Posts Tagged ‘white supremacist’

Amazing: Liberals Show They Are Even MORE Intolerant And Violent Than Neo-Nazis

April 20, 2010

This is a really amazing story.  As loathsome as Neo-Nazis are, and as hateful as they are, they are actually surpassed by garden variety American liberals.

Do you remember mostly Hispanic protesters marching to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants (and also see here)?  Well, Neo-Nazis think they have a right to protest too.  And, of course, American liberals thought that Neo-Nazis had every right to march when they were marching through a town filled with Jewish death camp survivors.

The same First Amendment free speech rights that gave the one group the right to protest give the other group the right to protest, too.  At least, that has always been how it was supposed to work.  And that was what leftist protesters proclaimed when they were out protesting a message that many others didn’t like.

Not that liberals give a damn about genuine fundamental rights that apply equally to all citizens.  They want total power and total control, and to hell with anyone who opposes any part of their agenda.  They launch protest after protest until they gain power, and then they move to squelch the right to protest.

The thing I want to emphasize today is – when we consider Neo-Nazis and American liberals qua protesters – which side is actually more fundamentally intolerant and reactionary?

Apr 17, 2010 11:45 pm US/Eastern
Neo-Nazis, Counter-Demonstrators Square Off In LA
White Supremacists’ Rally Against Immigration Meets Resistance From Hundreds Of Demonstrators

LOS ANGELES (AP)

Police block an angry crowd of counter-protesters after the neo-Nazi group, The American National Socialist Movement, held a rally in front of the Los Angeles City Hall, on April 17, 2010.

Let me interrupt this article with a very important message:

Note that this isn’t the right wing versus the left wing.  This is, rather, the left wing versus another group of the left wing.  You might say that it is the right wing of the extreme left versus the left wing of the extreme left.

I would also point out that Nazism is and always HAS BEEN a leftwing movement.  The primary difference between Nazis (i.e., the “National Socialist German Workers Party”) and Marxists (e.g., the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”) was that the former group wanted socialism in a nationalist manner, and the latter wanted socialism in an internationalist manner.

The Marxists said, “Workers of the world unite!“, which was just what Andy Stern of the SEIU – who visited Barack Obama in the White House more than ANYONE – said.

Which is to say that, currently, Marxism is the form of radical socialism most in vogue with the American left.  It is the form of socialism that the current occupant of the White House clearly favors.

The last thing I’d point out is that the Neo-Nazis of “The American National Socialist Movement” want socialism for white nationalist Aryans; conservatives don’t want socialism for ANYBODY in America.  We want the socialism that the Nazis, fascists, Marxist and communists wanted the hell out.

Sorry for interrupting.  Let’s continue.

A white supremacist group rallied against illegal immigration in downtown Los Angeles Saturday as hundreds of counter-protestors gathered to shout them down in a tense standoff that included several arrests, thrown rocks and police in riot gear.

Oops.  Have to stop again.  And not just to point out that the Associated Press should have people who at least know how to spell “protesters” to write about protests.

Are the Neo-Nazis a white supremacist group?  Of course they are; only a fool would argue that they aren’t.  Then again, there ARE a great many fools in the country.  So, yeah, while many of these Neo-Nazis would deny being “white supremacists” and pontificate and filibuster about other issues ad nauseum, let’s just agree that they are white supremacists.  But what about the other side?

What we have on the other side are “Latino supremacists.”  There’s the powerful Latino group “La Raza,” which means “the race.” Can you even imagine how a racial group that calls itself “The Race” isn’t racist?  There’s the term “reconquista” being dragged out again, which means “reconquest” of Southwestern America by Mexicans.” There’s thousands of Mexican protesters marching on American soil and demanding rights and privileges and concessions be granted to them by “white” Americans.  Among other things, they argue that the Mexican government has a right to diligently protect ITS southern boarder from illegal immigrants, but that the American government has no right to similarly protect ITS southern boarder from illegal immigrants.  They argue that Mexico and other Latin American countries have a right to be sovereign nations, but that America must become an “open borders” non-country.  There’s the waving the Mexican flag above an American flag which they hang upside down in mockery.

