Bill Ayers admits writing 'Dreams' to conservative blogger

Truth is stranger than fiction. Last Friday we posted an article asserting Bill Ayers' authorship of President Barack Obama's 'Dreams From My Father,' based on claims made by Obama biographer Christopher Andersen. It is possible that we have now gotten direct confirmation of this from Bill Ayers himself.

Anne Leary of Back Yard Conservative was passing through Washington, DC’s Reagan National Airport yesterday, and was surprised to come across Bill Ayers at Starbucks: “scruffy, thinning beard, dippy earring, and the wire rims, heading to order.” She struck up a conversation with him and snapped the accompanying photo. (Photo provided courtesy Anne Leary.)

I interviewed Anne this morning about it.

Ayers was in Washington, he told her, for a conference on education. “That's what I do, education,” he said. “You shouldn't believe everything you hear about me... You know nothing about me.”

To which she responded, “I said, I know plenty--I'm from Chicago, a conservative blogger, and I'll post this.”

I bet his heart skipped a beat on that one.

But he didn’t scowl, and didn’t run off as he has been known to do. Instead, unprompted, he blurted out: “I wrote ‘Dreams From My Father… Michelle asked me to.” Then he added “And if you can prove it we can split the royalties.”

Anne responded, “Stop pulling my leg!”

But he repeated insistently, “I wrote it, the wording was similar [to Ayers’ other writing.]”

Anne responded, “I believe you probably heavily edited it.”

Ayers stated firmly, “I wrote it.”

Anne ended the conversation by saying “why would I believe you? You're a liar.”

Good for her. But we are left to wonder. Despite her parting shot, Anne was convinced Ayers was in earnest. He was making a public statement. He wanted this news out there.

Was he, as she had asked, pulling our collective legs? Other sources report rumors that Ayers is very upset both about not getting any credit for helping Obama on ‘Dreams,’ and may also be put off by being summarily thrown under the bus along with Rev. Wright and everyone else who becomes an inconvenience to this President.

My understanding of communists is that most would know better and keep their mouths shut. But Ayers is a bit different. He is, as he says, a “small ‘c’ communist,” but he is also, in a certain, slimy way, an entrepreneur, as we explained in Monday's post. (Apologies in advance to entrepreneurs everywhere.) He grew up a very rich kid, used to getting everything he wanted. Even as an adult his career has relied on a hand up from his wealthy father. His past statements and radical activities also mark him as a megalomaniac. In youth he drew attention to himself by blowing things up. As an adult "educator" he merely attempts to subvert children. But that doesn't seem to be going so well.

He is under a lot of pressure, too. Ayers and his horrid wife Bernardine Dohrn are believed to have planned and executed the San Francisco Park Police Station bombing in 1970 that killed police sergeant Brian V. McDonnell and wounded several others. Efforts to bring them to justice have been underway for some time, as brought to light this past March in a National Press Club conference put on by Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival.

Cliff’s guests included Larry Grathwohl, the FBI’s undercover agent who penetrated Ayers’ Weather Underground and produced this stunning testimony about Ayers’ plan to massacre 25 million Americans, retired S.F. policeman James Pera, first on the scene at the bombing, and veteran researcher Trevor Loudon.

Now, a recent exposé by San Francisco reporter Peter Jamison has revealed additional evidence, including testimony from other Weather Underground members, that Dohrn planted the bomb that killed Sgt. McDonnell.

Maybe in his overstressed state Bill’s megalomania has just gotten the better of him.

Citizens deserve faithful service from lawmakers and public employees

Commentary by James H. Shott

As if Michigan isn’t having enough trouble with the effects of the recession and the ailing auto industry, some of its citizens are suffering under laws and enforcement policies that simply defy common sense.

Each morning before the school bus comes to pick up kids in Irving Township, Lisa Snyder allowed the children of three of her friends to come to her house about an hour before school to wait for the bus. “Well, we can’t have that sort of thing going on,” state Department of Human Services employees said, and sent her a letter telling her that she was in violation of a law against operating an unlicensed day care center, which prohibits anyone from caring for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are a licensed provider.

