[johnwk]

The following article provides a good clue as to who wins under Obama’s education plan.

NEA President to recommend Obama

Obama's education plan calls for: (1) full funding for educational programs from birth to 5 years old; (2) increasing the number of teachers through scholarships and incentive grants for taking challenging assignments; (3) prioritizing math and science education; and (4) focusing on parental responsibility in education.

Now why would the president of the NEA’s 3.2 million member organization support Obama when the federal government has no authority to tax for, finance, or meddle in the public school systems established under state constitutions? Because Obama promises to expand the federal Department of Education even though hard working families living in Harlem will be taxed to finance Obama’s proposed expansion.

The irrefutable fact is Obama’s education plan requires the misappropriation of federal revenue for a function not authorized by our federal Constitution!

Let us look at the facts.

The People of Maryland delegated the power for a state funded and regulated educational system to their state elected officials, and not to the Congress of the United States sitting in Washington --- the wording being as follows:

“The General Assembly, at its First Session after the adoption of this Constitution, shall by Law establish throughout the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools; and shall provide by taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance.”

The Maryland Constitutional also states, in emphatic terms:

“the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.”

Under Art. 3 of Maryland’s Constitution, the command is for local regulation and funding of education as opposed to a federally funded and regulated public school system.

The Maryland Constitution also states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.”

This very provision of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights is also agreed to by the People of the United States by their ratification of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States!

So why do we have a federal Department of Education which Obama wants to expand, when it is not authorized by our written Constitution? Because our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, and feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand and flourish, even at the expense of creating federal tax slaves living in Harlem, who will have their paychecks confiscated by Obama to finance the personal economic needs of his 5000 foot soldier army employed at the federal Department of Education! Keep in mind this foot soldier army is out there as we speak working to get Obama elected!

See: Teachers support Obama in Classroom

SEE: 'Indoctrinated' children ushered into Obama-ism

And Then see: Virginia teacher's group turns red over call to wear blue

And how will Obama’s foot soldier army do financially at the federal Department of Education?

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE OVERVIEW

Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, is $106,871 compared to just $53,288 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Now wait a second, a hard working family’s average annual wage amounts to about 53 K? Why are they earning less than those they employee?

In addition, here are other federal employee ``benefits`` which a hard working father living in Harlem will be gouged to finance under Obama‘s plan:

Life insurance plan___ our father in Harlem gets to pay 1/3 of a government workers federal life insurance plan.

Federal Employees Dental & Vision Program is a full coverage plan and federal employees get to use pre-tax dollars to pay for their vision and dental premiums while our family in Harlem is forced to use after taxed dollars to fund their Dental & Vision plan.

Under the federal employee retirement system, there is a tax-deferred savings plan known as the ``Thrift Savings Plan``. Under this plan, federal workers may contribute up to 10% of their salaries to the plan, with our hard working father living in Harlem being taxed to match up to 5% of a federal employee’s contribution.


Also, under the Civilian Service Retirement System a federal employee contributes 7% of their paycheck to retirement while our family living in Harlem is forced to match that 7 % out of their paychecks.


And, with reference to health insurance, which is in addition to the above mentioned dental and vision plan, see Federal Employees to See Moderate Rise in Health Insurance Premiums

Health insurance premiums for federal employees and retirees will increase by an average of 2.1 percent next year, the Office of Personnel Management announced this afternoon.

Cut------

The federal program will offer 283 plans next year and will provide insurance coverage to about 8 million Americans: civil service and postal workers, retirees, and family members. The government picks up about 70 percent of premium costs in its role as employer.

What the writer meant to say is, our hard working family living in Harlem who can barely meet their own health care needs, will get to pick up about 70 percent of the premium costs to provide health care to Obama’s foot soldier army at the federal Department of Education if he gets elected.

The bottom line is, the Washington Establishment and its political plum job empire will win under the Obama plan, and our hard working father living in Harlem will be enslaved to pay the bills.

JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then buy their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation on American soil.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

So why do we have a federal Department of Education which Obama wants to expand, when it is not authorized by our written Constitution?

You're saying it's unconstitutional?

Strictly speaking, it's perfectly constitutional. Read South Dakota v. Dole. If you want to argue for a different interpretation of the constitutionality of attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, then fine. But I don't see it in your post.

[zerostar]

Ok good news, my ignore list is officially populated! Bad news its just you "johnwk".... I pray you do the same...

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

You're saying it's unconstitutional?

Strictly speaking, it's perfectly constitutional. Read South Dakota v. Dole. If you want to argue for a different interpretation of the constitutionality of attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, then fine. But I don't see it in your post.

Please point to that provision in our Constitution by which the people have delegated a power to Congress to tax for, spend on and regulate state constitutional created public school systems. See, our Constitution's Tenth Amendment:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

Please point to that provision in our Constitution by which the people have delegated a power to Congress to tax for, spend on and regulate state constitutional created public school systems.

Originally Posted by johnwk 

See, our Constitution's Tenth Amendment

You're not listening.

Again, South Dakota v. Dole considered this issue in another context. According to the Court, the Taxing and Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) authorizes attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds.

States can always choose to ignore federal education mandates, but they will lose federal funding in that area if they make that choice. No one is forcing states to take the money. They can fund their own education programs with their own taxpayers' money if they want.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

You're not listening.

Again, South Dakota v. Dole considered this issue in another context. According to the Court, the Taxing and Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) authorizes attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds.

States can always choose to ignore federal education mandates, but they will lose federal funding in that area if they make that choice. No one is forcing states to take the money. They can fund their own education programs with their own taxpayers' money if they want.

No! You’re not reading what has been posted. Article 1, Section 8 grants no power to Congress to tax for, spend on or regulate public school system’s created under state constitutions. Congress is misappropriating federal revenue for a function not authorized by our written Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to by We the People of the United States.

The case you cite does not address whether or not Congress has authority to meddle in public schools systems established under state constitutions.

I suggest you read MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts pro- [5 U.S. 137, 177] hibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

This election may very well determine whether or not our constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" will remain as it was intended to function.

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

No! You’re not reading what has been posted. Article 1, Section 8 grants no power to Congress to tax for, spend on or regulate public school system’s created under state constitutions. Congress is misappropriating federal revenue for a function not authorized by our written Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to by We the People of the United States.

The government can tax and spend for just about anything given how the Taxing and Spending Clause is so wide open for interpretation.

...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

What's the common defense? What's the general welfare?

I would think most people would put education spending as one of those things that benefit the "general welfare" of our citizens.

Originally Posted by johnwk 

The case you cite does not address whether or not Congress has authority to meddle in public schools systems established under state constitutions.

It's not factually analogous, but it's legally analogous.

The issue is whether the federal government can attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds. The only difference is the facts in South Dakota v. Dole deal with requiring states to adopt a drinking age of 21 years year old in order to receive federal highway funds, while the facts in this situation deal with requiring states to follow federal mandates for education in order to receive federal funds for education.

How does education spending "meddle in public school systems established under state constitutions?" States voluntarily follow federal education mandates in order to receive federal funding. Let me repeat this for a third time: states voluntarily follow federal education mandates. It's voluntary. Any "meddling" is entirely of the states' consent. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you take it up with your particular state.

Originally Posted by johnwk 

I suggest you read MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

It's ironic that you site that case.

Previous to that case, it wasn't clear who was the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws. The Constitution isn't clear on this point. Marbury v. Madison was a judicial branch power-grab that determined it and it alone is the final arbiter. So now I cited a decision by the Supreme Court that decided the constitutionality of attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds by states and you don't seem nearly as thrilled by the concept.

[itistoday]

Hey, it's really simple, hear the man speak, in his own words, about education. Then make up your own mind.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Hey, it's really simple, hear the man speak, in his own words, about education. Then make up your own mind.

