Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools

[confedup]

Further BS about Obama

http://online.wsj.com/article/....html

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.

The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago's public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy.

The CAC's basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda.

One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.

In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

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.

CAC also funded programs designed to promote "leadership" among parents. Ostensibly this was to enable parents to advocate on behalf of their children's education. In practice, it meant funding Mr. Obama's alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, to recruit parents to its overall political agenda. CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents "organized" by community groups might be viewed by school principals "as a political threat." Mr. Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Mr. Weber's objections.

The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC's first year. He also served on the board's governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative.

The Obama campaign notes that Mr. Ayers attended only six board meetings, and stresses that the Collaborative lost its "operational role" at CAC after the first year. Yet the Collaborative was demoted to a strictly advisory role largely because of ethical concerns, since the projects of Collaborative members were receiving grants. CAC's own evaluators noted that project accountability was hampered by the board's reluctance to break away from grant decisions made in 1995. So even after Mr. Ayers's formal sway declined, the board largely adhered to the grant program he had put in place.

Mr. Ayers's defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin.

Mr. Ayers is the founder of the "small schools" movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to "confront issues of inequity, war, and violence." He believes teacher education programs should serve as "sites of resistance" to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his "Teaching Toward Freedom," is to "teach against oppression," against America's history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

Mr. Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

[telcoman]

The right has been attempting to smear and spread false rumors about Barack Obama for quite some time.I don't believe too many Americans are going to believe the latest smears?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dailykos

http://www.dailykos.com/

When You're Losing by BarbinMD Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:43:37 PM PDTAs John McCain watches his last chance to be president slipping through his fingers, he's decided that it's time to go South Carolina 2000 on Barack Obama:

Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama's character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat's judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said.

John McCain is afraid to run on the war, he's afraid to run on health care, and he's terrified to run on the economy, so he's going to go for fear and smear. It's all John McCain has left. And as McCain campaign manager Rick Davis once said:

The premise of any smear campaign rests on a central truth of politics: Most of us will vote for a candidate we like and respect, even if we don't agree with him on every issue. But if you can cripple a voter's basic trust in a candidate, you can probably turn his vote. The idea is to find some piece of personal information that is tawdry enough to raise doubts, repelling a candidate's natural supporters. [...]

It's not necessary, however, for a smear to be true to be effective. The most effective smears are based on a kernel of truth and applied in a way that exploits a candidate's political weakness.

Davis wrote that in 2000, decrying George Bush's smear campaign against John McCain during the South Carolina primary, saying that:

Rebutting tawdry attacks focuses public attention on them, and prevents the campaign from talking issues.

And of course today, the last thing John McCain wants to do is to talk about the issues.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice as soon as the financial crisis took over the news cycle from the lipstick on the pig BS, McCain's numbers have been going steadly down.His "the economy fundamently sound" statement proves neither he nor Palin have a clue on how to fix the economy.

His nonsense proposal to give a $5k tax credit for health insurance is another scam as it will force those that have employer provided health insurance to pay income tax on a $12000 family benefit. This misguided policy will allow employers to drop medical coverage and by forcing individuals to purchase their own health insurance it is going to cost them more even with the $5k tax credit.It is a poor solution to the health care problem and McCain/Palin is a poor choice for POTUS

Telcoman

[telcoman]

Those who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/....html

[audtatious]

His nonsense proposal to give a $5k tax credit for health insurance is another scam as it will force those that have employer provided health insurance to pay income tax on a $12000 family benefit. This misguided policy will allow employers to drop medical coverage and by forcing individuals to purchase their own health insurance it is going to cost them more even with the $5k tax credit.It is a poor solution to the health care problem and McCain/Palin is a poor choice for POTUS

I have not followed much on the healthcare plan other than not wanting to be a Gov program. As of March of this year, CNNmoney.com thought it was the better plan:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/1...rtune/

[audtatious]

Those who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/....html

Ahhhh. The Keating 5.

The Keating 5 were five Senators (Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI)), who were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).

Rusult?

The Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

Per the Ethics Committee, they stated that McCains "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."

Of the 5, McCain was the only Republican.

Go dig some more dirt up because what you linked up to is a load of crap. Is that all the dirt you can find on Johnny Boy?

[telcoman]

Ahhhh. The Keating 5.

The Keating 5 were five Senators (Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI)), who were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).

Rusult?

The Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

Per the Ethics Committee, they stated that McCains "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."

Of the 5, McCain was the only Republican.

Go dig some more dirt up because what you linked up to is a load of crap. Is that all the dirt you can find on Johnny Boy?

Palin and McCain have now resorted to outright lies regarding Barack Obama.

http://politicalticker.blogs.c...rists/

They are sinking rapidly in the polls so the only thing left for them is to try and BS the American people.

