[stupendousman]

GREAT COMMERCIAL!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONfJ7...om.com/?p=2899

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by tie 

What are you doing starting threads entitled "Who is Barack Obama?" when you haven't done even the barest amount of research first?

Who gives a crap. It's not like there haven't been thousands of posts here where the poster didn't do any reasearch. Why take issue only now?

Originally Posted by tie 

This is a democracy, and voters have the responsibility to get to know the candidates.

Ideally, the media would lend a hand here. Regardless, it's hard to get to know someone when they seal up all their scholastic, charitable, and professional works.

I'm not satisfied relying on 2 autobiographies and a bunch of speeches, even though that's apparently what Obama supporters demand.

How come we haven't seen people from Obama's past step up and say glorious things about him? Obama supposedly helped all these folks in inner-Chicago, yet we haven't heard a single peep from anyone that Obama helped.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Read them. This is a democracy, and voters have the responsibility to get to know the candidates. What are you doing starting threads entitled "Who is Barack Obama?" when you haven't done even the barest amount of research first?

I've done more than that. Is it your belief that we really get to know candidates based on their carefully crafted vanity books written by ghostwriters? I've not read McCain's either.

I don't take a lot of stock in creations rooted in self-back patting and biographical information limited to only that which will not hurt them politically. I base my ideas on who a candidate is based on what they say publicly and how what they say jives with their record. McCain has been pretty consistent. Not so Obama.

Also, not to beat a dead horse, but you'd do well to look up the Wikipedia pages for the Nobel prize. I'm still waiting for any evidence for the fictional post you made the other day.

I already looked them up, and if you want to discuss them you're free to post in whatever thread those discussions where in and we can see how they dismiss the recent trend of partisan politics the Nobel prizes have engaged in. I'm not sure how changing the subject in this thread will help us understand why Obama has been lying about his past.

[Chongo]

Here is a CNBC discussion on O' Bama's "tax cut" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu7XaG3T4yc

[The Crook]

Who is Barack Obama?

The McCain campaign has presented Obama as an untested and unknown political figure, but Obama said, "the notion that people don't know who I am is a little hard to swallow." "I've been running for president for the last two years. I've campaigned in 49 states. Millions of people have heard me speak at length on every topic under the sun. I've been involved now in 25 debates, going on my 26th. And I've written two books which any -- everybody who reads them will say are about as honest a set of reflections by, at least, a politician as are out there," Obama said.

[Chongo]

O' Bama was a board member of the Joyce Foundation 1998 to 2001. It funds among other things, anti second amendment groups.
http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf (pages 79, change the year in the url for years 99-01)

[ort888]

So is he a terrorist or does he hate guns? It can't be both, right?

Who is Barack Obama?

[Dork.]

What's the point of calling him O'Bama? Is it supposed to be funny or something? If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, make them more serious.

It makes you look as lame as all the folks who keep calling Bush "Shrub".

[Chongo]

What is the "New Party", and what is O' Bama's connection? I heard this mentioned on the radio as I was driving in to work this morning.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

What's the point of calling him O'Bama? Is it supposed to be funny or something? If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, make them more serious.

It makes you look as lame as all the folks who keep calling Bush "Shrub".

He's really Irish

[SpaceMonkey]

So he's a liberal democrat who supports gun control? Why, I'm outraged!

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

He's really Irish

So's McCain, if his Scots-Irish heritage counts. What does that have to do with anything?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Who is Barack Obama?

The McCain campaign has presented Obama as an untested and unknown political figure, but Obama said, "the notion that people don't know who I am is a little hard to swallow." "I've been running for president for the last two years. I've campaigned in 49 states. Millions of people have heard me speak at length on every topic under the sun. I've been involved now in 25 debates, going on my 26th. And I've written two books which any -- everybody who reads them will say are about as honest a set of reflections by, at least, a politician as are out there," Obama said.

YES, we know that Obama has spent the past 2 years talking about himself. Often times, it's not what a person says that reveals the true nature of a person, but what they do. People can and do say anything, especially if it's in their best interests.