I don’t mind for a second the media calling Neo-Nazis “white supremacists.”  Just be honest and call BOTH SIDES what they are.

And let’s also realize that the theme of one group of leftists opposing another comes up again.  The so-called “pro-immigration” events were organized by COMMUNISTS.

Sorry to interrupt again.  Moving on:

Police officers stood between the white supremacists and counter-demonstrators on the south lawn of Los Angeles’ City Hall, where about 50 members of the National Socialist Movement waved American flags and swastika banners for about an hour.

The white supremacists, many of them wearing flack helmets and black military fatigue uniforms, shouted “Sieg Heil” before each of their speakers took the podium to taunt counter-protestors with racial, anti-Semitic and misogynistic epithets.

“We will meet you head on,” one of the white supremacists, whose name could not be made out over the fuzzy public address system, warned the crowd from behind several phalanxes of police in riot gear.

Members of the Detroit-based group said they picked the location for their rally because of Los Angeles’ large immigrant population. They accused some of the immigrants of stealing jobs and committing crimes.

Group members also said they were reacting to the recent number of street marches across the country encouraging legislators to enact reform that includes amnesty for some illegal immigrants.

Oh, oh.  Have to stop again.  Just long enough to point out that all the pro-immigration and pro-amnesty street marches are apparently fine.  It’s just the any street march that in any way opposes the leftwing agenda that must be attacked and vilified.  Whether it’s Neo-Nazis advancing their favorite form of socialism or whether it’s little old ladies who want to advocate limited government.

Moving on.

National Socialist Movement regional director Jeffrey Russell Hall announced that the group would begin backing political candidates who agreed with their anti-immigrant message.

But much of the white supremacists’ words were drowned out by such chants as “Hey hey, ho ho, Nazi scum have got to go” from the larger crowd of about 500 counter-protestors who held signs that read “Nazis: Get Out of Los Angeles” and “Racists Are Ignorant.”

There was a brief flare-up of violence before the speakers arrived. A shirtless man was seen being escorted to safety behind police lines by a plainclothes officer as counter-protesters punched and grabbed at him. Blood could be seen at the base of the man’s neck.

National Lawyers Guild executive director James Lafferty, who attended both as a legal observer and counter-protestor, said he saw the man get into a fight with crowd members who saw his Nazi lightning bolt tattoos.

Police Commander David Doan said a second man who crowd members believed was sympathetic with the white supremacists was also assaulted during the rally. Both men were treated for minor injuries at a hospital and released.

As the rally ended, counter-protestors hurled rocks, branches and other items over the police line and into a parking lot where the white supremacists’ had left their cars.

Some members of the group had trouble starting a black Ford Mustang and attempted to hook up jumper cables to their engine. They protected themselves from the flying debris by holding up swastika-emblazoned shields.

The white supremacists eventually gave up and pushed their car away so they could jump-start it out of range of the projectiles
.

Doan said three or four counter-protestors were arrested for throwing items.

Yes, that’s right.  The group that peacefully protested, the group that followed the rules, was the Neo-Nazis.  The group that was violent and intolerant were the liberals.

This sentence is particularly heartbreaking:

“They protected themselves from the flying debris by holding up swastika-emblazoned shields.”

Can you even imagine that swastikas actually became the superior moral symbol during the day in that it was employed as a protective shield against a group who was using employing a violent symbol of rocks designed to attack and create injury?

Who ever would have thought that there was a group more loathsome than Neo-Nazis?  Personally, I never would have dreamed such a thing could ever happen in America.

But it happened.  And it happened even as peaceful Tea Party protesters are routinely targeted as somehow being tied to “violence.”

Advertisements

Holocaust Museum Shooting: What Makes Someone ‘Rightwing’?

June 10, 2009

Today, an 89-year old documented nut entered the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.  I have no idea what the politics of Stephen Tyrone Jones were, but the man serving as a guard died a hero: he died standing in the way of this evil man and the innocent and unarmed people he would have murdered.

