Please, please, please read this. And then send it to everybody you know.
Comments
Important reading for all — 16 Comments
you have to be kidding…this is a lenghthy bit of slander on “Steve Diamond”‘s part…see his subsequent post, where he quotes his mail with the NYT’s reporter…”funny if it weren’t so sad” indeed
I’m just saying that you do your readers a disservice…Steve Diamond does not adduce any evidence to support his claims–he’s a conspiracy theorist…”it strains credulity” he says, after the Times reporter tells him that he spoke to the people involved…let your readers view the NYT article themselves and make their own judgement
Yeah, boy… that one’s really gonna change some minds! lol!
I read Diamond’s addendum, here. Diamond may or may not be correct about Ayers’ involvement (or lack of involvement) in the appointment of Obama to Annenberg. He is merely speculating on that, and I have no problem with the Times disagreement with Diamond on that issue (although I do have a problem with reporter Scott Shane saying Leff and Graham went on the record as saying Ayers was not involved, when he failed to quote them by name in his article. What’s up with that?)
I believe, however, that Diamond is saying that despite their denials, Ayers had to be involved, if only to give final approval. That makes perfect sense to me, although it is different than saying Obama was selected by Ayers in the first place.
But the thrust of the Diamond article to which I linked is not whether Ayers chose Obama in the first place or not (I tend to think he did not, by the way). It is Obama’s denial about the fact that they had a close working relationship for many years (this appears from the Annenberg records to be an indisputable fact) and more importantly the content of what they were working on, which was a Leftist agenda for schools.
That is the story Diamond is telling, and that is why it is important. Obama knows this as well, which is why he is stonewalling about the relationship and has lied about it from the start.
The Left is afraid of Diamond because he is a man of the Left who recognizes the dangers of Obama.
Those who know Gramscian strategy recognize the pattern immediately: when Marxists can not achieve anything with bombs, they became schoolteachers, or, even better, education theorists. They turn education institutions into communist propaganda outlets. Those who think this is crazy conspiracy theory, let better read Gramsci himself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci
Note also that the reference above cited the two most famous American Gramscians, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.
he’s a conspiracy theorist
Well, no, actually he’s a law professor at Santa Clara. Not quite the wacko you’d like him to be:
And he’s done a lot of work on Obama’s connections. He’s also a Democrat, by the way…
Subverting education for political ends is a conspiracy, indeed. But it is real, so do not dismiss those who investigate this plot as “conspiracy theorists”. What we need, at minimum, is a complete expose of this plot, and ultimately, another Commission for investigation of Anti-American Activity in Educational System, to purge Gramscians from schools and universities.
I think Bill Ayres is a disgusting bag of sh#t. I think he and Obama have more than just a passing acquaintance, but only a little bit more. This dead horse can only be beaten for so long before there is nothing left on the pavement but oats and protoplasm. I’m afraid my team is resorting to desperate measures and it’s bumming me out. Bleating about Earmarks is as ineffective and irrelevant as going on about CEO compemsation packages. Will somebody please talk about the 800 pound gorilla: the Medicare and Social Security entitlements that will be a much worse albatross than the credit bailout unless action is taken very soon?
Dan: I think it’s quite a bit more than “a little bit more.” And the problem for Obama is not just the relationship or his denial, it is his agenda.
I agree that the financial situation dwarfs everything right now. But unfortunately we are in the middle of an election and will need to decide who we want at the helm of our country. Obama’s honesty and his agenda for America are very much an issue, related to all the others.
Class resentment and guilt-by-association? This is the Republican platform in 2008?
What a shambles the Republican party has become.
Are there any ideas out there? Any solutions? Our financial system is literally collapsing and you guys are fetishising some two-bit, long-in-the-tooth nobody.
Sad.
One of the problems is – his piece is hard to read, the complexities do not lend themselves to the soundbite media – and thus this very serious subject is brushed off with the “I was 9 years old at the time” comment. People get that. they get a headache when they try to understand the contortions of a political activist, who uses them and their high ideals as cover to achieve his aims.
Can anyone take a stab at simplifying what he is saying?
In a way – Palin has done it – whether it is a natural knack or she has the best speech-writer in the world… but the media is failing badly.
Clearly kamper has done no reading or thinking for some while.
The “long-in-the-tooth nobody” is a “distinguished professor” at a “respected university.”
You think the financial collapse is scary, just wait until O’s agenda collapses the country.
How to focus the Repub assertions about Obama as a radical? How to condense the heart of Steve Diamond’s info? My attempt:
Barack’s original argument: “Ayers is just a guy in my neighborhood”, was a lie. Why did Barack lie?