The man speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

I'd rather look to see what he did when he thought not as many people where looking and watching, to see his ideas on education reform:

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools - WSJ.com

Personally, I don't want Ayers and his ilk inspiring US education policy. SCARY STUFF!!!

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

The government can tax and spend for just about anything given how the Taxing and Spending Clause is so wide open for interpretation.
What's the common defense? What's the general welfare?

I would think most people would put education spending as one of those things that benefit the "general welfare" of our citizens.

You're not reading that correctly. Let me help you.
The way the Constitution is written, the opening clauses provide the justification, and the ones that follow outline what is required or forbidden to the Federal government.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes Duties, Imposts and Excises. Why is this? To pay the Debts (we had just had a revolutionary war, and incurred debt to do so.) and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States (that's why we need Congress to take the citizen's money); but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States (all taking of money will be taken equally across the country.)

So, we've justified why Congress has the power to take money.
That's all that section does.

It's what comes next that tells you what Congress is limited to spend money on and the specific powers to which Congress is limited.


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That's it. Only those specific things named above are the powers of Congress. They can't write laws about anything other than what's listed above, and they can't spend money on anything other than what is listed above. "general Welfare" is a justification, not a wide-open door to spend on whatever Congress pleases.

To do so requires a Constitutional amendment giving Congress new power.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The man speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

I'd rather look to see what he did when he thought not as many people where looking and watching, to see his ideas on education reform:

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools - WSJ.com

I read that entire article and am still having trouble finding how it says that Obama "speaks out of both sides of his mouth." It's rather difficult considering that it doesn't contain a single quote from Obama. You know, something on perhaps what Obama thinks of Ayers ideas, might have been useful.

The article mainly repeats the idea that "Ayers is a radical". It never really defines what that means, or how that has anything to do with Obama. Ayers blew up this statue with some of his friends:



He is now a "domestic terrorist" because of that. Today he spends his time trying to improve education. And all of this means that Obama "speaks out of both sides of his mouth." Yes. This all makes so much sense.

SCARY STUFF!!!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

I read that entire article and am still having trouble finding how it says that Obama "speaks out of both sides of his mouth."

I was talking generally. When he's caught either telling people how he really feels about things, or there's a long pattern of support for something that the majority of Americans would oppose, he tells us how it's all an irrelevant attack and to simply listen to what he says NOW that moderate America is listening.

The article mainly repeats the idea that "Ayers is a radical". It never really defines what that means, or how that has anything to do with Obama.

A. Which part of "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)" didn't you understand? You know.."ACORN", as in the leftist vote fraud mechanism? Which part of the description of what Ayers decided to do with the money seemed mainstream to you?

B. Obama was the Chairman of the Board for this project. He was in charge of implementing the agenda.

Ayers blew up this statue with some of his friends:



He is now a "domestic terrorist" because of that.

He also bombed this building:


"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."
- Bill Ayers

Yeah...that kind of thing sort of DOES make you a "domestic terrorist"

Today he spends his time trying to improve education.

It depends on your definition of "improve". If you believe that teaching liberal activism over traditional math/science/English, then you'd agree. I doubt many people who know Ayers philosophy would agree that it would be an improvement on current education methods.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I was talking generally. When he's caught either telling people how he really feels about things, or there's a long pattern of support for something that the majority of Americans would oppose, he tells us how it's all an irrelevant attack and to simply listen to what he says NOW that moderate America is listening.

Please, in today's internet-enabled, wiki-age, it's not only really helpful, but really easy to get direct sources for your statements. I'm still waiting for a direct citation on how "Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth" when it comes to education.

A. Which part of "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)" didn't you understand? You know.."ACORN", as in the leftist vote fraud mechanism? Which part of the description of what Ayers decided to do with the money seemed mainstream to you?