Obviously, this action frightened Ms. Snyder and has angered her friends, but it also got the attention of Governor Jennifer Granholm and some state legislators, who are now at work fixing this legislative folly, and hopefully correcting the idiotic bureaucratic thinking that drove the state agency to persecute a woman for helping her friends.

But Michigan is not alone in having goofy laws and dopey bureaucrats. Vermillion County, Indiana, Prosecutor Nina Alexander said that she is proud to be "enforcing the law as it was written" by prosecuting a grandmother for buying two boxes of cold medication in less than a week. Horrors!

Sheriff Jon Marvel of neighboring Vigo County took the opportunity to show his concern: “I feel for [the grandmother], but if she could go to one of the area hospitals and see a baby born to a meth-addicted mother …” she would what? Not buy the cold medicine she needs?

Cold medications of the type that grandmother Sally Harpold purchased can be used to make methamphetamine, as it turns out, and there is a law that prohibits anyone, even someone with a cold, from purchasing two boxes of it in less than a week, a legal concept that has several logical fallacies.

Ms. Alexander admits that Ms. Harpold had no intention of making meth with the medicine, but, hey, so what? Everyone knows that the way to prevent babies from becoming addicted to meth is to arrest grandmothers who buy cold medication.

"The public has the responsibility to know what is legal and what is not, and ignorance of the law is no excuse," Ms. Prosecutor said. But does the public not also have a reasonable expectation that laws will be rational and bureaucrats will use common sense?

And, if the ingredients in cold medicine are potentially harmful, wouldn’t it be more effective to regulate them on the sales side rather than prosecuting innocent grandmothers, who probably have no idea they are doing something illegal when they buy two packs in one week?

Many stupid laws are on the books in most every state. In Huntington, W.Va. for example, it is legal to beat your wife so long as it is done in public on Sunday, on the courthouse steps.

In Massachusetts, an old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public. And, all men must carry a rifle to church on Sunday.

Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship in California, a state that also prohibits a vehicle without a driver from exceeding 60 miles per hour.

Such laws are routinely ignored by law enforcement agencies, as they should be, because most public servants employ common sense, unlike the aforementioned ones in Michigan and Indiana.

How do you explain the creation of carelessly designed laws such as those cited, and the mindless behavior exhibited in their enforcement? There seems to be an epidemic among public servants, many of whom have forgotten that they exist only to serve the best interests of the citizenry.

Most laws, even the goofy and intrusive ones, are written with good intentions in mind, but as we have seen over the last forty-plus years of increasing government intrusiveness, good intentions often produce undesirable results, because the public good is not uppermost in the minds of public servants.

Overzealous lawmaking is not limited to the individual states, however, and one of many examples of federal malfeasance is the effort by Congress and the administration to devastate the existing health care system because it serves only 90 percent of our legal population adequately. The examples of legislative impropriety in this exercise are legion. One proposed component of this unwarranted government intrusion would fine or perhaps jail anyone who does not purchase health insurance.

That is both absurd and intolerable. What aspect of the history of how and why our country was established inspires a lawmaker to even imagine such un-American ideas?

Public servants need to be reminded of their sworn duty to uphold their oath of office and to serve the interests of the people. Examples of failure in these areas abound, and it may take a few of them being driven from office to get their attention.

Nominations, anyone?

Cross-posted from Observations

The Bastardization of America!

The Bastardization of America!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
*******************************

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

If you are still with me, you have just read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

I’d like to draw your attention to the very first line in the preamble: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. “

For me, the very first sentence of the preamble sums up, for all time, the “idea” that is America.

See, America is a country which was founded for individualists. The folks who founded it made that very clear when they wrote the Declaration of Indepenence. They were saying to the world, “Hey! Want to be free? Want to take your shot? You can. Here in America. There is no King, no soveriegn, no government to get in your way. In America you will be free to pursue your own happiness!”