Barack’s brand new argument: “Naivete! I didn’t know Ayers was a terrorist!”, is also incredible. Why is Barack continuing to lie?
Some of the following must be true:
1) Barack used bad judgment in believing it moral to collaborate with Ayers,
2) Barack knew collaboration was immoral, yet cravenly used Ayers to advance Barack’s own career, or
3) Barack is sympathetic to some of Ayers’ radical educational and political goals.
Ayers is what political scientists call a “neo-stalinist.” Neo-stalinism is an authoritarian form of politics which attempts to control and build social institutions to impose state control of the economy, politics and culture on the general population. It has similarities to the original Stalinism found in the former Soviet Union but it arose in other countries and used slightly different forms….
Classic examples of neo-stalinist regimes – regimes that Ayers and people in his political camp respect and support – are the Chavez regime in Venezuela, the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, the Castro regime in Cuba, and the maoist regime in China.
How could such a world view have anything to do with Obama? Well, the route that Ayers and his camp have followed to promote his form of authoritarian politics is a critical policy area: education.
Ayers advocates what he calls a “social justice” approach to education. What that means is the promotion of his authoritarian politics through our public school system.
[…]
Once inside the schools Ayers, who now heads the curriculum division of the leading education professional association, attempts to alter the teaching content of classrooms to include a “politically correct” “social justice” curriculum.
As Ayers explained in a speech in Venezuela in front of strong man Hugo Chavez on his fourth visit to that country in November 2006, there are “profound education reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution.”
And what are Obama’s solutions? Actually, nobody now knows even what is happening, let aside what to do. So only personalities of leaders are of importance now. And we used to judge people by company they hold. This is not about guilt, this is about integrity and sound judgment.
Point well taken, neo, but I still don’t think we’re going to get the proverbial smoking gun on Ayers/Obama, like some video of them together. So tactically, pursuing the connection is going to lead nowhere. In fact, the Obamatons in the media are whipping up counter accusations about McCain and some group linked to Central American death squads plus the re-baked casserole about the Keating Five. It’s sounding like the old school yard chant: “I know you are, but what am I?”
If anything, Obama’s association with Fanny Mae and Freddie mac ought to be exploited as an indication how the damage to the credit markets resulted from regulation of those entities.
I’ve brought this up in an e-mail discussion with a lefty friend who said that this couldnt be anything more than a right-wing conspiracy theory because the Annenbergs are conservatives.
Hey, did you hear that while Palin was mayor of that po-dunk town in Alaska she made rape victims pay for their own rape kits?
The liberals own the media, and therefore, own the message. I can either post the linked piece to my conservative friends who already dont like Obama, or I can mail it off to my lefty friend who will dismiss the article as mere propaganda.
I dont think I know anyone who remains “on the fence”.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
you have to be kidding…this is a lenghthy bit of slander on “Steve Diamond”‘s part…see his subsequent post, where he quotes his mail with the NYT’s reporter…”funny if it weren’t so sad” indeed
I’m just saying that you do your readers a disservice…Steve Diamond does not adduce any evidence to support his claims–he’s a conspiracy theorist…”it strains credulity” he says, after the Times reporter tells him that he spoke to the people involved…let your readers view the NYT article themselves and make their own judgement
Yeah, boy… that one’s really gonna change some minds! lol!
I read Diamond’s addendum, here. Diamond may or may not be correct about Ayers’ involvement (or lack of involvement) in the appointment of Obama to Annenberg. He is merely speculating on that, and I have no problem with the Times disagreement with Diamond on that issue (although I do have a problem with reporter Scott Shane saying Leff and Graham went on the record as saying Ayers was not involved, when he failed to quote them by name in his article. What’s up with that?)
I believe, however, that Diamond is saying that despite their denials, Ayers had to be involved, if only to give final approval. That makes perfect sense to me, although it is different than saying Obama was selected by Ayers in the first place.
But the thrust of the Diamond article to which I linked is not whether Ayers chose Obama in the first place or not (I tend to think he did not, by the way). It is Obama’s denial about the fact that they had a close working relationship for many years (this appears from the Annenberg records to be an indisputable fact) and more importantly the content of what they were working on, which was a Leftist agenda for schools.
That is the story Diamond is telling, and that is why it is important. Obama knows this as well, which is why he is stonewalling about the relationship and has lied about it from the start.
The Left is afraid of Diamond because he is a man of the Left who recognizes the dangers of Obama.