A good portion of those 2 years he's spent denying or covering up what he did the previous 45 years. When he hasn't lied about the facts, he has made a huge amount of his life "off limits" in regards to his personal, professional, educational and political life via refusing allow records to be released.

The notion that people don't know who Obama is is easy to swallow. Obama only tells us what he wants us to know. That isn't very relieving, that's propaganda. The fact that the media has little to no curiosity about all the stuff that Obama refuses to tell just ads to the deliberate mystery concerning Obama's past. They used forged documents to make accusations towards Bush, but they can't just ask Obama to release the documents that do exist that will likely give a better understanding (ie. not the moderate he portrays) of Obama?

...never happen. They know the damage that will do to their chosen candidate.

[ort888]

OK. Uncle. Seriously. We get it. You don't like Obama.

Come clean. Are you an employee of the McCain campaign? Who is stupendousman? That's what I want to know.

[Dork.]

I have it on good authority that stupendousman spends his time palling around on Internet forums with all sorts of miscreants and degenerates. What does that say about his character?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What is the "New Party", and what is O' Bama's connection? I heard this mentioned on the radio as I was driving in to work this morning.

Apparently, Google recently made it's 2001 archive available as part of an anniversary celebration. Subsequent searches on Obama show that he was affiliated with the Socialist New Party in Chicago circa 1996.

http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com...obama-was.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...was_a_new.html

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

It makes you look as lame as all the folks who keep calling Bush "Shrub".

George Bush :: George W. Bush
Bush :: Shrub
George Bush :: Bush
George W. Bush :: Shrub

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Who is stupendousman?

Either a stress ulcer or a brain aneurism.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

OK. Uncle. Seriously. We get it. You don't like Obama.

Come clean. Are you an employee of the McCain campaign? Who is stupendousman? That's what I want to know.

I've spent a lot time here talking about what I honestly think. I can't quite swallow the notion that there's anyone who doesn't know the real me given the amount of time I've spent posting and communicating with everyone here. I think that there's a racist element to those who question my background.

ps. I never have worked for McCain. He's just a guy who lives in my neighborhood.

[dav]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

How come we haven't seen people from Obama's past step up and say glorious things about him?

here's one

[tie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Who gives a crap. It's not like there haven't been thousands of posts here where the poster didn't do any reasearch. Why take issue only now?

Who says I am only taking issue now? I often take issue when somebody starts a thread without doing the most basic research. And this isn't just one thread, this is the whole election (i.e., thousands of threads ). Why would somebody be in this forum discussing the election when he hadn't done even the most basic research on the candidates?

It sounds like stupendousman doesn't have a clue who Obama is. And it is his own fault. There is tons of information out there and you have to take some responsibility in a democracy.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've spent a lot time here talking about what I honestly think. I can't quite swallow the notion that there's anyone who doesn't know the real me given the amount of time I've spent posting and communicating with everyone here. I think that there's a racist element to those who question my background.

ps. I never have worked for McCain. He's just a guy who lives in my neighborhood.

So you're saying McCain is paying you to promote him in some way shape or form. Wouldn't that make all of your posts here spam?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

What's the point of calling him O'Bama? Is it supposed to be funny or something? If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, make them more serious.

It makes you look as lame as all the folks who keep calling Bush "Shrub".

I was thinking the same thing. You never see McCain critics in here resorting to name-calling. I know there's "McSame," I just don't see it on MacNN. Yet most of the Obama critics have to settle for making fun of the man's name. I guess it's an indication that they're grasping at straws, that even they don't think their arguments will be able to stand on their own merits.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

He's really Irish

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I have no desire to read... {SNIP}

Quoted for truth.

Bottom line, you didn't supply anything on the list I was asking for. All you can do is find "associations", most of which are either extremely limited or controversial, and infer from those that Obama is a "radical".