A question immediately comes to mind: what side of the bowl did this nut inhabit?  Obviously he was a nut.  But was he a rightwing nut or a leftwing nut?

What the left want us to believe is that James von Brunn is a rightwing extremist.  Why?  Because he was an anti-Semite, and therefore a racist.  And racists, as everybody just knows, are rightwing.

This view became official government policy under the Obama administration.  Consider how the Department of Homeland Security under Janet Napolitano defined “rightwing extremism” versus “leftwing extremism,” according to the Associated Press:

In the report, right-wing extremism was defined as hate-motivated groups and movements, such as hatred of certain religions, racial or ethnic groups. “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the report said. […]

The department’s definition of left-wing extremism in the March 26 report includes a reference to violence, stating these groups that embrace anticapitalist, communist or socialist beliefs seek “to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes.”

So, based on that, where do you pidgeon-hole an Anti-Semitic racist like von Brunn?  Read both definitions and it’s a no-brainer.  “Hatred of certain religions, racial, or ethnic groups.”  Check, check, and check.  James von Brunn is a rightwing extremist.  Just ask Janet Napolitano.

Only that’s completely asinine.

An article by Michelle Malkin shows just how profoundly dishonest and biased the “assessment” by the Obama DHS truly is.

Let’s start with Antisemitism and polling data from a December 2008 Rasmussen survey:

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans back Israel’s decision to take military action against the Palestinians, but only half as many Democrats (31%) agree. A majority of Democrats (55%) say Israel should have tried to find a diplomatic solution first, a view shared by just 27% of Republicans.

While 75% of Republicans say Israel is an ally of the United States, just 55% of Democrats agree. Seven percent (7%) of Democrats say Israel is an enemy of America, but only one percent (1%) of Republicans say the same. For 21% of Republicans, Israel is somewhere in between, and 28% of Democrats agree.

And this difference in views toward Israel and Jews is fairly established and consistent, as a Gallup survey from April 2002 shows:

The [04/17/2002 Gallup] survey of 1,009 adults conducted on April 5-7 found that 67 percent of Republicans side with Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, compared to 45% of Democrats. Support for the Palestinians is at 8% among Republicans, versus 21% among Democrats.

How can Republicans/conservatives be overwhelmingly more supportive of Israel than Democrats/liberals, and yet at the same time overwhelmingly more Anti-Semitic than Democrats/liberals?  How does that even begin to make sense?  As a conservative evangelical Christian, I support Israel precisely because it is a Jewish state.  I pray for the shalom of Jerusalem according to Psalm 122:6.  I believe in something called “evil” and realize that the history of Israel and of Jews reveals that they have been victims of it FAR MORE than perpetrators of it.  I constantly refer to the “Judeo-Christian worldview” that respects and cherishes the influence of Judaism on my Christian faith.

Frontpage Magazine has an article that reveals why those on the left – who deny most of why I support Israel – end up embracing racist and Anti-Semitic views.

Let me say more.  When Republican George Bush was president, fully 88% of Israeli Jews believed the president was “pro-Israel”; today under Democrat president Barack Obama, only 31% of Israeli Jews think so.

The profoundly Anti-Semitic Nation of Islam has long and strong ties to the Democratic Party, and to Barack Obama personally via his 23 year relationship with Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church and via his participation with the Million Man March.  THIS VERY DAY, Jeremiah Wright said he’s denied access to Obama.  Why?  Quote: “Rev. Jeremiah Wright says Jews are keeping him from talking to President Obama.”

One article reads: “THE Rev Jesse Jackson and several other black American leaders are calling for a halt to the anti-Semitic rants of members of the black Muslim group Nation of Islam, led by Louis Farrakhan.”  And yet that itself is laughable; Jesse Jackson is a man who HIMSELF has displayed deep Antisemitism.  He has been documented calling Jews “Hymies” and New York “Hymietown.”

