Obama's comment, word for word, taken from a debate during the primary against Hillary Clinton:
"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."
Before I go further, note that Obama says he doesn't "exchange ideas from on a regular basis." He doesn't say he doesn't exchange ideas with Ayers, just not on a regular basis. And this WONDERFUL AUTHOR, when not fed by a teleprompter or having a terrorist ghostwrite his memoirs for him, can't even use proper English. He should have said "exchange ideas WITH," not "exchange ideas from." But I digress. I just brought that up to make a small point, that this man IS a fabrication, a caricature created by behind the scenes liberal conspirators, not a man who can speak so eloquently when not reading from a script. He's not so eloquent when not reading rehearsed lines(someone else's lines) from a teleprompter. He's a fraud. A complete fraud. And the DUMB HALF of America has bought it.
So anyway, where was I? Oh yeah . . . the two foundations Ayers and Barack Husein Obama served on together. First the Woods Foundation. The purpose of the fund was:
"focused on welfare reform, affordable housing, the quality of public schools, race and class disparities in the juvenile justice system, and tax policy as a tool in reducing poverty. The Fund supported the concept of an expanding welfare state allocating ever-increasing amounts of money to the public school system, and the redistribution of wealth via taxes."
My source for this information is: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5340&category=79
Further, A notable Woods board member is William Ayers, who in the 1960s was a member of the terrorist group Weatherman, and was a wanted fugitive for over a decade as a result of the group's bombing campaign; today Ayers is a Professor of Education at the University of Illinois. In 2002 the Woods Fund made a grant to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was employed. Barack Obama was one of Ayers' fellow Woods Fund board members at that time.
So Obama is sitting on a board(with his terrorist pal William Ayers) focused on welfare reform, tax policy as a tool to reduce poverty, and the redistribution of wealth via taxes. I am sure this is just a coincidence. I'm SURE Obama sat on this board just to help the community, and completely disagreed with all these policies, or had no idea as to what these policies are. I mean I can Google and find it out in two seconds, but I am sure Obama didn't know ANYTHING!!!
Next let's look at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. According to Wikipedia(and everybody else except barack Husein Obama, who won't talk about such things because he cares so much about the economy), The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001 that worked with half of Chicago's public schools. While Obama supporters would like to distract you with yet ANOTHER RED HERRING, pointing out that Annenberg was a Reagan supporter, I say THIS:
1)Annenberg wanted to "reform" schools, not indoctrinate students with radical ideas, and
2)It is well established that he(Annenberg) gave billions to all kinds of causes, was 85 years of age at the time, and DELEGATED the awarding of the monies that ended up in William Ayers' hands to a close associate, a man by the name of Gregorian.
3)Even if Annenberg DID have some responsibility for how the money was spent, Annenberg isn't running for president.
Do we have THAT out of our system? Good.
So anyway, William Ayers was one of three founders of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. A total of $147.6 Million was taken in from Annenberg(1/3), other private donors(1/3), and public monies(1/3). On January 23, 1995 the "CAC" received their initial funding and Ayers was on his way to radicalizing students with other people's money. Barack Husein Obama was named as the Board Chairman. What a coincidence. Later that year, Obama would begin his political career in Ayer's living room. Chicago is such a cozy little place, isn't it? Everybody knows everybody, everybody lives in one little cozy neighborhood, everybody's wife works at the same place, everybody's kids go to the same school. Chicago is so much like Mayberry! But I digress(again!!!).
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was completely unrelated to the Woods foundation in any way whatsoever, oh, except for the fact that Ayers and Obama served on THAT BOARD TOGETHER ALSO. There must only be a dozen or so people that LIVE in Chicago!!! What else could explain Ayers and Obama bumping into eachother so regularly? Yeah, just a "guy who lives in your neighborhood."
So, anyway . . . where was I? Oh yeah. What was the PURPOSE of the "CAC"? This might be a good time to interject that ACCESS TO THE RECORDS, HOUSED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, WAS BLOCKED WHICH NEARLY REQUIRED AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO RELEASE THE RECORDS TO THE PRESS. Why block access to the records? Whatcha got to hide, Barack?
So here we go, drum roll please . . .
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a project designed to spread radical political thought by essentially feeding it to schoolchildren under the guise of educational reform:
CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).
Mr. Obama once conducted “leadership training” seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama’s early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC’s in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.
CAC also funded programs designed to promote “leadership” among parents. Ostensibly this was to enable parents to advocate on behalf of their children’s education. In practice, it meant funding Mr. Obama’s alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, to recruit parents to its overall political agenda. CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents “organized” by community groups might be viewed by school principals “as a political threat.” Mr. Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Mr. Weber’s objections.
The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC’s first year. He also served on the board’s governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative.
source:http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/23/the-obama-ayers-connection-chicago-annenberg-challenge/
Ya still with me? So, the red herring IS . . . the association, which IS pretty bad in and of itself. But it detracts from the REAL ISSUE, which is the purpose of BOTH THESE FOUNDATIONS reveals so much more about who Barack Husein Obama is and what he is REALLY ABOUT. You might have read in one of the last paragraphs a little something about ACORN. I'll save that for my next entry.