Well, I'll say this - if Barack Obama is a secret radical, he's the greatest actor our planet has ever seen. He's been able to operate in complete secrecy for 25+ years, avoiding detection as he stealthily moved ever closer towards becoming President of the United States. He maintained two sets of friends and associates to advance this ruse on America - one set, out in the open, who could attest to his moderate, pragmatic nature, and the other, a set of bomb-throwing terrorists and radicals who pledged to never reveal their true relationship with "The One". He's now working on a presidential transition team, but of course, none of the "radicals" are on that team - he'll introduce them later, when/if he wins the election. And then - OMG - then the scales will fall from our eyes, and we'll all gnash our teeth and wail "stupendousman was RIGHT! We never realized what wasn't visible in front of us was right there all along! We are DOOMED!!!" But alas, it will be too late. The Constitution will be replaced with Sharia Law, communists will roam the streets arresting anyone with more than $20 in cash and hand it over to the newly-formed US/UN government, and all guns and copies of Rush Limbaugh Weekly will be confiscated.

I'm tellin' ya people - we'd better listen. Stupendousman has Obama's number. Only he can see what cannot be seen.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

It sounds like stupendousman doesn't have a clue who Obama is. And it is his own fault. There is tons of information out there and you have to take some responsibility in a democracy.

How is it my fault that Obama is sending out confusing messages?

He's against domestic terrorism, but he spent a bunch of time the past 10 years socializing, working with and praising an unrepentant terrorist, but claimed he was just a guy who lived in his neighborhood. He says he repudiates the things his old friend, pastor and spiritual advisor preached, yet kept his mouth shut and said nothing to the man until it was clear that he was hurting his bid for the Presidency. He has refused to release most anything that he has control over in regards to his past and simply expects us to take his word for everything when it's clear his word isn't worth much.

No..it's not my fault Obama either lies about his past or refuses to allow us a look at it. That's all on him.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

He's against domestic terrorism, but he spent a bunch of time the past 10 years socializing, working with and praising an unrepentant terrorist, but claimed he was just a guy who lived in his neighborhood.

"Socializing?"

There is no evidence the two are friends, or socialize with each other.

"Working with?"

They served on the same board together. Are you suggesting Obama should have resigned because of the past activities of a fellow board member?

"Praising?"

Obama has repeatedly condemned Ayers's past.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

So you're saying McCain is paying you to promote him in some way shape or form. Wouldn't that make all of your posts here spam?

I said no such thing.

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Quoted for truth.

Wow...cutting and pasting half a sentence. You are SOOO clever!

Bottom line, you didn't supply anything on the list I was asking for. All you can do is find "associations", most of which are either extremely limited or controversial, and infer from those that Obama is a "radical".

Every time you refuted a point, I provided a cite. There's an entire article from the Wall Street Journal I provided that outlines what Ayers and Obama did with CAC. Which parts do you refute?

Well, I'll say this - if Barack Obama is a secret radical, he's the greatest actor our planet has ever seen. He's been able to operate in complete secrecy for 25+ years, avoiding detection as he stealthily moved ever closer towards becoming President of the United States.

Actually, no. As we've shown, he's not been able to keep it a secret, despite much effort and dishonesty.

He maintained two sets of friends and associates to advance this ruse on America - one set, out in the open, who could attest to his moderate, pragmatic nature, and the other, a set of bomb-throwing terrorists and radicals who pledged to never reveal their true relationship with "The One".

Most all his Chicago associates and the work he did there falls under the radical leftist category. Ayers, Wright, his friends at ACORN. I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but for the most part that's what the facts show. People who claim he's "moderate" and "pragmatic" are the folks who read Obama's press releases and regurgitate them. There's really nothing in his record that shows this side of Obama to be the case, besides him telling us this is so.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

I see. Do you have that shirt, Chongo?

[Ghoser777]

I thought John McCain supported the rights of domestic terrorists:

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/10/joh...erroris-1.html

Seriously, a vote against legislation that punishes domestic terrorists would be more troubling than working on an educational board with someone who was a domestic terrorist 30 years in the past. The problem with the association is this - there's no evidence at all that Obama shares the views of Ayers on anything besides reforming education (with the other republicans and democrats on the board). McCain's vote is a clear indication on the topic of domestic terrorism at that time.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

I thought John McCain supported the rights of domestic terrorists:

John McCain's Domestic Terrorism Problem (new video) - The Jed Report

Seriously, a vote against legislation that punishes domestic terrorists would be more troubling than working on an educational board with someone who was a domestic terrorist 30 years in the past.

