Far Left Portrait of Obama Continues to Emerge-Mainstream Media Ignores It
I highly recommend this article by Ron Radosh at PJTV. It not only details the extent to which the New York Times and other media apologists go to conceal the real relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, but it also begins to fill in the gaps about the political milieu that Obama comes from.
Radosh reveals that the best research done into the Obama/Ayers relationship has been done by Stephen Diamond, a leftist, pro-labor, social democrat who sees the sectarian politics of the Ayers-left as hostile to the democratic labor movement. Diamond, whose research has been ignored by the New York Times and most of the other mainstream media, in a post at his blog yesterday, shows that a new Obama biography, The Bridge, by David Remnick, establishes that Bill Ayers was, in fact, responsible for Barack Obama’s crucial appointment to the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Ayers, of course, would never have helped engineer the Obama appointment if he were not dead certain that Obama would lead the CAC in the right direction. During its seven year existence the foundation was in a pitched battle with the Daley Administration which wanted to centralize school management and even tried to convince the Annenberg Foundation to not fund the Ayers proposal. That implies, of course, that Ayers and Obama had a closer and longer term relationship. While no mainstream media has reported that as of yet, King Harvest was told that a senior Obama campaign activist and long time Democratic Party supporter confirmed the relationship went back to the 1980s.
While many people may still believe that this is no big deal, even though it would indicate Obama has been dishonest about his relationship with Ayers, it is important to remember that the official mainstream media story is that Bill Ayers played no role in the Obama appointment to CAC. As Diamond tells it, in order for this to remain the media’s primary story, it is necesssary for them to miss the bigger story altogether; which is that Bill Ayer’s political philosophy has had a distinctive influence on Obama.
He says, that the New York Times (in the article I linked to above) was “hiding the ball” because after their investigations into Ayers/Obama they had to know that the Ayers/Obama connection was clear. Diamond concluded in this article from 2008 that the real story is “that the fundamental political world view of Ayers, not his tactical foray into bombings for a few years, is influencing the Obama candidacy. That is a conclusion the New York Times is likely well aware of – because I have patiently explained it to three of their reporters, including Michael Powell and Scott Shane – and because if you know where to look and whom to ask, and I think we can conclude they have the resources to look wherever and ask whomever they wish, the influence is clear.”
Then Diamond goes on to explain Bill Ayers’ worldview:
what is the Ayers’ world view? 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 and in some instances created regimes that were at odds for various reasons with the Russian regime.
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.
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.” He found in Chavez’ authoritarian Venezuela institutions being created that were very similar to what he advocates here in the United States.
In light of the fact that the Ayers/Obama connection is becoming clearer with time, it is important to speculate on the political effects of this relationship. Jack Cashill has done yeoman’s work on Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father” and after extensive comparative literary analysis, has concluded that it is highly possible that Bill Ayers contributed to ghost writing that book. This was actually confirmed in Christopher Anderson’s book, “Barack and Michelle, Portrait of An American Marriage,” but the media missed that as well.
Relying on inside sources, quite possibly Michelle Obama herself, Andersen describes how Dreams came to be published — just as I had envisioned it in my articles on the authorship of Dreams. With the deadline pressing, Michelle recommended that Barack seek advice from ‘his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.’
To flesh out his family history, Obama had taped interviews with various family members. Andersen writes, ‘These oral histories, along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers.’ Andersen quotes a Hyde Park neighbor, ‘Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together. It was no secret. Why would it be? People liked them both.’
Andersen continues, ‘In the end, Ayers’ contribution to Barack’s Dreams From My Father would be significant–so much so that the book’s language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers’ own writing.’
I also think that Obama’s close ties to a neo-Stalinism help to understand the Obama Administration’s treatment of the ant-Marxist, anti-Chavez government in Honduras. As we have shown in our article on Honduras, despite the overwhelming evidence that Manuel Zelaya was breaking the law, the U.S. initially declared that the democratic government of Honduras had ousted Zelaya illegally and was, in effect, operating as an illegal coup d’etat. This was also the immediate reactive position of those countries who were members of ALBA, the international political organization established by Chavez and Castro and funded with Venezuelan oil.
Even though the U.S. was forced to change its position on the so-called Honduran coup d’etat in late 2009, and accepted the democratic elections in November of that year, it has continued to bolster Manuel Zelaya and in doing so, has been dividing the country with its policies. According to Wall Street Journal writer Mary O’Grady, in a recent article “U.S. vs. Honduran Democracy: The Administration is pushing a policy that divides Honduras and bolsters a chavista,” the Obama Administration has been making a series of moves in Honduras that has been fueling their “monumental crisis” and it has been doing so with such a heavy hand that “the display of raw colonialist hubris is so pronounced that locals now refer to U.S. ambassador Hugo Llorens as ‘the proconsul.’ O’Grady explains:
Washington’s bullying is two-pronged. First is a maniacal determination to punish those involved in removing Mr. Zelaya. Second is an attempt to force Honduras to allow Mr. Zelaya, who now lives in the Dominican Republic, to return without facing any repercussions for the illegal actions that provoked his removal. Both goals are damaging the bilateral relationship, polarizing the nation and raising the risk of a resurgence of political violence.
The U.S., as represented by Mr. Llorens, has been at the center of the Zelaya crisis all along. People familiar with events leading up to Mr. Zelaya’s arrest on June 28 say that had the U.S. ambassador not worked behind the scenes to block a congressional vote to remove the president a few days earlier, the dramatic deportation would never have happened.
So yes, I am making the connection between the Ayers/Obama relationship, Ayers’ neo-Stalinism, and the real world policies of the Obama Administration. Under the fog provided by the mainstream media, the United States is now under the control of a Marxist who has ties to an international Marxist movement that has remained in the shadows, but has been working to weaken and overthrow the United States for some time now.
If you want to say that’s crazy, be my guest. However, I do not say these things lightly and do so in the hope that someone out there with more journalistic resources at their disposal will look into this matter further. I have a lot more information which I believe can confirm this connection of Obama to an international Marxist plan, and one of the reasons for my blog has been to bring this up and subtley as I can. But I think, although it is very hard to believe, we are dealing with the explosive possibility that there is a traitor in the White House; someone committed to a long-range international Marxist plan to weaken the United States and, at least, to make it less able to defend itself in the world.
Although I have put this video up before, I will post it here again.
In the video, it is pretty explicitly stated, I think, that Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, were working with the Cuban DGI, Castro’s secret intelligence service. In fact, it has long been established as fact that the Weather Underground was financed and supported by Cuban intelligence.
Now, as we have shown here, Bill Ayers has never really given up his commitment to international Communist revolution.The media, for some reason, has tried to conceal this fact from the public along with the Ayers/Obama relationship. Since the media has been dishonest about Obama and Ayers, it is important for independent investigators to draw their own conclusions about this relationship. Since it is very explosive, the media will try to suppress the information but I think that it can now be proven that there is a connection between the Marxist Chavez, the Bolivarian Alternative (ALBA), the Sao Paulo Forum, and Barack Obama.
And for those that want a smoking gun, perhaps an article by former SDS radical Tom Hayden, describing the alliance between Chavez and Obama will do.