Unfortunately the majority are too smart to believe these two losers any longer.

[audtatious]

So, he has not associated with him in 3 years thus there is no truth at all to him being pals with him? That's the same mentality as saying he has no association with Rev Wright because he's no longer his minister.

You and CNN FAIL

I seem to remember prior to the last two elections how the predictions were Gore and Kerry as well. Until the silent majority vote none of us have a clue what's going to happen.

[HashiriyaS14]

Ok, focusing just on Jeremiah Wright for a second, I'll say this again:

This is an IMMATERIAL criticism as McCain had his own "wacky religious guy" in Rod Parsley, whom he courted and then subsequently renounced.

NEITHER candidate is a deeply religious person. Both courted religious figures (the wrong ones, apparently) to buy credibility and electability and then both candidates renounced them when the religious guys got too wacky.

Parsley said that America was founded with the intention of seeing the religion of Islam "destroyed", LOL. BOTH guys are certifiably nuts and BOTH have been renounced by their respective candidates.

[audtatious]

And that was not my point at all.

[skylndrftr]

so is Palin's ties to the secessionist movement fair game now?

[audtatious]

Sure. The NYTimes has already printed a retraction to their story on it but if you are game to try and stir that pot then go for it.

[96Qowner]

So lemme get this straight. We don't need to know anything about Ayers and Obama because McCain was exonerated in the Keating 5 scandal, and because McCain courted Rod Parsley, whose church he never attended AT ALL, much less for 20 years, and whom he never called his "spiritual mentor"?

Does not compute. Obama was introduced into politics by Ayers. I'm frankly surprised that the media has finally decided to air the Ayers story. It was all over the news channels this morning. Obama's introduction to politics is truly ugly. It wasn't just Ayers - it was ACORN, too, and a host of unsavory South Chicago politicians.

Obama talks pretty, but the substance is less pretty.

[audtatious]

You are not supposed to focus on the man behind the curtain...

[AZhitman]

The right has been attempting to smear and spread false rumors about Barack Obama for quite some time.

What's false in the original post?

Would you be surprised to know that the original impetus of that article came directly FROM someone in the DNC?

I don't believe too many Americans are going to believe the latest smears?

I don't believe too many Obamallamas are willing to admit that their Messiah has a pretty sketchy past...

But, we'll see if any supporters actually take the time to educate themselves, or simply stick their head in the sand.

By the way, re: Keating - Even the Democratic special counsel in charge recommended that Senator McCain be completely exonerated. You'd know this if you read something that wasn't geared towards sensationalist nonsense.

[Cold_Zero]

Our schools for the better part of 40 years have been the target of radical elements hoping to push their (pro liberal, pro democratic, pro homosexual and anti religious) agendas, revisionist history and moral relativism on our school children. Boy, the 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy' or even better yet the 'Vast Right Wing Conservative Evangelical Conspiracy' doesn't even come close to what the NEA, the teachers unions and other 'concerned' groups have done to our schools. This has all been by designed to indoctrinate young children to be tomorrow’s sheeple. They don't care about educating our children, they just care about securing the next group of liberal-democratic voters.

I can't help but to wonder, when I read the NEA’s Advocate magazine why the teachers unions would care so deeply about non educational related items. Or better yet, why they would fall on the wrong side (educationally) on certain issues. Here are some examples.The NEA pushes for more funding of schools in the Public School systems, yet support efforts not to crack down on and even condoning Illegal Immigration. The NEA pro abortion stance (again not an educational issue) seems to fly in the face of its teachers' mandate to educate children. Effectively, if you kill off your patrons, you will find yourself out of a job.

[HashiriyaS14]

And that was not my point at all.

Oh, I wasn't trying to assert that it was, I was just trying to keep the conversation from going in a J. Wright direction, as I guess I just don't get why the 2 cases are so different. Sure, the association was longer in one case, but they're both the same modus operandi.

In regards to Ayers, I admit that it looks bad, but I don't think anyone's going to care as people just chalk this guy up as a 1960's liberal counterculture revolutionary, which is now looked upon more as "kitschy" than "threatening". Unfortunately, most people will disregard it because the terrorlst in question isn't Muslim, lol.

I wish they didn't have an association, and it's the only one one of Obama's associations that really bothers me. In the leftist political circles, unfortunately, a lot of these somewhat unsavory 60's "revolutionaries" now have a lot of pull. I'd need to know more about what impact Ayers had on Obama's career. I don't fault him for knowing the guy, I know lots of people I think are unsavory, but I would ding him for being really close with Ayers or for allowing Ayers to somehow "shepherd" any part of his career. It wouldn't make me a McCain supporter, but it is, admittedly, the number one *potential* issue I have with my candidate. Not because I, for ONE MINUTE, believe that BO advocates militant civil disobedience, because I absolutely don't, but because it would have shown a lapse in judgment to have allied oneself with this kind of clown even though it may have had some short-term political gains.