I looked into that, and it doesn't really seem all that of a big deal. From the wiki on ACORN:

During investigations, ACORN has publicly supported the investigations of employees submitting fraudulent voter registration information, has fired them if evidence supports the charges, and has stated its concern with false information on registration forms.[47][48] Officials have stated that ACORN has been cooperative in these investigations.[36]

Remember, again, what we're talking about. I took issue with your statement that "Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth" on education. Are you trying to tell me that your evidence for this is that some disgruntled (now fired) employees of "a community-based organization that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, health care and other social issues" ... wait... I'm lost already. Do you see how ridiculous this whole thing is now?

B. Obama was the Chairman of the Board for this project. He was in charge of implementing the agenda.

And this shows that he was "speaking out of both sides of his mouth" how?

He also bombed this building:

Oh, whoops. You've got me there, I'll admit that. Sorry, I do remember hearing TV anchors screaming about that now. Bombing government buildings would certainly earn you the title of "domestic terrorist".

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."
- Bill Ayers

Here's another quote from him on that:

Although the bomb that rocked the Pentagon was itsy-bitsy - weighing close to two pounds - it caused 'tens of thousands of dollars' of damage. The operation cost under $500, and no one was killed or even hurt.

I certainly do not support such activity, however, I think that the word "terrorist", as it is used today, has too much of a strong connotation to be applied to him. His bombing never killed anyone, and in my searching I haven't been able to find anything indicating that his intention was to hurt anyone. When people hear "terrorist", they usually think "this person wants to kill people", so in that respect it seems to me that it's unfair to label him as such.

Come to think of it, when you're dealing with something as volatile and unpredictable as a bomb, it's pretty remarkable that they managed to not even hurt anyone in that incident, which would indicate to me that they must have taken huge pains to avoid that. A "terrorist" is someone whose goal is to cause... terror. I don't think Ayers fits that bill, he was a political extremist sure, but his attacks seemed focused on attacking "the establishment", not on killing people and causing terror.

If you need more evidence to support the theory that Ayers never wanted to hurt anyone:

Chicago Magazine reported that "just before the September 11th attacks," Richard Elrod, a city lawyer injured in the Weathermen's Chicago "Days of Rage," received an apology from Ayers and Dohrn for their part in the violence. "[T]hey were remorseful," Elrod says. "They said, 'We're sorry that things turned out this way.'"[18]

I've been unable to find any evidence to the contrary, let me know if you know something I don't, although I think we've ventured off topic. How does Obama talk out of both sides of his mouth on education?

I doubt many people who know Ayers philosophy would agree that it would be an improvement on current education methods.

Well perhaps you can help me out on this one, I've been scouring the internet trying to find more information on these "radical views" that Ayers has on education and haven't been able to find any. I've found lots of videos of Ayers making a lot of sense on YouTube, but that's about it.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."
- Bill Ayers

Yeah...that kind of thing sort of DOES make you a "domestic terrorist"

Since stupendousman and others like to take quotes Ayers made out of context to say he's an "unrepentent terrorist", here are some other quotes Ayers has made, in context.

Ayers knows a thing or two about the consequences of terrorism; he used to practice a form of it. Once he and co-conspirers detonated a pipe bomb in a little-trafficked corridor of the Pentagon, knocking out the building's computer system for several hours.

As a rule, the Weather Underground took care to strike when buildings were empty and phoned in warnings ahead of time. Still, press Ayers on the point, and he'll admit that they took some chances worth regretting and that anyone could have blundered down the wrong stairwell and made a murderer of him.

"I'm 56 years old," he begins, speaking in impassioned paragraphs like the college teacher he is today, "so I have a world of regrets to point to. But what I don't regret is throwing myself into this effort to end this one particular war, to bring about some sense of peace and justice, with every fiber of my being. I don't regret that. I think we were restrained, and by 'restrained' I mean we tried very hard not to do the scenario you just imagined. Had we done it, it would've been indefensible. There would be no way to defend the killing of an innocent person, even though our goals were just."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000

BTW, those quotes were made a month BEFORE the oft-quoted 9/11/01 quote.

