Thought for Today

"The leftists in the media would do well to remember that their liberty to be a free press comes from the same constitutional amendment as the tea party crowd's liberty to gather together. And our elected leaders would do well to remember that the First Amendment exists to protect average people from the government, not the other way around."

~~~~~ Ken Blackwell

Climate Money

Joanne "Jo" Nova, a science writer from Perth, Australia, has been driving the Global Warmists totally bonkers. For 17 years, she was a True Believer. Then, in 2007, she became aware of a couple of pieces of key evidence that disprove the entire theory of AGW – that is, Anthropogenic Global Warming caused by the accumulation of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

As a trained scientist (molecular biology) and a person of unquestioned integrity, once Jo realized that the theory in which she had believed was false, she changed her opinion. She began speaking and writing as a global warming skeptic, pointing out how the recent evidence had poked some pretty sizable holes in the hypothesis that humans are causing the earth to warm as a result of our CO₂ production.

At first, Jo's former colleagues tried their best to ignore her. However, she's not easy to ignore. After all, she's a professional science communicator, and is very good at what she does. Not surprisingly, within a very short time, she began to experience the same sort of vicious personal attacks as all of the other scientists who dare to question the Global Warmists' cherished orthodoxy. To them, she was now an apostate, and they made it plain that if it were within their power to do so, they would gladly burn her at the stake, then bury her ashes in the nearest environmentally friendly landfill.

Last year, Jo started a blog, JoNova, in which she kept her readers abreast of the latest developments in the field of climate science. In September, 2008, she issued an invaluable book, The Skeptic's Handbook. Here is what she wrote about it at the time:

I want to lift the debate above the mud-slinging, pathetic ad hominem attacks, and specious argument by authority. The basic rules of logic and reasoning have been known since the Greeks. Educated adults ought to do better. Maybe one day, national curriculums will too.

The attacks grew more vicious and strident, but Jo was not dissuaded. Quite the contrary. She came to realize, as some of us have for a number of years now, that the believers in AGW theory were acting not like scientists, but like religious acolytes hanging on every word emanating from Prophet Al Gore and High Priest James Hansen. By the end of October, 2008, Jo realized that AGW is a religion, and had the temerity to say so in a blog post.

Reading the comments following that one post is a real education. Jo enforces certain standards of civility in her comment section, so you won't find the most depraved and vicious of the ad hominem attacks there (to see them, hang out in the left-wing blogs for a while and search on her name), but I was in turn amused, amazed, and disappointed to read some of the comments obviously intended as logical, reasoned discourse.

This month, Jo has just come out with another informative booklet, this time in cooperation with the Science and Public Policy Institute. It's called Climate Money, and you can download it as a PDF file from this page. Here's a summary of what you'll find within its 19 pages:

• The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.


• Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.


• Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.


• Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.


• The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

Jo is also a talented artist and cartoonist. She illustrated both The Skeptic's Handbook and Climate Money herself with clear, easy-to-follow charts, graphs, and occasional cartoons, such as this one from the cover of Climate Money:



By all means, download a copy of Climate Money and, if you don't already have one, The Skeptic's Handbook, too. By the time you finish reading them, you'll have a pretty good understanding of why the theory of AGW is wrong, and why we are nevertheless spending billions of dollars in an attempt to prove its validity.

As is, sadly, so often the case – follow the money.

Obama and the Peter Principle

Before our eyes, President Obama is demonstrating the validity of the Peter Principle as stated four decades ago by Dr. Laurence J. Peter:

"In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence."

While he managed to temporarily bedazzle a majority of the voters last November, more and more of his erstwhile supporters are coming to realize that they made a terrible mistake. As a result, we are now burdened with a President who continues to offer new proof every day that he is totally unqualified for the office he holds.


One indicator with a proven track record is Scott Rasmussen's Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll. It shows that for the first time since his inauguration, Obama's Presidential Approval Index – the difference between the percentages of those strongly approving and strongly disapproving of his performance – has swung dramatically negative, to a value of -8%.