How DARE anyone on the left accuse the right of being Anti-Semitic.  HOW DARE THEY!!!

And if Democrats want to label Republicans as “racist,” perhaps they should either abolish the “Congressional Black Caucas” or find where Republicans are hiding their equivalent  “Congressional White Caucus.”  And you might either denounce Congressional Black Caucus member Bobby Rush or find similar racist statements coming from Republicans.   Show us where Republican leaders openly demanded that a Caucasian receive a US Senate seat.

An article on Examiner.com shows that von Brunn was more more leftwing than rightwing.  Among other things, he despised George Bush, believed 9/11 was a Bush conspiracy, and railed against “neo-cons.”

Holocaust Museum shooter von Brunn a 9/11 ‘truther’ who hated ‘neo-cons’, Bush, McCain

The man accused of opening fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC on June 10, James W. von Brunn, left a trail of unhinged writings around the internet.

The anti-semitism of von Brunn is the first thing one notices when visiting these bizarre websites. However, like those of most “white supremacists”, many of von Brunn’s political views track “Left” rather than “Right.” Clearly, a re-evaluation of these obsolete definitions is long overdue.

For example, he unleashed his hatred of both Presidents Bush and other “neo-conservatives” in online essays. As even some “progressives” such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, “neoconservative” is often used as a derogatory code word for “Jews”. As well, even a cursory glance at “white supremacist” writings reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists.

James von Brunn’s advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories also gives him an additional commonality with individuals on the far-left.

None of this will surprise readers of Jonah Goldberg‘s bestseller Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change , which clearly demonstrates that “fascism” of the kind advocated by the British National Party (BNP) and the likes of James W. von Brunn is just as likely to reflect “leftwing” views as “rightwing” ones.

In fact, antisemitism is something the New Left and the “Far Right” have had in common since the 1980s, which is why so many former leftists like David Horowitz defected from one side to the other during the Reagan era and beyond. It also helps explain the otherwise baffling alliance between the Left and radical Islam.

That this shooting occurred shortly after President Obama’s former mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, blamed “the Jews” for his lack of access to his former parishioner is a troubling confluence of events as well.

I’m not going to answer the question posed by my title: “What Makes Someone ‘Rightwing’?  But I’ll say ONE thing for certain.

It’s most definitely NOT “racism” or “Antisemitism.”  There’s just way too much of that crap going on on the part of the leftwing to possibly attribute it exclusively to the right.

Obama Campaign: Why William Ayers Matters So Much

October 21, 2008

William Ayers was – by any meaningful definition of the term – a terrorist.  He bombed public buildings, such as the Pentagon, the Capital, and New York City Police Headquarters.  Although his case was thrown out due to government misconduct, the evidence is clear that William Ayers – by his own admission – was a terrorist who said, “Kill all the rich people.  Break up their cars and apartments.  Bring the revolution home, kill your parents – that’s where it’s really at.”  This is a man who said – in a day of mourning and anger following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 – “I don’t regret setting bombs.  I feel we didn’t do enough.”

William Ayers didn’t make that horrible statement when Barack Obama was 8 years old (FYI, Ayers’ last self-acknowledged and most well-known bombings occurred in 1972, when Barack Obama was eleven years old).  Ayers said that when Barack Obama was 40 years old.  Nor did Obama work in direct partnership with William Ayers when he was 8 years old; he did so beginning when he was 32 years old.  In other words, he was old enough to be held responsible for his relationships and alliances.

[John] Murtagh, whose father was a New York Supreme Court justice when his family’s home was targeted, put out a statement on behalf of McCain’s campaign Wednesday claiming “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family.”

Obama has said his relationship with Ayers did not extend beyond serving with him on an education board in Chicago. He has condemned Ayers’ Vietnam War-era attacks, and his campaign has said Obama did not know of Ayers’ radical past when Ayers held a campaign event at his home for Obama in 1995.

But Murtagh cast doubt on the narrative out of the Obama campaign, saying it would make the Democratic presidential candidate “the dumbest man that ever graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School” if he didn’t initially know about Ayers’ past.