Look at that sentence closely and you will see there is no guarantee you will “catch” your happiness, only that you will be free to take your shot and go after it, to pursue it.

So what the hell happened???

Government happened, that’s what!

The American government did what all governments do. It began to grasp for more and more power from day one right up to the current hour, the current minute and second. The battle is rampant in Washingbton, even as I tap this keyboard. The government is attemptimg the most massive power grab in the history of the country. Yes, that which the American government is doing to it’s people today makes King George look like a piker!

All the founding Americans wanted was to be free to seek their own destiny. All they wanted was for the governemtn to let them alone to either be successful, to whatever degree they were able, or to fail as miserably as they were likely to do. But, they made themslves as clear as was humanly possible. They did not want the hand of government in their lives. They wanted to be free men and free women.

So, I ask again, what the hell happened???

Americans have changed. We are no longer made of the stuff those folks were made off. If we stood on each other’s shoulders we would not reach the ankles of the founders of this country. If Washingtom, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and the rest of The Founders could see us now they would be absolutlely appalled at what we have become… at what we have done to their idea of America.

If, after I leave this plain of existance, should I be fortunate enough to wind up in the same locale as Washingtom, Jefferson, Adams, et al, it is my intention to seek out as many of the founders of this nation as I can and apologise to them for having had a part in “The Bastardization of America.” For if my generation of Americans is guilty of anything, we are guilty of allowing what used to be a great nation, to disgrace herself before God and before the other nations of the world.

Today we are battling each other in a verbal fight over whether or not America is to give up democracy and become another failed socialist state. It shames me to acknowledge that my fellow Americans have so little confidence in themselves, and their own abilities to live free, they are willing to bend their knees, bow their heads, and bare their necks to the chains and whips of socialism. That we are even considering such a thing speaks of the tremendous loss of character of a people whose ancestors, a handful of rag-tag colonists, went to war against a world superpower to gain their freedom. They put everything, including their lives, on the line so that modern day Americans could be free as well. Today we spit upon their sacrifice. It is inexcusably shameful.

J. D. Longstreet

*****************

Liberalism+Socialism+Obama+Democrats

“Thou Shalt Not Covet!” A Commandment Against Socialism.

“Thou Shalt Not Covet!” A Commandment Against Socialism.
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
****************************************************************

Let’s look at the definition of the word “covet.”

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary the word “covet” means -- to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably -- or to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another. Therein lie the roots of socialism -- to crave that which belongs to another. Without covetousness there would be no socialism. So -- to be a practioner of socialism one is in direct defiance of the Ten Commandments. Those of the Judeo-Christian religious persuasion should pay close attention to what Americans and our government is doing these days.

As a country boy I was raised not to covet the wealth, fame, or material possessions of my fellow human beings. Instead, I was taught to be happy for them and to work hard, play by the rules, and I, too, had a shot at making something of myself and maybe, just maybe, attaining a degree of wealth for myself and my family.

Granted, my formative years took place before the halfway point of the last century. Granted, also, it was a different America back then. It was a strong America, an America that understood it’s Christian foundation. There was no question about that. None. Covetous people were frowned upon and shunned. Oftimes, those with a covetous bent were involved in crimes of theft or other nefarious schemes to obtain for themselves that which they coveted. More often than not they wound up in jail.

Today, in America, a socialist government reinforces covetousness. Our leaders tell us that all persons in America are entitled to exactly the same standard of living as everybody else. They tell us that everyone is entitled to a college education, that everyone is entitled to the same medical care, and the list of entitlements goes on and on.

A covetous person is a weak person. A covetous nation is a weak nation. A socialist nation is a weak nation. Try checking your reference books for great socialist nations. I dare say you will find none.