Perhaps of even greater importance is the fact that articles highly critical of Obama have begun to appear with some regularity in influential and respected publications which have heretofore been faithful Obama acolytes, such as the Washington Post. For example, consider this piece by former George W. Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson, Obama's Iceberg:

Around midnight on April 15, 1912, there were a few minutes when Capt. Edward Smith of the Titanic realized his ship was going down -- six watertight compartments breached, less than two hours to float -- yet his passengers slept in happy ignorance. A historical fate hardened while most of the participants dreamed on.

The jobs report last week opened a long gash beneath the waterline of President Obama's legislative agenda. Few realize it, but a scramble for lifeboats is about to begin.

Gerson goes on to state:

To pass his health proposal this year, Obama would first need to violate his word. As a presidential candidate, he pledged that "no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase" -- the most memorable number of the 2008 campaign. Taxing health benefits would certainly cross this very bright line and add to the public stock of cynicism.

By all means, read the whole thing.

The fact that the Washington Post ran this column, even if only as an op-ed, is quite significant. In the future, we may well look back upon this moment as the turning point when the majority of the public has finally realized that our clueless President has risen to his level of incompetence.

As the Stomach Turns

Normally, I'm a stalwart Fox News fan. The AT&T U-verse TV service I've been enjoying since last February brings me something like 120 channels, but 119 are wasted on me, because I almost never watch them.

Actually, I don't spend nearly as much time watching Fox News as I do listening to it, talk radio-like, from the next room while doing something else. If I hear something particularly interesting, I walk into the living room and watch for a few minutes.

Yesterday afternoon, though, just after 4 PM local time, Fox News ran off the rails. As soon as the rumors about Michael Jackson's demise began to spread, Fox preempted its regular programming and replaced it with 100% Michael Jackson coverage. First there was the sappy, saccharine, sanctimonious Shepard Smith, my least favorite of the Fox anchors.

After three solid hours of Shep running on about Michael Jackson, I couldn't stand it any more. I dashed off this note to Fox's Viewer Comments mailbox:

Enough already!

Among other stories, Congress is about to vote on Cap and Trade tomorrow, Iranians are dying in the streets in quest of freedom, and North Korea is threatening us with nuclear annihilation.

So what is Fox News talking about wall to wall?

Michael Jackson!

Please, let's see some of the maturity and balance for which Fox has been known until now. Stop pre-empting your regular programming. Get Shep off the air. Let your regular programming resume.

Certainly, I don't expect you to ignore the Michael Jackson story, but for Heaven's sake, let's set some priorities. There are other important stories out there, too!

Shortly thereafter, I got part of my wish, anyway. Mercifully, Shep's shift ended – to be followed by the self-promoting histrionics of Geraldo Rivera. Geraldo has long had the reputation of somehow shaping every story to be about him, and he did not disappoint. To hear him talk, he was Michael Jackson's best friend, and the only reporter on the planet to whom the Gloved One would entrust the Real Truth.

This morning, I checked National Review Online's The Corner, and found that I was not alone. Jonah Goldberg (no relation), who often appears on Fox News, was equally dismayed, and far more eloquent. In a post called, simply enough, Some Quick Thoughts on Michael Jackson, here's what he said:

[NOTE: Normally, I just quote the first few paragraphs, but in this case, I'm making an exception. I hope that NRO doesn't mind.]

Generally speaking, I’m a believer in the rule that we should not speak ill of the dead. Or at least we should wait a decent interval before doing so (if we never spoke ill of the dead, history would be meaningless). But, I must say I find the media’s instinctive rush to sanctify Michael Jackson disgusting.

Look, I understand that Michael Jackson was an “icon.” I understand that some people loved his work and that many people who never met him believed they loved the man too.

But I didn't, and I’m hardly alone. If Michael Jackson were just another famous person, I’d probably stay silent and let the pro forma celebration of his memory roll by without comment. (For instance, I have no problem whatsoever with the media taking a moment to pay respects to Farah Fawcett).

Sure, I liked the Jackson Five. I liked “Thriller,” too, when I was a teenager. Michael Jackson was an “icon” for me too.

But let’s pause for a moment on that word “icon.” It seemed the consensus adjective for the news networks. NBC ran a special on two “American Icons” — Fawcett and Jackson. Every cable network (including Fox, for the record) used the word “icon” to describe him as if this was some sort of safe harbor, a word everyone could agree on. “Love him or hate him,” the implied logic went, “he was an ‘icon.’”

