Originally Posted by TrueFaith77
I am not a Republican, though I don't see why it would matter to anyone if I were (my parents are... and I love them). That said, the Ayers/Obama connection is highly significant.
As I understand: Ayers appointed Obama to diseminate money he (Ayers) received for use by the CAC -- a Chicago Community education initiative. Also as has been reported (I can cite Dick Morris on last night's Hannity & Colmes): Those iniatives served the purpose of not encouraging education in math, science. . . the three R's (Reading, wRiting, and 'Rithmitic), but rather encouraged political and community activism.
To me -- and I could be wrong -- that translates as indoctrination of inner city (poor or minority) youth, establishing an electoral base for the Democratic Party and an army of Democratic Party volunteers. I construct this scenario based on the Ayers-Obama relationship because 1. it is consistent with Ayers' admitted Communist beliefs and 2. because Ayers either chose or approved of Obama's role in the CAC -- which Obama either agreed with (1.) or was taking advantage of for personal political advancement. It is, after all, Chicago.
This where the media fears to tread. And I mean ALL THE MEDIA. Even the McCain Campaign. Because if the above is true, as has been reported, THEN, all of Obama's proposed initiatives as President must be put under new scrutiny.
I cite as one, Obama's proposed expansion of Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives. In this expansion, Obama requires that for faith-based organizations to receive funding for for specific programs, those programs must not have any overt religious component nor can religious preference be made in hiring for said programs. In other words, Obama's supposed expansion of Faith-Based Initiatives is actually a way for Obama to transfer public funds (taxes) to partisan, SECULAR activities.
It was to the above referenced expansion of Faith-Based Initiatives that Jesse Jackson was referring in his now infamous, live mic incident:
"See, Barack's been talking down to black people on this faith-based -- I want to cut his (DELETED) off. Barack, he's talking down to black people."
Indeed, as I understand the proposal, Obama is talking down to black people, to Christians, to all religious Americans, to all taxpayers. Yet, the expansion of Faith-Based Initiatives is consistent with Obama's methods of shoring up political power, indoctrinating the electorate, and establishing secular influence of the government that can be traced back to his relationship in Chicago with Ayers.
NOW, some people may agree with these programs and support them. That's fine. It's just best that Obama honestly propose them -- i.e., not talk down to people -- and that people honestly defend his proposals.
For me: as a Liberal who supports sometimes "liberal" or "progressive" and even "radical" ideas and policies, I find this reprehensible. I believe in redistribution of wealth because, unlike Obama who espouses the cliche that if you work hard you will have access to the American dream, I believe that wealth is not distributed equitably in this country. I believe that racism does indeed make the system unfair. And, consequently, I believe that the government can -- and should -- play a role in evening out the balance, in ways both fiscal, by redistributing wealth from those who benefit from an unfair system (like myself) directly to underprivileged people, and intellectual, by providing access to ALL citizens to education and information, with a radical emphasis on imagination and individual thought.
And don't even get me started on the bail-out. . .
|