Barack Obama said he didn’t know about William Ayers’ radical terrorist past when he held his first campaign fund raiser in William Ayers’ home – and directly benefited from Ayers’ clout – in 1995.  But Obama had already known and worked with Ayers for a couple of years (beginning in early 1993), and Ayers’ Weatherman terrorist background was common knowledge in Chicago.  It is very much like someone in New York serving on a couple of boards with Joe Namath and claiming that he was never told that Namath had been a football player.

The article quoted above also notes that Michelle Obama worked with William Ayers’ wife – and convicted terrorist – Bernadine Dohrn.  Murtagh says, “I believe if the senator were to come clean and tell us the full story, we’d find out this relationship well predates the fundraiser held in the Ayers home. It goes back to the ’80s.”

William Ayers wasn’t some irrelevant and tangential acquaintance; he was a powerful and influential supporter of Barack Obama at an early and critical stage in an inexperienced Barack Obama’s career.

To begin with, the William Ayers relationship – and Barack Obama’s attempts to distance himself from that relationship – reveal the cynical and deceptive personal character of Barack Obama.  The only thing worse than having a bad association is having a bad association and then regularly lying about it.  Obama has lied about his relationship with William Ayers.

But, believe it or not, that’s not the worst of it.  That Barack Obama has “palled around with terrorists” is only part of the problem.  [For the record, there have been a lot of virulently anti-American friends in Barack Obama’s Rolodex.]

You need to realize just what Barack Obama did while serving on those two boards with William Ayers.  It isn’t pretty.

Stanley Kurtz, in an article titled, “Wright 101: Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Rev. Wright’s anti-Americanism,” says:

It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright’s sermons, Obama gave legitimacy — and a whole lot of money — to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago. All this is revealed by a bit of digging, combined with a careful study of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led in the late 1990s.

John McCain, take note. Obama’s tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man’s choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright’s anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign.

Let me begin by asking the following question: would it bother you if I – as a white scholar – asserted that white brains were different than black brains, and that black children are incapable of learning the same way white children do?  That is precisely the position of Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor, spiritual advisor, and mentor for 23 years.

Now let me point out as a further preamble that William Ayers – in a book timed to be released after the election in order to keep Obama out of trouble yet benefit from the publicity surrounding the Obama-Ayers link – will be titled Race Course Against White Supremacy.  Ayers used to be a radical bomb-throwing terrorist.  Newsflash: since then he’s been a radical bomb-throwing educator.  It’s too bad that this book will come out too late for voters to understand the incredibly radical agenda that William Ayers – and Barack H. Obama – have regarding education.  The fact is, Obama didn’t just “pal around” with Bill Ayers; he partnered with Ayers to advance and fund an incredibly radical education agenda.

In 1996, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge gave the Coalition for Improved Education in South Shore (CIESS) a $200,000 grant.  CIESS was made an “enternal partner” linked to a network of schools within the Chicago public system. This network, named the “South Shore African Village Collaborative” was thoroughly “Afrocentric” in orientation.  It continued to receive large grants from Annenburg throughout the period of Barack Obama’s oversight as a board member.

Stanley Kurtz documents the relationship between Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and what turns out to be an extremely troubling “Afrocentric” curriculum advanced and supported by Ayers and Obama and which Kurtz describes as a “carbon copy of Jeremiah Wright’s worldview.”

The Afrocentric “rites of passage” movement begins with the presupposition (in the words of the Journal of Negro Education) that public education in the United States is shaped by “capitalism, competitiveness, racism, sexism and oppression.”  Is that your view of American public education, PTA mom and dad?  It is Barack Obama’s, given his support for and funding of the movement.

According to the Afrocentric system championed by William Ayers and Barack Obama with Annenberg money, American values “have confused African American people and oriented them toward American definitions of achievement and success and away from traditional African values.” American socialization has “proven to be dysfunctional and genocidal to the African American community.”  And the “answer is the adolescent rites of passage movement, designed ‘to provide African American youth with the cultural information and values they would need to counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.'”