Yes, well, maybe so. But that doesn’t let you off the hook. Even though the term sounds neutral, it isn’t. An icon, technically speaking, is a religious symbol deserving of reverence and adoration. The networks may not have intended to use the word that way, but they certainly showed an unseemly amount of reverence and adoration for the man.

I think part of it is the narcissism of our celebrity culture. Here was a guy so many of “us” read about in People magazine for so long. His passing, therefore, isn’t a loss in the sorrowful sense of the word, but in the selfish one. It’s a loss of an interesting subject, a creature to gossip about and to fill a few minutes on E! or Entertainment Tonight.

Everyone likes to invoke Lord Acton’s axiom that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But nearly everyone forgets that he coined this phrase not to indict powerful men, but to instruct the historians who write about them. Historians tend to forgive the powerful their transgressions. Likewise, journalists (for want of a better word) tend to forgive the famous.

Calling Michael Jackson an icon doesn’t let him off the hook for anything. But to listen to the news anchors you’d think it absolves him of everything.

I say: Who cares who his famous friends were? Who cares what a “fascinating” person he was? If you want to talk about his death as an end of an era, have at it. But that’s not what the Barbara Walters set is doing.

I know that Michael Jackson wasn’t convicted of the despicable crimes he was accused of. And that’s why he never went to jail. Three cheers for the majesty of the American legal system. But in my own personal view, he wasn’t exonerated either. Nor was he absolved of his crimes because he could sing, moonwalk, or sell 10 million records. (Though many of us suspect the money and fame he made from those things is precisely what kept him out of jail).

And, while I merely think he was a pedophile, I know he was not someone responsible parents should applaud, healthy children emulate, nor society celebrate.

And while we’re at it, his relatively early death wasn’t “tragic.” He was one of the richest people in the world. He spent his money on perpetual childhood and he was perpetually with children not his own.

Meanwhile, in the last ten days, we’ve seen or heard of remarkable people who’ve given their lives for freedom in Iran. We’ve heard of innocents killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the last decade, America has lost thousands of heroes in noble causes and thousands of innocent bystanders who were denied the simple joys of life through no fault of their own. Those deaths are tragic, and we're hard pressed to think of more than a handful of names to put with the long line of the dead.

If anything, Michael Jackson’s life, not his death, was tragic.

Every year at the Oscars they show a montage of people who died over the previous year. Invariably, the audience only applauds for the really famous people. This has always offended me. Not necessarily because the famous people don’t deserve praise but because it’s so clear that the audience is clapping for the fame. Michael Jackson had many accomplishments. But the press is sanctifying him because he was famous, deservedly so to be sure, but not because he was good. So much of the coverage seems to miss this fundamental point, as if being famous made him good.

I feel sympathy for Jackson’s family and friends who understandably mourn him. But I can't bring myself to mourn him any more than I mourn the random dead I read about in the paper everyday. Indeed, I confess to mourning him less.

Every channel says this is a sad day for America. I agree. But not for the same reasons.

Well said, Jonah!

Media Bias

WorldNetDaily.com reminds us of this oldie-but-goodie media bias joke:

A Harley rider is passing the zoo when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back, letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A New York Times reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter says, "Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I saw a man do in my whole life." The biker replies, "Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right."

The reporter says, "Well, I'm a journalist from the New York Times, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page... so, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?"

The biker replies, "I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican."

The following morning the biker buys The New York Times to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on front page:

"U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH."

The First 100 Days

Hat tip: Michael Ramirez and Townhall.com

Thought for Today

"Obviously, a man's judgment cannot be better than the information on which he has based it. Give him the truth and he may still go wrong when he has the chance to be right, but give him no news or present him only with distorted and incomplete data, with ignorant, sloppy or biased reporting, with propaganda and deliberate falsehoods, and you destroy his whole reasoning process, and make him something less than a man."