So, once again, stupendousman is relying on quotes taken out of context to support his positions.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000

BTW, those quotes were made a month BEFORE the oft-quoted 9/11/01 quote.

Thanks Mrjinglesusa for finding that! That substantiates this pondering of mine:

Come to think of it, when you're dealing with something as volatile and unpredictable as a bomb, it's pretty remarkable that they managed to not even hurt anyone in that incident, which would indicate to me that they must have taken huge pains to avoid that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Please, in today's internet-enabled, wiki-age, it's not only really helpful, but really easy to get direct sources for your statements.

You didn't ask me for a citation that showed MY CLAIM. You misrepresented what I said (or didn't understand) and then went on arguing against that strawman. My claim was that Obama has a habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth - saying and doing different things depending on who he is around. From him chastising rural people "clinging to guns and religion", then trying to appeal to them as a Christian, to spending a good deal of his adult life listening to a racist America hater and saying he was appalled to hear that was the case once he was caught. Based on those types of inconsistencies, I'm not going to take him at his word on education. There's a long record for the sorts of things Obama has supported, and most of them are appallingly bad.

I looked into that, and it doesn't really seem all that of a big deal.

You're right. Paying them millions to buy votes in a number of states isn't that big of a deal. People got cash, cigarettes and other incentives to register numerous times in a bunch of states. It's not just an isolated incident and ACORN isn't just a non-partisan educational institution. They have a long history of left-wing activism and their people are a part of the problem in regards to mortgage abuse. If that's the sort of people you want to help implement education reform, good luck selling it to the American people. See if they think it's no big deal.

Remember, again, what we're talking about. I took issue with your statement that "Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth" on education.

Not my statement. My statement was that he does so on a number of issues, so I'm not going to trust him at his word regarding education. I'd rather look at his past record, which reflects a desire to implement radical left-wing activism into the lives of school children via ideas supported by communist domestic terrorists and radical communitity organizers who have a history of fraud and abuse. That's his record in regards to education, and one he needs to defend.

Are you trying to tell me that your evidence for this is that some disgruntled (now fired) employees of "a community-based organization that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, health care and other social issues" ... wait... I'm lost already. Do you see how ridiculous this whole thing is now?

You were lost before you started.

I certainly do not support such activity, however, I think that the word "terrorist", as it is used today, has too much of a strong connotation to be applied to him. His bombing never killed anyone..

Actually, Ayers activities resulted in several deaths (7), and terrorism doesn't require someone die. Terrorists act in violent ways in order to scare and intimidate. You don't use a bomb for any other reason.

Well perhaps you can help me out on this one, I've been scouring the internet trying to find more information on these "radical views" that Ayers has on education and haven't been able to find any. I've found lots of videos of Ayers making a lot of sense on YouTube, but that's about it.

I provided a link that has some pretty good stuff already. You might not think it's a big deal, but I'm content to let the American people decide for themselves.

[itistoday]

OK stupendousman. Thanks for "letting the American people decide for themselves." They needed your permission. I know it's unsportsman like, but I can't continue this debate because I don't have the time to dedicate to it, in fact I shouldn't have participated in it in the first place, please accept my apologies. Maybe someone else can take over it for me. I'll end this with a quote from your post:

I'd rather look at his past record, which reflects a desire to implement radical left-wing activism into the lives of school children via ideas supported by communist domestic terrorists and radical communitity organizers who have a history of fraud and abuse. That's his record in regards to education, and one he needs to defend.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen. That's Obama's record when it comes to education. You had better not vote for him or he and his terrorist cronies are gonna blow us all up and destroy America. What we need is John McCain, and Sarah Palin. Real American Heros.™

[olePigeon]

You don't need to apologize, a lot of people have given up trying to argue with him.