The law in question wasn't necessary. There are already laws which punish people for the crimes in question, just as there were laws against what Obama's friend did. It's illegal to bomb. It doesn't matter if it's the Pentagon or an abortion clinic.

The problem with the association is this - there's no evidence at all that Obama shares the views of Ayers on anything besides reforming education (with the other republicans and democrats on the board).

There were Republicans who supported THIS???:

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools - WSJ.com

Doubtful. It's likely they had no idea what Ayers and Obama where doing once they got the money. You hear "education reform" and you assume something reasonable and good, not something which the report that ended the program claimed, didn't do anything that improved anyone's education. Ayers and Obama flushed 50 million dollars down the drain as part of their liberal scheme

Not only does Obama support an unrepentant terrorist (whether he thinks bombing is a good idea or not), he apparently agrees with his take on "education reform" which is a euphemism for left-wing political indoctrination of children. SCARY!!!!

[The Crook]

"Stupendous"man:

Obama and Ayers are not "friends."

Obama does not "support" Ayers's past activities. Please substantiate your wildly uninformed claims.

[Arkham_c]

stupendousman, you're a real nuter, aren't you? I'm pretty moderate (check my posts if you don't believe me), but you sound like you've gone off the deep end.

There's no way Obama supports terrorists any more than McCain does. These guys have been thoroughly vetted by people much smarter and far more informed than anyone here, and nothing credible has been found to substantiate any of this.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...th-terrorists/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...arles-keating/

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There were Republicans who supported THIS???:

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools - WSJ.com

Doubtful. It's likely they had no idea what Ayers and Obama where doing once they got the money. You hear "education reform" and you assume something reasonable and good, not something which the report that ended the program claimed, didn't do anything that improved anyone's education. Ayers and Obama flushed 50 million dollars down the drain as part of their liberal scheme

Again, it's clear that you have no experience with private charitable foundations. This was a five year grant from the Annenberg Foundation, probably disbursed in annual installments. There would have been (at least) an interim report made by CAC back to the Annenbergs every year (4 total) before the next installment would have been paid. Foundations do not simply hand out $50 million and forget about it.

[andi*pandi]

stupendous doesn't care. He's happy to infer what McCain's foreboding ad implies, and happy to pass it on to anyone else.

Again, that ad isn't really about Ayers. It's a chance to use a slim connection to put the words "Obama is a terrorist supporter" together, and let the american people who've never heard of Ayers, instead supply the bomb-toting Al quaida imagery to connect with Obama. When people think of terrorists, they don't think of Ayers. They think Al quaida. The same folks who guarantee Obama's muslim will get this subliminal message and nothing will shake them from it.

Implying. Inferring.

Is it just stretching the truth or merely sidestepping it in a clever way? Is it dirty pool? All I want is the truth.

I wonder if I should join my PTA, who knows what rabble is on it that might sully my email inbox. I might even have to appear on stage with them, or go to meetings with them, or god forbid, share food with them at the school ice cream social. There go my future political aspirations.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

"Stupendous"man:

Obama and Ayers are not "friends."

They chose to work together for years, socialized together, Ayers held a party in Barack's honor, and helped each other out politically promoting each other's causes and.

To suggest where not "friends" isn't credible. I can accept an argument that there isn't evidence that they are "close friends", but not that they aren't "friends". You don't have a history like Obama and Ayers has with someone who isn't your "friend".

Now, after Obama threw Ayers under the bus, they very well may not be friends. That doesn't change Obama's poor judgement in remaining friends with him all those years. The fact that Obama lied about their relationship only ads to a pattern of poor judgement.

Obama does not "support" Ayers's past activities. Please substantiate your wildly uninformed claims.

I never said there was evidence that he supports his past activities. I never claimed that Obama supported terrorism, but rather that he supported a terrorist. The argument you are fighting against is what is known as a "strawman" argument and is a logical fallacy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Arkham_c 

stupendousman, you're a real nuter, aren't you? I'm pretty moderate (check my posts if you don't believe me), but you sound like you've gone off the deep end.