~~~~~ Arthur Hays Sulzberger (1891-1968), New York Times publisher and grandfather of present publisher Arthur Ochs ("Pinch") Sulzberger, Jr.

Not exactly a chip off the old block, is he?

"Mom, how can that guy say that about you? He's never even met you."

Wondering what Sarah Palin is really like? For a revealing personal glimpse, check out this interview with Elizabeth Vargas on "20/20": Sarah Palin 'Not Going to Let Women Down'.

Pruden on the Obama Tape

Karl Marx

In his latest column, A game-changer by Obama, Wesley Pruden comments on the 2001 Obama radio interview in his inimitable style:

If your toilet is stopped up by something really big and smells really bad, you'll probably need a plumber. Joe the Plumber, as it turns out, diagnosed the trouble, and yesterday we learned what it was. It smells really bad.

It's a scorcher. You'll want to read the whole thing.

VDH on the Campaign

Victor Davis Hanson, one of the wisest men of our generation, is always worth reading. This time, though, he has outdone himself. In his latest essay for Pajamas Media, The Campaign Takes a Very Strange Turn, he begins by posing four "why?" questions:

Why didn’t Colin Powell and Co. jump ship in, say, June or July, and endorse Obama after many months of campaigning when his positions were already well known? That is, why wait until late October when, after the financial meltdown, Obama surged in the polls? Had Powell come out even in the first week of September, he could have demonstrated that although Obama was down by three points, he was willing to stick his neck out with a principled endorsement that may well have made him persona non grata in a McCain-administration Washington.

Why didn’t the media or McCain just ask Obama a few of the following questions: Why did you keep emailing and phoning Bill Ayers for three years after 9/11, when the country was gripped by fear of terror, and Ayers, like bin Laden, said that he had not done enough bombing, and had no regrets about the terrorism he had committed?

Why did Obama say in 2004 to the Chicago Sun-Times that he went to Trinity Church every Sunday at 11AM, and then later claim he had not been there that regularly once Rev. Wright’s venom was disseminated to the general public? Is Obama for, or not for, a simple yes or no, missile defense, nuclear power, off-shore drilling, and coal-powered electrical generation? There might be legitimate answers, but surely the public could profit by them, rather than worry over the Palin pregnancies, wardrobe, or Tasergate.

Why did the greatest furor against Palin originate with women, both liberals like a Gail Collins, Maureen Dowd, or Sally Quinn, or conservatives such as a Peggy Noonan or Kathleen Parker?

He then proceeds to answer them, and quite a few more, in his usual quiet, understated, eloquent style. Go see what he has to say.

How Low Can They Sink?

John Hinderaker of Power Line eloquently expresses his growing disgust and anger at the vile and shameless conduct of the left in this campaign. In Barbarians at the Gates--of the White House, he points out that their treatment of Governor Palin has been unprecedented in all of American history – and that if we allow their tactics to succeed, we will be giving the keys to the kingdom to "a howling mob of barbarians."

Barack Obama can't be blamed for all of his followers' vile actions, but, like it or not, he trails in his wake a howling mob of barbarians. If he is elected, these bottom-feeders will have achieved their goal, and some of them, at least, will be rewarded for doing their leader's dirty work. This is not, folks, your father's Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, most voters don't read blogs. They get their news, such as it is, from the MSM and the late night comedians. They have no more idea of what's in store for them than lambs being led to slaughter.

I fear that our country is about to pay a terrible price for their apathy.

"A Charismatic Demagogue"

Mark Levin, the brilliant attorney and talk show host, just uploaded a very important post to NRO's The Corner. It's obvious that he dashed it off in the heat of passion, so to speak, because while it's tightly reasoned and eloquently written, it's not neatly arranged in paragraphs. He named it "The Obama Temptation." Here's how he begins:

I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places.

Here's another pull quote:

But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government.

This one is a must-read.