Today, in America, we are taught that it is all right to punish companies and families that are prosperous. We are taught that they must share their wealth with us, who have less wealth than they. We are taught that it’s OK to force them to hand over as much of their wealth as we deem necessary to assuage our craving for it. We are taught that it is wrong for those companies and/or families to move to another country, and/or to move their companies to another country so as to be able to keep that which they have earned and that which rightfully belongs to them. We are taught that that which belongs to them does not, in fact, belong to them but to us, collectively, spread around evenly. And we are pleased when those from whom we have taken their fortune are brought low to the common denominator of society, a class of citizen, which is nothing more than a ward of the state, a serf, if you please in a modern day feudal system. And we are told that everyone will be happy when we all suffer equally.

This is socialism, dear reader, and it is where the government in power in Washington today is taking America.

To go a bit farther – Socialism is a form of “humanism.” Socialism is an economic system based on covetousness. Covetousness, as we said above, is craving that which is not ours, that which does not belong to us, yet we desire it. That is in direct violation of Christian teaching.

I am about to put on my black frock coat and turn my collar around and step into my pulpit for a moment to try to make the next point. Actually, I ran across this at a site called: “Christian Confusion.” You’ll find it HERE. The author I am about to quote from is Bob Stenson. Mr. Stenson says the following: “Collectivism appears to be an attempt to establish the Kingdom of God on earth, but without King Jesus. Attempts to create Socialist or Communist governments are extensions of Humanism, not something that the Church is about. It’s no wonder that we see such self-righteousness, contempt for Christ and His followers, slander and the bearing of false witness, and violence from those who promote Socialism and Communism.

Socialism and Communism are also closely associated with cult Liberalism, which is based in the unreasonable belief that natural goodness is inherent in humanity. Liberalism is mainly a human goodness cult that redefines evil as goodness and redefines goodness as evil.”
Mr. Stenson goes on to say: “It is God’s option to redistribute the wealth. He didn’t put that work into the hands of human beings.

In addition, these Socialist systems seem to always become systems that make state the god, cruel systems of government that usually make it illegal to follow Jesus Christ.
For the reasons listed here, Christians should not be putting their efforts into establishing these evil systems.”

I began thinking about this a couple of weeks ago when I heard someone on TV remark that when you had a society in which some had very little while others seem to have everything, there was bound to be strife. Those aren’t the exact words, of course, but close. The point is -- I began to wonder why anyone would covet what another has.

Now, I’m no saint. And from time to time, as a frail human, I covet. Maybe it is a fine automobile, a beautiful home, or something as mundane as a brand spanking new computer -- with all the bells and whistles. But, my childhood teaching steps in and stops me when it comes to craving that which belongs to another.

Socialism, on the other hand, would have you believe that coveting -- craving for that which is not yours, which you did not earn, which belongs by right to another, is OK. To encourage you in that regard, they reinforce, at every opportunity, your belief that you are entitled to it. For IF you believe that you are entitled to it, you are far more likely to grant the government the power it needs to take it from those who have it and dole it out to those who do not. Now, I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I must tell you, that smacks of plain, old-fashioned THEFT to this old country boy!

Socialism is based on Godless greed and deceit. THAT is why it is doomed to failure every time it is tried. That is why every country that stoops so low as to try it inevitable crumbles from the core and implodes into it’s own hollowness. And that is exactly what will happen to America if she does not save herself from the current ongoing attempt to force her into blind acceptance of a socialist government bent on securing for itself more and more power over your life and the lives of your fellow American citizens.

One objective survey of our current unpleasant economic and unemployment situations in America should satisfy anyone that America is on the long slide into socialist oblivion. Even more frightening is what so many of us fear. We fear that we have only just begun that slide and more crumbling into mediocrity is in our immediate future.

Americans must be ready to fight back at the polls in 2010. If we are to save what is left of our country by November 2010, we must vote out as many of the socialists as we possible can.

I want my country back! Don’t you?

J. D. Longstreet

********************

Liberalism+Socialism+Obama+Democrats

National Cyber Insecurity Awareness Month

By Barbara Sowell

This October is National Cybersecurity Awareness Month, or didn’t you know? A better title would have been: National Cyber Insecurity Awareness Month. We should all be insecure since the U.S. has just relinquished its control of the internet (see below)!

This is the time when all internet junkies should ponder the very real possibility of waking up one day to NO internet!