There's no way Obama supports terrorists any more than McCain does. These guys have been thoroughly vetted by people much smarter and far more informed than anyone here, and nothing credible has been found to substantiate any of this.

I've posted the substantiation in this thread, and even CNN has reported that everything that has been said is true. You chose not to refute any of it with facts yourself. You are more than capable of explaining what specifically you dispute so citations can be posted. Posting links to blogs that contain strawman arguments, and rebuttals that have already been factually proven to be false doesn't show your moderation or your knowledge of the issue at hand.

Sorry.

ps. The name calling doesn't come off looking too bright either.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Again, it's clear that you have no experience with private charitable foundations. This was a five year grant from the Annenberg Foundation, probably disbursed in annual installments. There would have been (at least) an interim report made by CAC back to the Annenbergs every year (4 total) before the next installment would have been paid. Foundations do not simply hand out $50 million and forget about it.

Please list the name of the Republicans who signed off on giving 50 million dollars for this:

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools - WSJ.com

"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).

Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement."

You guys are making the claim that Republicans specifically saw and signed off on Ayer's leftist schemes as illustrated above. I want some names and evidence that they knew what they were getting before they got it.

Citations please.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How is it my fault that Obama is sending out confusing messages?
...
No..it's not my fault Obama either lies about his past or refuses to allow us a look at it. That's all on him.

Excuse me? Obama is not sending out confusing messages. You are just refusing to read them. As I said, it is on you. At this point in the election, you can hardly claim to not have enough information on either candidate unless you are willfully ignoring it. Stop reveling in your ignorance, go read the books (or just the first one), and then you can come back and post twenty new threads on whether or not Obama is an Islamo-fascist terrorist.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Please list the name of the Republicans who signed off on giving 50 million dollars for this:

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools - WSJ.com

100 U.S. Ambassadors Endorse McCain-Palin [johnmccain.com]

Second on the list is Leonore Annenberg...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

stupendous doesn't care. He's happy to infer what McCain's foreboding ad implies, and happy to pass it on to anyone else.

Yes, I am. It infers that Obama possesses poor judgement. It infers this, because it's true.

Again, that ad isn't really about Ayers. It's a chance to use a slim connection to put the words "Obama is a terrorist supporter" together, and let the american people who've never heard of Ayers, instead supply the bomb-toting Al quaida imagery to connect with Obama.

You're right. That very well may happen. That's simply another reason NOT to be friends with unrepentant terrorists. It most certainly sends the wrong message to people who oppose terrorism, which is likely why Obama has been lying about it. Where do you draw the line if you can't draw the line at people who unrepentantly tried to blow up the Pentagon?

I wonder if I should join my PTA, who knows what rabble is on it that might sully my email inbox. I might even have to appear on stage with them, or go to meetings with them, or god forbid, share food with them at the school ice cream social. There go my future political aspirations.

It shouldn't be a problem as long as they aren't unrepentant terrorists. If you find out that someone at your PTA meets those requirements, I'd suggest not associating with them. I know I wouldn't. I'd tell them where to shove their GD bombs.

[Gee-Man]

That WSJ link you keep posting? It's an opinion piece by Howard Kurtz, a well-known right-wing hack. We need a NEWS source for all this, which will allow others to independently verify the outrageous claims you continue to make here.

Posting a link from somebody else who agrees with you isn't going to cut it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

100 U.S. Ambassadors Endorse McCain-Palin [johnmccain.com]

Second on the list is Leonore Annenberg...

I asked to show where they signed off on what he actually did. Simply repeating her name doesn't qualify as a citation. Are you really going to claim that a conservative Republican would give 50 million dollars to someone they knew was a 60's radical terrorist, in order to give the money to left-wing organizations to indoctrinate kids?

Really? Are you really saying that? If they did, then they are in no way "conservative" or anything else resembling "republican" that I can see.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Excuse me? Obama is not sending out confusing messages. You are just refusing to read them.

Which of my supporting statements do you specifically refute.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

That WSJ link you keep posting? It's an opinion piece by Howard Kurtz, a well-known right-wing hack.

Which of Kurtz's claims do you specifically dispute? Ad hominem attacks don't count in a debate as a refutation. It counts as a logical fallacy.