Those who know Gramscian strategy recognize the pattern immediately: when Marxists can not achieve anything with bombs, they became schoolteachers, or, even better, education theorists. They turn education institutions into communist propaganda outlets. Those who think this is crazy conspiracy theory, let better read Gramsci himself. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci
Note also that the reference above cited the two most famous American Gramscians, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.
he’s a conspiracy theorist
Well, no, actually he’s a law professor at Santa Clara. Not quite the wacko you’d like him to be:
http://law.scu.edu/faculty/profile/diamond-stephen.cfm
And he’s done a lot of work on Obama’s connections. He’s also a Democrat, by the way…
Subverting education for political ends is a conspiracy, indeed. But it is real, so do not dismiss those who investigate this plot as “conspiracy theorists”. What we need, at minimum, is a complete expose of this plot, and ultimately, another Commission for investigation of Anti-American Activity in Educational System, to purge Gramscians from schools and universities.
I think Bill Ayres is a disgusting bag of sh#t. I think he and Obama have more than just a passing acquaintance, but only a little bit more. This dead horse can only be beaten for so long before there is nothing left on the pavement but oats and protoplasm. I’m afraid my team is resorting to desperate measures and it’s bumming me out. Bleating about Earmarks is as ineffective and irrelevant as going on about CEO compemsation packages. Will somebody please talk about the 800 pound gorilla: the Medicare and Social Security entitlements that will be a much worse albatross than the credit bailout unless action is taken very soon?
Dan: I think it’s quite a bit more than “a little bit more.” And the problem for Obama is not just the relationship or his denial, it is his agenda.
I agree that the financial situation dwarfs everything right now. But unfortunately we are in the middle of an election and will need to decide who we want at the helm of our country. Obama’s honesty and his agenda for America are very much an issue, related to all the others.
Class resentment and guilt-by-association? This is the Republican platform in 2008?
What a shambles the Republican party has become.
Are there any ideas out there? Any solutions? Our financial system is literally collapsing and you guys are fetishising some two-bit, long-in-the-tooth nobody.
Sad.
One of the problems is – his piece is hard to read, the complexities do not lend themselves to the soundbite media – and thus this very serious subject is brushed off with the “I was 9 years old at the time” comment. People get that. they get a headache when they try to understand the contortions of a political activist, who uses them and their high ideals as cover to achieve his aims.
Can anyone take a stab at simplifying what he is saying?
In a way – Palin has done it – whether it is a natural knack or she has the best speech-writer in the world… but the media is failing badly.
Clearly kamper has done no reading or thinking for some while.
The “long-in-the-tooth nobody” is a “distinguished professor” at a “respected university.”
You think the financial collapse is scary, just wait until O’s agenda collapses the country.
How to focus the Repub assertions about Obama as a radical? How to condense the heart of Steve Diamond’s info? My attempt:
Barack’s original argument: “Ayers is just a guy in my neighborhood”, was a lie. Why did Barack lie?
Barack’s brand new argument: “Naivete! I didn’t know Ayers was a terrorist!”, is also incredible. Why is Barack continuing to lie?
Some of the following must be true:
1) Barack used bad judgment in believing it moral to collaborate with Ayers,
2) Barack knew collaboration was immoral, yet cravenly used Ayers to advance Barack’s own career, or
3) Barack is sympathetic to some of Ayers’ radical educational and political goals.
How do we know Ayers is radical? Steve Diamond
And what are Obama’s solutions? Actually, nobody now knows even what is happening, let aside what to do. So only personalities of leaders are of importance now. And we used to judge people by company they hold. This is not about guilt, this is about integrity and sound judgment.
Point well taken, neo, but I still don’t think we’re going to get the proverbial smoking gun on Ayers/Obama, like some video of them together. So tactically, pursuing the connection is going to lead nowhere. In fact, the Obamatons in the media are whipping up counter accusations about McCain and some group linked to Central American death squads plus the re-baked casserole about the Keating Five. It’s sounding like the old school yard chant: “I know you are, but what am I?”
If anything, Obama’s association with Fanny Mae and Freddie mac ought to be exploited as an indication how the damage to the credit markets resulted from regulation of those entities.
I’ve brought this up in an e-mail discussion with a lefty friend who said that this couldnt be anything more than a right-wing conspiracy theory because the Annenbergs are conservatives.
Hey, did you hear that while Palin was mayor of that po-dunk town in Alaska she made rape victims pay for their own rape kits?
The liberals own the media, and therefore, own the message. I can either post the linked piece to my conservative friends who already dont like Obama, or I can mail it off to my lefty friend who will dismiss the article as mere propaganda.
I dont think I know anyone who remains “on the fence”.