The whole Rezko thing doesn't phase me a lick. I work in real estate and I run across a ton of unsavory characters. That's how the business is, and no one knows who's a criminal until someone gets indicted. The whole industry is infected with vipers, old-time guys who play by old rules, and descendants thereof. Just like Whitewater, you can have some kind of association with these sorts of people without actually having ever committed a crime yourself. Whitewater was BS and so is this. It's just a bad association, everyone has them and everyone would prefer not to. I don't think this is remotely comparable to Ayers.

[Jesda]

I'm bothered by his association with Ayers. I know they're friends and BHO learned a great deal from him about politics, but in this society where people are sensitive to terrorism (OKC, WTC I, WTC II, USS Cole, etc), its in very poor taste to have associations with people like this.

I've been making it a point to avoid non-issues-related associations, accusations, and claims because they don't affect my life, but this really gets under my skin. This doesn't change my vote since he never had my support, but it does give me a more negative opinion of BHO as a man.

As part of the Libertarian movement, I've worked with and befriended some really goofy characters in the past, including conspiracy nuts who make offensive, outrageous claims. In fact, if you work in politics at all you're guaranteed to meet extremists.

But guess what -- none of the people I associated with would ever resort to violence, nor do they advocate the use of violence. They are among the most peaceful human beings I have ever met. That says a great deal about my philosophy and beliefs and perhaps BHO's. I am against the use of force to further my agenda. BHO is obviously not a terrorlst, but he still supports the use of force through government.

[audtatious]

Oh, I wasn't trying to assert that it was, I was just trying to keep the conversation from going in a J. Wright direction, as I guess I just don't get why the 2 cases are so different. Sure, the association was longer in one case, but they're both the same modus operandi.

Let's see...Obama had attended Wrights church for 20 years and called him his mentor and had him on his campaign staff. McCain met Parsley when he gave an opening for a Feb '08 rally in Cincy and he was never on his staff. Obama was in Wrights church for 20 years and McCain has never been to Parsley's church.

Does not look even close in my eyes. Of course both ministers are nut-jobs but is that enough to say both cases are the same?

In regards to Ayers, I admit that it looks bad, but I don't think anyone's going to care as people just chalk this guy up as a 1960's liberal counterculture revolutionary, which is now looked upon more as "kitschy" than "threatening". Unfortunately, most people will disregard it because the terrorlst in question isn't Muslim, lol.

What was once called a revolutionary is today called a terrorlst. The group bombed and killed people. They still stand behind what they did. If the shoe was on the other foot don't you think the press would have destroyed McCain about it by now? You know they would have.

I wish they didn't have an association, and it's the only one one of Obama's associations that really bothers me. In the leftist political circles, unfortunately, a lot of these somewhat unsavory 60's "revolutionaries" now have a lot of pull. I'd need to know more about what impact Ayers had on Obama's career. I don't fault him for knowing the guy, I know lots of people I think are unsavory, but I would ding him for being really close with Ayers or for allowing Ayers to somehow "shepherd" any part of his career. It wouldn't make me a McCain supporter, but it is, admittedly, the number one *potential* issue I have with my candidate. Not because I, for ONE MINUTE, believe that BO advocates militant civil disobedience, because I absolutely don't, but because it would have shown a lapse in judgment to have allied oneself with this kind of clown even though it may have had some short-term political gains.

There are a lot of associations that Obama has had in the past that should be looked into. More is coming out about Rezko and his ACORN days as well. His "secret" trip to Pakistan with Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid which supposedly enhances his "foreign policy" knowledge, his association with al-Mansour, Rev Wright, his latest trip to Iraq where he wanted negotiations for troop withdrawals to wait until after the election, etc. Even if all of them are "innocent" then it sure shows that he has consistently had very bad judgment. At this point, there is not enough information out to determine if his associations or things he has done in the background is "innocent" or not, IMO.

[96Qowner]

In regards to Ayers, I admit that it looks bad, but I don't think anyone's going to care as people just chalk this guy up as a 1960's liberal counterculture revolutionary, which is now looked upon more as "kitschy" than "threatening".

I wish they didn't have an association, and it's the only one one of Obama's associations that really bothers me. In the leftist political circles, unfortunately, a lot of these somewhat unsavory 60's "revolutionaries" now have a lot of pull. I'd need to know more about what impact Ayers had on Obama's career. I don't fault him for knowing the guy, I know lots of people I think are unsavory, but I would ding him for being really close with Ayers or for allowing Ayers to somehow "shepherd" any part of his career.

