Obama Funneled Grant Money to Afrocentric Anti-American Extremists
Stanley Kurtz has been digging through the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and has discovered that the group created and ram-rodded by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and fronted by Barack Obama was funneling grant money to anti-American afro-centric extremist groups filled with men just like Barack Obama's racist minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright—and as a matter of fact, some of those men spoke at Wright's Church during the time Barack Obama attended.
How culpable is Obama is funneling money to these racist indoctrination efforts?So Barack Obama either supported funding the racist indoctrination of schoolchildren, or is grossly incompetent as an executive, or both. This is part of a frankly disturbing pattern of behavior from the man who would be President.
Given the precedent of his earlier responses on Ayers and Wright, Obama might be inclined to deny personal knowledge of the educational philosophy he was so generously funding. Such a denial would not be convincing. For one thing, we have evidence that in 1995, the same year Obama assumed control of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he publicly rejected "the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation," a stance that clearly resonates with both Wright and Carruthers. (See "No Liberation."And as noted, Wright had invited Carruthers, Hilliard, and like-minded thinkers to address his Trinity congregants. Wright likes to tick off his connections to these prominent Afrocentrists in sermons, and Obama would surely have heard of them. Reading over SSAVC’s Annenberg proposals, Obama could hardly be ignorant of what they were about. And if by some chance Obama overlooked Hilliard’s or Carruthers’s names, SSAVC’s proposals are filled with references to "rites of passage" and "Ptahhotep," dead giveaways for the anti-American and separatist ideological concoction favored by SSAVC. We know that Obama did read the proposals. Annenberg documents show him commenting on proposal quality. And especially after 1995, when concerns over self-dealing and conflicts of interest forced the Ayers-headed "Collaborative" to distance itself from monetary issues, all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board. Significantly, there was dissent within the board. One business leader and experienced grant-smith characterized the quality of most Annenberg proposals as "awful." (See "The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The First Three Years," p. 19.) Yet Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups like the South Shore African Village Collaborative, instead of organizations focused on traditional educational achievement.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:24 AM
Comments
1
Frankly disturbing, and well-documented, and completely ignored. What the heck is wrong with this country?
Posted by: Mark at October 14, 2008 10:43 AM (+45yf)
2
This will never see the light of day in the msm, even if it did, it would go right over the heads of Obama voters.
Posted by: 1sttofight at October 14, 2008 11:17 AM (L+GKy)
3
The Annenberg Foundation intended its grant money to go for the improvement of children's education, which was spectacularly bad in Chicago.
Obama appears to have presided over a diversion of huge amounts of money ($150,000,000 anyone?) from education to extremist political organizations. If I'd been Annenberg or his representatives I'd have sued these jokers for fraud. This is corruption (or political correctness, take your choice of these close relatives) in spades.
Obama appears to have presided over a diversion of huge amounts of money ($150,000,000 anyone?) from education to extremist political organizations. If I'd been Annenberg or his representatives I'd have sued these jokers for fraud. This is corruption (or political correctness, take your choice of these close relatives) in spades.
Posted by: Micropotamus at October 14, 2008 12:18 PM (fuC1N)
4
I really think something bad is coming, and not just Obama being president. But if all this stuff keeps coming up and being found out, sooner or later someone is going to get indicted for something, and sooner or later Obama is going to get caught red handed involved. And his people are going to riot in the streets when that happens.
Posted by: Matthew O'Brian at October 14, 2008 01:41 PM (ukJOB)
5
Matthew, Obama's people have been rioting since 1968, and their rioting doesn't bother me. That is a law enforcement issue.
What concerns me is what radical leftists will try to push through Nancy Pelosi's incompetent and corrupt House and Harry Reid's Senate if they have barack Obama to rubberstamp their tax-and-spend proposals, on top of Obama's schemes that are already projected to cost more than a trillion dollars--$300 billion more than we forked over to bail out and economy that started it's downward spiral thanks in part to Obama's work for ACORN, forcing banks to give loans to those who can't afford it.
I'm worried about the death of capitalism and American exceptionalism under a socialist Presidenet and Congress, and the crushing tax burden Obama and the Democrats will saddle my daughters with.
Let them riot.
Just don't let them into office where the can cause real damage.
What concerns me is what radical leftists will try to push through Nancy Pelosi's incompetent and corrupt House and Harry Reid's Senate if they have barack Obama to rubberstamp their tax-and-spend proposals, on top of Obama's schemes that are already projected to cost more than a trillion dollars--$300 billion more than we forked over to bail out and economy that started it's downward spiral thanks in part to Obama's work for ACORN, forcing banks to give loans to those who can't afford it.
I'm worried about the death of capitalism and American exceptionalism under a socialist Presidenet and Congress, and the crushing tax burden Obama and the Democrats will saddle my daughters with.
Let them riot.
Just don't let them into office where the can cause real damage.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 14, 2008 01:55 PM (HcgFD)
6
Looks like my comment was up then taken down. Do you post dissenting comments here or is this just another right-wing echo chamber?
Posted by: Sonny at October 14, 2008 02:20 PM (oID0+)
7
Depends, Sonny... while I am not a member of management here, I've been hanging around for a while, and there are several things that can cause a comment to disappear:
* Swearing
* Thread hijacking (meaning, posting a comment on an unrelated topic, like, for instance, an anti-Palin video)
* Attacking the blogger
I'm sure there are lots more, those are just the most common.
Now, I admit I didn't see your comment, so I have to ask, did your comment fall into any (or all) of the above categories? If so, you now know why it vanished.