More on Joe the Plumber

PajamasMedia has two great articles on Joe the Plumber and why his story should matter very much to all of us.

First, there's Ruben Navarrette Jr.'s "The Democratic Party’s Drubbing of Joe the Plumber," which begins like this:

I realize it’s all about winning at this point. But someone has to ask: What has happened to the Democratic Party?

It seems like just yesterday that the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy was talking about income equality and civil rights and worker protections and going to bat for the little guy, the blue collar laborer, the everyday Joe the Plumber.

Now, the well-to-do elites who run the Democratic Party — and their surrogates — greet these people with brickbats. They insult them, talk down to them, and even try to destroy them. Isn’t that the sort of war on the working class that Democrats are always accusing those greedy and heartless Republicans of waging?

Then take a look at this short but incisive piece by Claudia Rosett, "First They Came for Joe the Plumber…." Here's how she starts out:

Joe’s question about taxes threw a wrench into Barack Obama’s campaign pitch. So, oh what a background check Joe got. Within days, reports were all over the news that Joe owes back taxes, he doesn’t have an Ohio plumber’s license, his real name is Samuel, and he is — shock and horror — a registered Republican. Within days, Obama and Biden were holding up Joe to public ridicule, and by implication mocking any American working stiff who might have the audacity to want to earn more than $250,000 per year.

Obama may be full of talk about delivering the American dream, but he apparently has enormous disdain for Americans who actually sweat to earn it for themselves. He wants to take Joe’s money and spread it around in the name of helping others get ahead — but if anyone gets ahead more than Obama deems fitting, watch out.

It seems that Joe’s sins are less than the litany would make them. He may not have a plumber’s license, but he works for someone who does. He owes back taxes, but less than $1,200. And at least to date, it is not a crime in America to use a nickname or be a registered Republican.

Mark Steyn on Joe the Plumber and The Chosen One

Mark Steyn just put up a brilliant and wickedly funny NRO article about the encounter between the now-famous Joe the Plumber and BHO, "Joe the Plumber vs. Joe the Hair-Plugger." Here's how it begins:

Give a man enough rope line and he’ll hang himself. There was His Serene Majesty President-designate Barack the Healer working the crowd at some or other hick burg, and halfway down the rope up pops a plumber to express misgivings about the incoming regime’s tax plans.

You'll want to read all of it – but not with a full bladder.

Why They Hate Her So

Sam Schulman has a beautifully written piece in the latest Weekly Standard explaining why certain members of the self-styled elites have been beating up on Sarah Palin so unmercifully. Check out "Class Will Tell." Besides being deadly accurate, it's a superbly crafted essay, and a joy to read.

"… when an electorate is intent on doing something, the last thing it wants to hear about are the facts"

This outstanding Tony Blankley column from Townhall.com is a must-read: "McCain's Next Duty Call." Here's an excerpt:

But despite the fact that these bare outlines of Obama's elections are pregnant with the implications that he has gained every office he has sought so far by underhanded and sordid means -- while posing as a Gary Cooper-like idealist in a corrupt political world -- the American media have let these extraordinary events simply pass without significant comment.

The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama

The young syndicated columnist and attorney Ben Shapiro has just released a 3-part video documentary, The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama. You can get a preview from this trailer:



Here are links to the three parts. Their combined running time is 19:39. (I'm not embedding them because they'd cause this page to take way too long to load.)
The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama -- Part I (8:45)
The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama -- Part II (4:55)
The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama -- Part III (5:59)

Ben did a terrific job putting this together. Unfortunately, the audio track follows the Goldilocks model: its levels swing wildly between "too loud" and "too soft," finally settling on "just right" at the very end. So – while I'd recommend this documentary to any American voter who cares about the fate of Israel, be prepared to make frequent volume adjustments as it plays.

A Pleasant Surprise

If last night's debate has you feeling a little glum, here's a video that'll cheer you right up again. Watch this – then spread it around. Truly outstanding!



Hat tip: Jay Nordlinger of NRO

What Did Ayers Do, Anyway?