I always thought of Ayers as a sort of cheap shot, too, but the recent release of documentation last week shows a MUCH more unsavory situation on Obama's part. In 1995, Ayers got a $50 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation to fund the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation that Ayers established. Obama, a third year associate at a small Chicago civil rights law firm, was hired to Chair the CAC and distribute the funds. Ayers and the other two founders operated the "Collaborative", another part of the foundation that established foundation guidelines and worked with "community organizations " in writing grants to be approved by Obama and the board, funds which went to 3rd party groups which would be matched to individual schools. No funds went to the schools themselves.

Furthermore, these funds were spent to preach "social justice" to compensate for the inherent racism and imperialism of America. Students were taught extreme left wing anti-capitalism. The 3rd parties who received this funding to assist the schools downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. Proposals from groups that focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the ACORN.

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.

CAC also funded programs designed to promote "leadership" among parents. Ostensibly this was to enable parents to advocate on behalf of their children's education. In practice, it meant funding Mr. Obama's alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, to recruit parents to its overall political agenda. CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents "organized" by community groups might be viewed by school principals "as a political threat." Mr. Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Mr. Weber's objections.

http://online.wsj.com/article/....html

Also in 1995, Ayers and and his wife, Bernadette Dorn, hosted a gathering of important left wing Hype Park political activists in order to introduce Obama into politics. State Senator Alice Palmer had planned to give up her State Senator seat to run for the US House and the seat was offered to Obama. Palmer has said on record that she did not organize the meeting, in fact she later recanted and decided to keep her seat, but Obama successfully got her thrown off the ballot for a technicality. This was his start in politics.

Obama continued to chair the CAC through 1999 and remained on the board until 2001. In total, Obama distributed $160 million to these 3rd party activist organizations.

We know all this now, just as we know that Obama was less than honest about Ayers, because records were just recently released from the archives of the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

This was no mere "association". This was Obama's entire claim to executive experience and his fundamental start in politics. This is where Obama comes from. This is the sort of man he was right up until 2001, three years before he gave his address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. This is where he earned his chops. These are the people who groomed him for his present position.

There's much more. We've only barely mentioned ACORN.

[AZhitman]

They found no evidence of educational improvement.

Well, no surprise there. a big chunk of the money went to promoting "Juneteenth" as a national holiday.

"Juneteenth" celebrates the abolition of slavery and is sometimes referred to as "the Black 4th of July".

[Cold_Zero]

How ironic, I saw this today in the Chicago Tribhttp://www.chicagotribune.com/...story

Chad Weiden, an assistant principal at the Social Justice High School who would be principal at Pride Campus, said the school would incorporate lessons about sexual identity in literature and history classes and offer counseling.

[audtatious]

Don't gays have more issues with violence from their partner than from non-gays?

[telcoman]

McCain has not learned anything from his involvement in the Keating 5

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/keatingvideo

Oh and did I forget to mention that Obama wa 8 years old when Ayres was involved with the weather underground?

[audtatious]

You got to be kidding. We've already gone over this and there is NOTHING there other than 3 Democrats who were found to be involved up to their necks.

The Wonderful Wizard of Koz tell ya that line? Nobody is accusing the Messiah of being involved with the bombings themselves. How stupid is Obama, the great civil rights attorney and Harvard professor if he really had no clue who Ayers was? You are severely fooling yourself there taco man. The connection to Ayers goes back quite a ways before his "launch" into politics from Ayers home. Obama was involved for nearly 5 years with Ayers Annenberg Challenge foundation, they were involved in the Woods Fund together, Ayers wife and Obama's were buddies and working together when Obama met her. That's just the tip of the iceburg.

Go ahead and keep your head buried in the sand.

[ishkabibble]

Don't gays have more issues with violence from their partner than from non-gays?

Where'd you get that stat? From one of the "pray away the gay" organizations?

[audtatious]

I forgot, I'm a non-church going bible thumper who is pressing my religious views on others and I don't know any gay people.

Regardless, you are correct and I was wrong in the way I made the question as those in GLT relationships experience about as much domestic violence as non-gay relationships (you would think it would be less but it's not). Now, what I would like to see is if the percentage of homophobe crime is higher than crime against others based upon color, religion, wealth, gender, location, etc., and what part of the crime was simply against them due to potential "easy targets". I personally don't think they are targeted anymore than others.

[ishkabibble]

That was a joke about your indiscriminate use of sources, not about you.

[audtatious]

Good to know

I try to be as fair as possible <cough cough>.....well, most of the time.

[Rev_D21]

Who was Annenberg? What was his relation to Ronald Reagan?

[audtatious]

They were friends. What are you getting at?