Here's an article from the Brown U. Daily Herald on the role of Brownies, namely the President and an education prof, in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, of which Obama was chairman of the board. It's a classic example of John O'Sullivan's law that any non-profit organization that isn't explicitly conservative always ends up being run for leftists ends. Arch-Republican Walter Annenberg puts up a half billion bucks, $100,000,000 of which went to Chicago, to fix the public schools. For advice, he turns to two people at Brown, the leftiest of the Ivy Leagues. They direct his money to a proposal co-authored by unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, husband of Charles Manson fan Bernardine Dohrn. In turn, Barack Obama gets hired as chairman of the board of the organization dreamed up by Ayers to hand out money to leftist organizations in Chicago like ACORN. The $100 million of Annenberg's money doesn't do much for the test scores of Chicago public school students, but it does wonders for building Team Obama among his base, leftist activists and civil servants.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
12 comments:
Steve, can you explain why he did such a thing?
'Arch-Republican Walter Annenberg puts up a half billion bucks' . . . and the money is steered to the opposition.
it shouldn't be a surprise. the battle for the future of america will be waged by two leftist factions: it will be national socialists vs international socialists. the same as in weimar.
the wealthy and business class will not play a key role. they won't fight in the streets and they won't do the dirty work. neither the corporate conservatives nor christian conservatives will adopt the hyper aggressive tactics that give leftists the natural advantage.
in russia neither the rich nor the religious responded quickly and forcefully to lenin. and conservatives did not prevent the communists from taking over germany. in germany the left wing socialist nazi party responded.
it's no coincidence that the white power web sites are heavily skewed toward national socialism and not toward the traditional conservatism of burke or the libertarian republican politics of the founding fathers.
it's comical to think that american conservatives will respond forcefully to the advancing left. they couldn't even stop the neocon leftists from taking over bill buckley's magazine. and now the same attack procedure has been used successfully by the neocon leftists to take over the republican party.
conservatives are by their very nature unqualified to vanquish leftists. that is the historical record.
It sure looks like Obama is a Manchurian candidate working on behalf of America's nuttiest leftists. Ayers obviously had big plans for Obama, but I doubt he ever expected things to go this far. Shame on the MSM for ignoring this story.
Is there any substance to the casual labeling of Bill Ayers as a "terrorist"? Like most people, I've never heard of this guy. But my research indicates that he attacked a few buildings and a statue but not people.
This question is academic, since the the term "terrorist" has been rendered almost worthless by its routine application to attacks on the military (Pentagon, USS Cole, Marine barracks in Lebanon).
But I'm still curious. Did he kill anyone?
This question is academic, since the the term "terrorist" has been rendered almost worthless by its routine application to attacks on the military (Pentagon, USS Cole, Marine barracks in Lebanon).
Since you don't understand that even attacks on the military qualify as terrorism then no one should expect to be able to explain it to you.
Attacks, even on the military, are terrorist if committed by gangs rather than by a state. One aspect of terrorism is to keep the target from being able to hold anyone responsible.
But I'm still curious. Did he kill anyone?
Has bin Laden directly killed anyone? He's the mastermind - as was Ayers. And Ayers, even now, has made no denial of his connection to the bombings and no apologies for what he did.
Steve, can you explain why he did such a thing?
I presume when you ask "he" you mean why did a Republican like Annenberg give money to liberals? Mostly I think it's because rich Republicans were never really very conservative on social issues. William Hewlett and David Packard, for example, were both fairly Republican in their lives - though one or both denounced the GOP after the 1992 "takeover"* by the religious right - but both of their foundations, run by their children, have skewed noticeably leftwards.
As I explained on the other post about George W Bush's speech, the time has come for economic conservatives to put up or shut up on their devotion to the whole GOP platform. It's time to stand up to the race agitators, because if they don't then they can kiss even DLC level economic conservatism goodbye. The mortgage meltdown proves just how dangerous a multiracial US driven by race agitators will be.
* A takeover mostly driven by George H.W. Bush's desparate attempt to stay in office, and the rest manufactured by the media.
"It's a classic example of John O'Sullivan's law that any non-profit organization that isn't explicitly conservative always ends up being run for leftists ends."
Can you please explain why, if liberals are not more intelligent than conservatives, they always end up taking power?
I mean it would be one thing if liberals were simply more generous than conservatives; it would make sense that liberals would dominate charities. But conservatives are also more likely to donate to secular charities.
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
How do liberals come to dominate every social institution, save maybe the military, if they are not many times more intelligent than conservatives?
I believe the British author Robert Conquest originally coined that "law of politics": http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWEyMGVjOGU0NGVjYmNmZWY4MzUzMWQ4ODI1ODE1OGU=
Vartan Gregorian is actually more of a classic "establishment liberal" than a hard-core leftist (before Brown he ran the New York Public Library), but maybe deep down inside there isn't much difference. Associating with Bill Ayers (an undoubted terrorist; sheesh, airtommy) certainly shows a grave error in anyone's judgment.
Why would anyone believe that someone who did not have children at the time and who had attended all private schools would have any of the tools to be able to help public schools.
The elite in the U.S. attend private schools where everyone is sharp and everyone is ambitious. No wonder they have no clue on how most public schools operate.
Anonymous said...
it's no coincidence that the white power web sites are heavily skewed toward national socialism and not toward the traditional conservatism of burke or the libertarian republican politics of the founding fathers.
I'm not so sure about that. The most popular white nationalist site on the Internet Stormfront.org is predominately paleo-conservative. They officially endorsed and actively campaigned for Ron Paul.
I guess I'm forgetting my '60s cultural history too. It's lost in the pop cult myths of playing Beatles' records backwards and glamorous movie stars and richies getting stabbed to death by drugged out hippies (Manson did talk of starting a race war.) I thought groups like the Weathermen were just hippies gone wild or government disinformation, although I knew they certainly had a few serious members.
But Ayres and his girlfriend Bernadette Dorn, were indeed guilty of subversive and murderously inclined activies and statements.
When you can get fired in the current workplace for calling somebody a Chinaman instead of Asian, it's amazing that these two are tenured professors.
Back when Ayers was being more honest about his intentions, he admitted that the purpose of a bomb that exploded in a Greenwich townhouse, killing his girlfriend of the time, had been to murder United States soldiers. That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, "tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too."
Ayers was a founder of the Weatherman terror group and he defined its purpose as carrying out murder. Again, from Discover the Networks:
Characterizing Weatherman as "an American Red Army," Ayers summed up the organization's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents."
In his book Fugitive Days,he he says he "participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972," he says of the day that he bombed the Pentagon: "Everything was absolutely ideal. ... The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."
And he wasn't singular. As I noted back in April in this article about Obama's motley collection of radical friends, at the Weatherman “War Council” meeting in 1969, Ayers' fellow terrorist and now-wife, Bernadine Dohrn, famously gushed over the barbaric Manson Family murders of the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, and three others: “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” And as Jonah recalled yesterday, "In appreciation, her Weather Underground cell made a threefingered 'fork' gesture its official salute."
Obama was a mere boy at the time all this was going on, so he doesn't stand guilty of those particular crimes, but ye shall know them by the company they keep. I'm no great patriot, but these people, sort of like the ones that have been BSing us for the last 10 years, would kill us citizens in a heartbeat if it furthered their psycho agendas. No--I didn't use to believe it either. The last decade has not only been the decade of BS, it has been the decade of shocking illumination for those who see through it.
Rain and,
I do think liberals may be more intelligent, but that isn't why they win. They win because they think anything that advances their cause is justified.
Post a Comment