Supporters of the “rites of passage” movement (such as Barack Obama and William Ayers in their decision to fund them) viewed these programs as “a social and cultural ‘inoculation’ process that facilitates healthy, African-centered development among African American youth and protects them against the ravages of a racist, sexist, capitalist, and oppressive society.”

Jacob Carruthers, a leader of the “rites of passage” movement funded by Annenberg money under Barack Obama, “dismisses critics as part of a white supremacist conspiracy to hide the truth of African superiority.”  His mission, as detailed in his book Intellectual Warfare, calls upon society to “dismantle the European intellectual campaign to commit historicide against African peoples.”  According to Carruthers, “The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.”

As Stanley Kurtz explains:

Carruthers’s goal is to use African-centered education to recreate a separatist universe within America, a kind of state-within-a-state. The rites of passage movement is central to the plan. Carruthers sees enemies on every part of the political spectrum, from conservatives, to liberals, to academic leftists, all of whom reject advocates of Kemetic civilization, like himself, as dangerous and academically irresponsible extremists. Carruthers sees all these groups as deluded captives of white supremacist Eurocentric culture. Therefore the only safe place for Africans living in the United States (i.e. American blacks) is outside the mental boundaries of our ineradicably racist Eurocentric civilization. As Carruthers puts it: “…some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture.” The rites of passage movement is a way to teach young Africans in the United States how to reject America and recover their authentic African heritage.

Carruthers admits that Africans living in America have already been shaped by Western culture, yet compares this Americanization process to rape: “We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist….” In other words, American blacks (i.e. Africans) may have been forcibly exposed to American culture, but that doesn’t mean they need to accept it. The better option, says Carruthers, is to separate out and relearn the wisdom of Africa’s original Kemetic culture, embodied in the teachings of the ancient wise man, Ptahhotep (an historical figure traditionally identified as the author of a Fifth Dynasty wisdom book). Anything less than re-Africanization threatens the mental, and even physical, genocide of Africans living in an ineradicably white supremacist United States.

Kurtz also says:

According to Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, Carruthers’s training session on African-centered curricula for SSAVC teachers was a huge hit: “As a consciousness raising session, it received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey….” These teacher-training workshops were directly funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Another sure sign of the ideological cast of SSAVC’s curriculum can be found in Annenberg documents noting that SSAVC students are taught the wisdom of Ptahhotep. Carruthers’s concerns about “menticide” and “genocide” at the hand of America’s white supremacist system seem to be echoed in an SSAVC document that says: “Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us.”

You might have noticed that the three R’s don’t seem to be very important.  They aren’t, for this Obama-funded racist and anti-American ideology masquerading as a curriculum.  It is a curriculum Barack Obama, as a friend of William Ayers, a board member with Annenberg, and a congregant for 23 years in Jeremiah Wright’s church, has supported for most of his entire adult life.  In his conclusion, Kurtz says:

As if the content of SSAVC documents wasn’t warning enough, their proposals consistently misspelled “rites of passage” as “rights of passage,” hardly an encouraging sign from a group meant to improve children’s reading skills. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge’s own evaluators acknowledged that Annenberg-aided schools showed no improvement in achievement scores. Evaluators attributed that failure, in part, to the fact that many of Annenberg’s “external partners” had little educational expertise. A group that puts its efforts into Kwanzaa celebrations and half-baked history certainly fits that bill, and goes a long way toward explaining how Ayers and Obama managed to waste upwards of $150 million without improving student achievement.

However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright. The Wright affair was no fluke. It’s time for McCain to say so.

Barack Obama has promised to increase the funding of our nation’s already massively funded public education system by about another thirty percent.  Just realize that – based on his past history – President Obama will use that money to radicalize your little darlings, rather than try to teach them.

Still think William Ayers doesn’t matter?

See also Stanley Kurtz’ articles:

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism

Obama’s Challenge: The campaign speaks to “Radicalism.”

Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown? A cover-up in the making?