For those who may not be familiar with the violent history of William Ayers' and Bernadine Dohrn's Weathermen, this short City Journal article, "Fire in the Night," will be instructive.

The author, John M. Murtagh, is the son of a New York State judge of the same name. In 1970, when he was 9 years old, Ayers' Weathermen tried to kill him and his family, and very nearly succeeded.

Here's the beginning of Murtagh's account:

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up “a gentleman named William Ayers,” who “was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.” Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.

Not long after this attack, several Weathermen, including Ayers' then-girlfriend, Diana Oughton, died in what the Israelis have come to call a "work accident." They were building a bomb inside a Greenwich Village townhouse, and accidentally detonated it.

The bomb had been constructed with a payload of roofing nails in order to accomplish the maximum amount of murder and mayhem, Its intended target was an upcoming dance for soldiers and their dates at nearby Fort Dix, NJ. Had the plotters succeeded, they might well have killed and maimed hundreds instead of just themselves.

Oh, yes – the designer of the bomb, who made sure his own precious ass was somewhere else during the construction? William Ayers.

Let's hope that his brazen attempt to get his friend Obama into the White House blows up in his face.

More About Ayers and Obama

Kathy Shaidle, of Five Feet of Fury, has a short must-read piece in the Examiner on the subject of the Ayers-Obama relationship, "Obama and Ayers: tenuous, schmenuous." It's so important that I'm including the whole thing:

There's nothing wrong with "guilt by association" if the person you're associating with is guilty of something...

The McCain campaign needs to spin the Ayers connection much better.

It doesn't matter when Obama met up with Ayers, or how many meetings they ever had.

It's about the fact that Ayers went from domestic terrorist to "respected community leader", to the point where Ayers was throwing well attended fundraisers for Obama, and they sat on boards together.

Bill Ayers should never have achieved such respectable positions in the first place.

Bill Ayers should be sitting in jail, not on boards!

But that's how the 1960s Left's reputation-laundering works. Look at Angela Davis, and the convicted felon and torturer who invented (the Marxist inspired "holiday") Kwanzaa and, like Davis, is now a tenured prof.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Ayers was quoted in the New York Times as saying he and his wife only regretted that they hadn't blown up more buildings. People were reminded that Ayers wife praised the Manson family murders.

That story was widely remarked upon for incredibly obvious reasons.

That story alone would make any decent, intelligent person say afterward: "Wow, I better not be seen anywhere near this guy, let alone sit on a board with him or go to his frickin' house. Boy, would THAT ever look bad."

So that means Obama isn't a decent, intelligent person. Period.

He's just another craven, arrogant, Chicago style politician.

The McCain campaign needs to spin this as an anti-hippie, anti-lefty, culture wars story:

Ayers and his wife are dangerous criminals and traitors who got away with it, and are now well off and respected. At least the Rosenbergs got the chair...

Look at how average Americans view O.J. -- make Ayers the hippie O.J.

Ask folks how they'd feel if Charles Mason was a professor now too?

Look:

a guy who has been photographed, as late as 2001, stomping on the American flag is one of Obama's supporters.

It doesn't matter if Obama denounces Ayers tomorrow.

It doesn't matter if their connection is/was "tenuous".

Here's what matters:

What does it tell you about Obama and his policies and his worldview that people like Ayers and his ilk are obviously going to vote for the guy?

Do you really want to vote for the same guy that unrepentant, unpunished domestic terrorists vote for?

Yes or no?

Pretty simple, but the McCain camp is blowing it.

She also includes this truly revolting picture of Ayers trampling an American flag – in 2001! So much for Obama's dismissal of Ayers' anti-American activities as something that happened 40 years ago when he was 8 years old.

Interesting, isn't it, that some outside observers – Kathy Shaidle and Mark Steyn are both Canadians – understand this situation so much better than many native-born Americans. Maybe it's because they've already been down this road with Pierre Elliott Trudeau. So they're trying to warn us about the disaster which awaits us if we are so foolish as to elect a man of the Left who willingly consorts with known, unrepentant terrorists.