God Bless America!
3 comments:
It's frightening how many ostriches there are out there with there heads in the sand. Vote for "the black guy"
because it "feels" good. Huh? Is no one paying attention to the issues? Has everyone turned simpleton and refusing to think logically? Is this Rome burning while Nero stroked his harp? Wake up America! Think!
From Townhall:
Strapped to a polygraph on national TV, I would assert quite confidently that I would strongly condemn thuggish and criminal tactics by a candidate I supported. The ends do not justify the means for me and most other conservatives I know. I wish I believed the same were true for liberals, far too many of whom are deliberately turning their backs on the corruption defining Obama's campaign.
It would be bad enough if the Stalinesque stench engulfing the messiah's campaign were limited merely to its efforts to elect him. But what we fear is that these campaign tactics are of a piece with his policy agenda and his vision for America.
Sincerely intending no melodrama here, it's hard not to conclude that Obama aims to change America in fundamental ways, the common denominator of which would be to diminish individual liberties, the most distinguishing feature of the unique American system. Sadly, most Obama supporters have no clue what Obama is ultimately about or how his innocuous-sounding ideas could permanently destroy our freedoms.
It's inconceivable that even a low-level Republican candidate could have Obama's associations and employ his campaign tactics without being driven from the race. And yet we've got a man running for the highest office in the land surrounded with anti-American allies and covert election burglars, all protected by an unprecedented mainstream-media cover-up.
Democrats tell us they place the highest possible value on the integrity of the election process, yet their uniform response to ACORN's systematic assault on the voter registration process is unmitigated indifference and denial.
They also cavalierly dismiss Obama's undeniable connection to ACORN, as detailed by Mark Levin at "The Corner" blog on National Review Online. Obama worked for and represented ACORN and has given $800,000 to it from his campaign. Remember how Democrats were ready to hang Republican politicians who might have gone to lunch with lobbyist pariah Jack Abramoff? You want to talk to me about guilt by association? But Obama's deep associations with corrupt people and organizations don't so much as flicker the liberal eyebrow.
We now know about the investigations of ACORN-related voter registration fraud in 10 states. But have you heard some of the particulars about its nefarious activities in Pennsylvania?
The American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord reports: "'Between March 23rd and October 1st, various groups, including ACORN, submitted over 252,595 registrations to the Philadelphia County Election Board' with 57,435 rejected for faulty information. 'Most of these registrations were submitted by ACORN, and rejected due to fake social security numbers, incorrect dates of birth, clearly fraudulent signatures, addresses that do not exist, and duplicate registrations. In one case, a man was registered to vote more than 15 times since the Primary election.'"
There's no innocent explanation for any of this in Pennsylvania or for similar ACORN activities in other states. Why aren't honest Democrats joining Republicans in crying foul? How can they be so willfully blind to these threats to our system? I guarantee that if you ask, they'll give you their favorite liberal dodge, "Both sides are doing it." Dream on.
Just as alarming as the Obama left's direct assaults on the electoral process are their totalitarian tactics to chill their opponents' political speech. Don't think it's just Democratic attorneys in St. Louis misusing their power and the law as speech-suppressing weapons. Investor's Business Daily's editorial writers bullet point a number of egregious examples.
Lawyers for Obama wrote intimidating letters to television and radio stations that aired National Rifle Association ads in Pennsylvania detailing Obama's anti-gun record.
The Obama campaign complained to the Department of Justice when the American Issues Project had the audacity to run an ad tying Obama to violent revolutionary William Ayers, which scared some stations out of airing the spot.
Obama's army of supporters inundated radio station WGN with harassing phone calls and e-mails to disrupt its interviews of conservative writers investigating Obama's sordid background. This was the Obama campaign's chosen alternative to sending a representative to debate the conservatives, which they were invited to do.
As IBD points out, this is just a glimpse of what's in store for free conservative speech in an Obama administration, starting with the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, which is designed to emasculate conservative radio, the last best hope to prevent a full-blown socialist revolution.
It is no coincidence that the alarming tactics of the Obama campaign are compatible with Obama's policy agenda, which he's promised ACORN a role in crafting. The campaign's efforts to steal the election, if necessary, and suppress the constitutionally protected expression of its opponents aligns with its plans for government to subsume the health care industry and to use the tax code to punish success and further erode private property, the backbone of liberty.
If I sound like an alarmist, then mission accomplished. People better wake up before it's too late.
You know what, I have come to the conclusion that people don't WANT to be educated on the issues. They have become SELFISH with their time, don't WANT to know the issues because they would rather do whatever makes THEM feel good, and after 2 seconds have thought most have settled on Obama. It's like nothing I have ever seen. Richard Nixon, if he were alive, would have NO TROUBLE being elected, and I am left wondering why GARY HART withdrew from the race in the 80's over a PICTURE on his boat with someone that probably shouldn't have been on the boat. Morals USED TO MATTER, not sure they do anymore.
Post a Comment