* Swearing
* Thread hijacking (meaning, posting a comment on an unrelated topic, like, for instance, an anti-Palin video)
* Attacking the blogger
I'm sure there are lots more, those are just the most common.
Now, I admit I didn't see your comment, so I have to ask, did your comment fall into any (or all) of the above categories? If so, you now know why it vanished.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2008 05:22 PM (kbd0j)
8
What I am afraid of, and I read this article by Kurtz in full and it really helped solidify the fear, that if Obama gets in and the Dems gain as expect in the two houses of Congress, Obama will have a mandate to put forward a real change in things - a real radical change.
It will really be just a matter of how much he can disguise it.
And it might not take much to hide it. Will the media continue to refuse to look at these things? Will they continue to fear being called "racists" if they report stuff like this?
I know from being around colleges for so long, intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals, like those in the press, like to pretend they support and sympathize with the good old radicals of the 1960s.
But, I've always felt that when push came to shove, they'd show their generally upper middle class roots and slide more toward the center than the radical left.
I think we're about to see push come to shove....
It will really be just a matter of how much he can disguise it.
And it might not take much to hide it. Will the media continue to refuse to look at these things? Will they continue to fear being called "racists" if they report stuff like this?
I know from being around colleges for so long, intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals, like those in the press, like to pretend they support and sympathize with the good old radicals of the 1960s.
But, I've always felt that when push came to shove, they'd show their generally upper middle class roots and slide more toward the center than the radical left.
I think we're about to see push come to shove....
Posted by: usinkorea at October 14, 2008 08:11 PM (OC/+E)
9
This dawned on me today:
Where is Trent Lott?
William Ayers says he wishes he had done more bombings.
He prides himself on still being a radical and a communist with a small c.
He has not come close to renouncing his actions or his radicalism.
Yet, Obama's connections to the man are fine with the media (and more).
McCain/Palin mentioning Ayers causes the media to rise up --- in defense of Obama - in attacks on McCain ---
--- and even to defense of Ayers.
They point out Ayers has long been a respected member of the facaulty at a good university in Chicago and embraced by the Chicago community.
How many post-segregation state-wide federal elections did Strom Thurmond win?
Ayers can get tenure at almost any university in the United States by taking pride in being a 60s radical.
He'd have a harder time getting tenure if he had renounced his radicalism and tried to prove it by moving toward the right.
Strom Thurmond must have at least paid enough lip service to renouncing racism and segregation to win state-wide elections to the Senate until he died in 2003.
But -- Trent Lott - a long-time Senator and leader of the Senate for the Republicans...
......gets nuked.....for his association to Thurmond's radical past....
....because of some ambigious statement Lott made about America perhaps being a better place today if Thurmond had won in 1947.
With Ayers, a continuing proud radical, the media still fights hard to get Obama in the White House.
With Lott, the media tried just as hard to kill him --- successfully driving him out of his leadership positions in the Senate and within a couple of years - seeing him resign from office.
Yeah. This is the media that tells us they are the watchdogs of government - performing such a patriotic service to our society and nation.
Horsehocky....
Where is Trent Lott?
William Ayers says he wishes he had done more bombings.
He prides himself on still being a radical and a communist with a small c.
He has not come close to renouncing his actions or his radicalism.
Yet, Obama's connections to the man are fine with the media (and more).
McCain/Palin mentioning Ayers causes the media to rise up --- in defense of Obama - in attacks on McCain ---
--- and even to defense of Ayers.
They point out Ayers has long been a respected member of the facaulty at a good university in Chicago and embraced by the Chicago community.
How many post-segregation state-wide federal elections did Strom Thurmond win?
Ayers can get tenure at almost any university in the United States by taking pride in being a 60s radical.
He'd have a harder time getting tenure if he had renounced his radicalism and tried to prove it by moving toward the right.
Strom Thurmond must have at least paid enough lip service to renouncing racism and segregation to win state-wide elections to the Senate until he died in 2003.
But -- Trent Lott - a long-time Senator and leader of the Senate for the Republicans...
......gets nuked.....for his association to Thurmond's radical past....
....because of some ambigious statement Lott made about America perhaps being a better place today if Thurmond had won in 1947.
With Ayers, a continuing proud radical, the media still fights hard to get Obama in the White House.
With Lott, the media tried just as hard to kill him --- successfully driving him out of his leadership positions in the Senate and within a couple of years - seeing him resign from office.
Yeah. This is the media that tells us they are the watchdogs of government - performing such a patriotic service to our society and nation.
Horsehocky....
Posted by: usinkorea at October 15, 2008 01:35 AM (TfsLp)
10
Darn--- I should have pointed out --- Lott was talking about Thurmond winning the presidency in 1947.
Posted by: usinkorea at October 15, 2008 01:37 AM (TfsLp)
11
If Obama's train can't be stopped with this election, Democracy will be dead and the current corruption in Washington will become a "sweet" memory by comparison....one needs to read black liberation theology (the basis of "Rev". Wright's rant) and, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals...these ideologies are who Barack Obama is, accept it or let's get busy and pull McCain over the finish line.
Posted by: Nellie at October 18, 2008 08:51 PM (EgUgR)
12
Maybe we haven't heard about a number of issues exposing Obama for marxist liar that he is because we are experiencing the worst case of media censorship in my lifetime of 60 years.
Call the main stations and cable networks and protest the suppression of this important informatin.
Call the main stations and cable networks and protest the suppression of this important informatin.
Posted by: Jane at October 20, 2008 03:41 PM (TQuN/)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0132 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0103 seconds, 20 records returned.
Page size 14 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.