We need a NEWS source for all this, which will allow others to independently verify the outrageous claims you continue to make here.

Posting a link from somebody else who agrees with you isn't going to cut it.

I hope to never see another link to the NYT here as a citation. Thanks for that.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

That WSJ link you keep posting? It's an opinion piece by Howard Kurtz, a well-known right-wing hack. We need a NEWS source for all this, which will allow others to independently verify the outrageous claims you continue to make here.

Posting a link from somebody else who agrees with you isn't going to cut it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI7pUMbaINI CNN's report

[kobi]

Who is Barack Obama?

The next President of the United States

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

That WSJ link you keep posting? It's an opinion piece by Howard Kurtz, a well-known right-wing hack. We need a NEWS source for all this, which will allow others to independently verify the outrageous claims you continue to make here.

Kurtz clearly divulges his sources. If someone could debunk it, it should be very easy to do.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yes, I am. It infers that Obama possesses poor judgement. It infers this, because it's true.

I don't think you know what imply/infer mean.

Let's say your shirt is red. I could say:

Well, you know what they say about red... red is a communist color. Stupendous must really love red!

There, I implied you're a communist. I didn't say you are, I didn't libel or slander... but to anyone listening, they could make the jump. They could infer this idea, no matter how ludicrous. And depending on how much credibility I have, the idea could spread. The truth doesn't matter anymore.

If we all lived our lives according to how misguided people could misread our actions, or how those theoretical people could be easily led to believe the worst possible spin on things, we'd never get anything done.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I asked to show where they signed off on what he actually did. Simply repeating her name doesn't qualify as a citation. Are you really going to claim that a conservative Republican would give 50 million dollars to someone they knew was a 60's radical terrorist, in order to give the money to left-wing organizations to indoctrinate kids?

Really? Are you really saying that? If they did, then they are in no way "conservative" or anything else resembling "republican" that I can see.

Sorry, I'm about to blow your mind here.

As far as I can tell, you haven’t met your own criteria of “proof” when it comes to demonstrating Obama’s connections to Bill Ayers, but I’m a nice guy so I’ll go what I consider to be the extra mile to humor you on the subject of the Annenberg Foundation, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and the extent to which the Annenberg Foundation’s trustees (Walter and Leonore Annenberg, and their children), who, I will repeat, had to sign off on grant disbursements (this is not something I have to prove; this is in the very definition of trustee) knew of the nature of the project.

Let’s start at the beginning. Walter Annenberg, who for years had been prominently associated with Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, announced his intention to launch a $500 million challenge campaign to help spread education innovations in public schools at a White House ceremony with Bill Clinton in December 1993. His motivations? Rising violence in public schools. Quote, “I am deeply troubled by the violence in some grade schools and high schools…and if this continues, it will not only erode the educational system but will destroy our way of life in the United States.” (Citation)

From the very beginning, the point of the entire challenge was to fund community organizers and activists. A central assumption was that by giving money to reformers on the ground, rather than to the school bureaucracy, the challenge could make public education work for poor and minority students and deepen existing grassroots efforts.

As a co-author to the proposal to the Annenberg Foundation for the Chicago portion of this campaign, the involvement of Bill Ayers would have certainly been known to decisionmakers at the foundation. Ayers’ involvement was apparently “not an issue for the foundation”, according to executive director Gail Levin.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge, as at least the Annenberg Foundation understood it through the midterm report they received from the Annenberg Challenge national office, included “Breaking down the isolation of schools by including the community…Grouping schools together in networks with external partners is a way of connecting schools to each other and to their larger communities; it encourages the sharing and dissemination of outside resources and support. Ideally, schools become actors in community life, and the culture of parents and neighborhood residents remains essential to the education of young people.” (Citation). Three summative studies of the Annenberg Challenge were undertaken by the Annenberg Foundation and the Annenberg Institute for School Reform.(Citation)

Your view that the Annenberg family would have been willfully ignorant of the state of their $500 million (total) investment in (by all accounts) fairly radical attempts at public school reform is absurd, and as far as I can tell is not backed by any informed understanding of the Annenberg Challenge itself or how private foundations typically go about their business.