From the pen of Joe Heller of the Green Bay Press-Gazette:
No, not the web site from Andrew Breitbart. That’s quickly becoming invaluable. Instead we present three videos from the Cato Institute -allied Center for Freedom and Prosperity, presented by Dan Mitchell. The first presents eight reasons why big government hurts economic growth:
The next argues the empirical case against big government:
Finally, Mitchell makes the case that, if you want to cut down on government corruption, cut down its size and cut back on the money that flows to it:
Big Government continues their war on ACORN today by showing how the Federal government’s serve.gov web site is recruiting volunteers and paid canvassers for ACORN: Taxpayer Funded Serve.gov Filtering Activists to ACORN
The Obama Administration has placed a large premium on what it calls “national service.” It has launched a website, www.Serve.gov, that is reported to act as a clearing house for Americans eager to “give back” to their communities. Unfortunately, Americans looking for an opportunity to volunteer may get something they weren’t expecting.
So after they assist you in procuring housing for your brothel of underage girls, ACORN can also assist you in skirting your taxes, in keeping with the law of probability.
Big Government’s Dana Loesch also points out that serve.gov is supervised by the Corporation for National and Community Service, which is deeply implicated in the simmering Inspectors-General scandals.
Given ACORN’s history of thuggery-for-hire, electoral corruption, and now suborning teen prostitution, and bearing in mind the President’s close ties to the group, perhaps the White House should rethink which “opportunities” it promotes to eager volunteers.
LINKS: A Pennsylvania angle at The Jawa Report.
Jon Stewart covers the ACORN scandal the legacy media wouldn’t touch.
EDIT: Replaced the link with one that actually works, thanks to Porkchop.
One of the vague, fuzzy areas of Barack Obama’s resume is his time on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, both as a member and as its chairman. Given the charge that Obama lacks the executive experience to be president, one would think he’d like to tout the experience he gained running a foundation that distributed over $100,000,000 to Chicago-area educational programs during his tenure.
One would be wrong.
The reason is his connection to William Ayers, a former Weather Underground terrorist and current Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Ayers (and his wife, fellow terrorist Bernadine Dohrn) have never renounced their radical left, anti-American beliefs. Ayers and Dohrn were also instrumental in launching Obama’s political career with a reception at their house in 1995. When his association with Ayers became a problem for Obama during the primaries, he tried to minimize his connection to the inactive terrorist, referring to him as just “a guy in my neighborhood” and glossing over their relationship at Annenberg.
That, in effect, was a lie.
Stanley Kurtz, a journalist who works regularly for National Review, went to Chicago to examine the records of the CAC on deposit at the UIC Daley library. After an initial stonewalling, he was granted access to the papers. What he has found is revealing about both the work of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and Obama’s character.
Regarding the Obama-Ayers relationship, Kurtz writes:
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago’s public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation’s other key body, the “Collaborative,” which shaped education policy.
The CAC’s basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda.
One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama’s “recruitment” to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.
So Ayers, a man who regrets not planting enough bombs in the 70s, was instrumental in both hiring Obama at CAC and playing a major role at the start of his political career. Sounds like more than just a “guy in my neighborhood” to me.
Sounds like Obama was trying to cover up the truth.
According to Kurtz, the records of the CAC show that Obama and Kurtz worked closely together. Just what kind of work did they do? The Chicago Annenberg Challenge ostensibly was supposed to funnel money to schools to work to improve public education. Most people, when they think “improve public education,” have in mind better test scores in reading and math, more exposure to the arts and sciences, work meant to help children lead better lives as adults.
Not at CAC under Ayers and Obama. Kurtz, again:
The CAC’s agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland’s ghetto.
In works like “City Kids, City Teachers” and “Teaching the Personal and the Political,” Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? “I’m a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist,” Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk’s, “Sixties Radicals,” at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.
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).
So, instead of teaching children how to read, the CAC under Obama and Ayers was more concerned with teaching them how to “fight oppression.” CAC’s own auditors evaluated the organization’s work and found it made no difference in the test scores of Chicago’s students. None. After spending $100,000,000.
No wonder Obama doesn’t want to talk about this.
There are two problems here. One is the work itself: not only was the CAC useless at actually improving the skill levels of Chicago’s students, it instead made them guinea pigs in a radical Left experiment that was about anything but real education. The money was wasted, those students’ time was wasted. And Barack Obama was in charge. Think about that, and then think about the federal role in education policy. The Secretary of Education is the president’s employee.
The second and, to my mind, more serious problem relates to Obama’s character. All politicians fudge their records and bend the truth to give voters what they want to hear: it’s an inescapable feature of a mass democracy — we demand it of them and shouldn’t be shocked when it happens.
But Barack Obama has done far more than fudge his relationship with William Ayers: he has been fundamentally deceptive about the nature of his relationship with an unrepentant (albeit inactive) communist terrorist, the depth of that relationship, and their work together. This goes beyond bending the truth: this is lying, and the efforts to block access to the records of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge are themselves indicative of a guilty conscience. Someone knew the truth of what those records would show and wanted them kept sealed, someone who feared voters would reject Obama if they knew the truth of his association with a terrorist and his support for that terrorist’s radical educational agenda.
Elections are about policy and character. Voters weigh each when making their choice. What the records of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge show about the policies and especially the character of Barack Obama also show that he is unfit to be President of the United States.
EDIT: Added WordPress tags, 9/26/2010