A Media Newswire press release this week reminds us all that October is National Cybersecurity Awareness Month

(Media-Newswire.com) - WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senator John D. ( Jay ) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Senator Olympia Snowe ( R-ME ), issued the following statement on the adoption of S. Res. 285, which defines Senate support for the goals and ideals of National Cybersecurity Awareness Month during October 2009. . . .

Cybersecurity S.Res.285 begs the question: Can the POTUS Disconnect Private Networks?

According to Open Congress.org, this resolution isn’t getting any news coverage, so I thought I’d offer up a few tidbits.

S.Res.285 - A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of national cybersecurity awareness month and raising awareness and enhancing the State of cybersecurity in the United States.

By the way, this resolution is sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). And here is a list of co-sponsors:

• Sen. Evan Bayh [D, IN]
• Sen. Robert Bennett [R, UT]
• Sen. Thomas Carper [D, DE]
• Sen. Thad Cochran [R, MS]
• Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME]
• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY]
• Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT]
• Sen. Mary Landrieu [D, LA]
• Sen. Carl Levin [D, MI]
• Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT]
• Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D, MD]
• Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV]
• Sen. John Rockefeller [D, WV]
• Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME]
• Sen. George Voinovich [R, OH]

The press release continues:

. . .The resolution identifies the critical need for nationwide awareness of cyber threats as well as cybersecurity coordination between Federal agencies, businesses, educational institutions, and other organizations.  Senator Rockefeller and Senator Snowe cosponsored the Senate resolution on National Cybersecurity Awareness Month and, earlier this year, introduced their own bipartisan landmark cybersecurity legislation ( S. 773, The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 and S. 778, the National Cybersecurity Advisor Act of 2009 ) to address our nation’s vulnerability to cyber crime, global cyber espionage, and cyber attacks that could potentially negatively impact our economy.

“Cyber attacks on American infrastructure are very real and happening now,” Chairman Rockefeller said. “Imagine the impact on our economy if just one adversary succeeded in attacking and crippling a critical cyber network.  Make no mistake, Cybersecurity Awareness Month isn’t just about heightening awareness, it’s about taking key steps toward protecting our economic security.  This can only be achieved through coordination between public and private interests and the establishment of proper safeguards that protect us all.”

“There is no question our nation’s vulnerability to a cyber attack has emerged as one of the most urgent national security problems facing our country today,” said Senator Snowe. “Cybersecurity Awareness Month further raises the bar on Americans’ expectations for Congress to implement strong and effective policies that will prevent the nation’s information networks from being crippled by an invasive and intrusive cyber attack. Time is of the essence, we must continue to aggressively confront this monumental challenge.”

KEY PROVISIONS OF ROCKEFELLER-SNOWE COMPREHENSIVE CYBERSECURITY LEGISLATION:
• Significantly raise the profile of cybersecurity within the Federal government and streamlining cyber-related government functions and authorities.
• Promote public awareness and protecting civil liberties.
• Modernize the relationship between government and the private sector on cybersecurity.
• Foster innovation and creativity in cybersecurity to develop long-term solutions.

Here’s a little about the significant related bills from the above release which are S.773 and S.778:

S.773 (Cybersecurity Act of 2009): A bill to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes. as introduced.

This bill is sponsored by Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV)

S. 778.(National Cybersecurity Advisor Act of 2009)- A bill to establish, within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of National Cybersecurity Advisor.

That’s the bill to permanently establish the Cyber Czar.

This bill is also sponsored by Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV)

According to Declan McCullagh of CBS news writing in Politics and Law for CNET news, S.773 (Cybersecurity Act of 2009) would give president emergency control of Internet.

. . . The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, pointed out that the POTUS has always had this constitutional authority but that:

The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster . . .

In an e-mail to Longo’s colleague, Charles Steward, seeking clarification concerning the bill, McCullagh asks:

The original version of the legislation allowed the National Cybersecurity Advisor to disconnect "critical" networks from the Internet. The revised version says the president can "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "nongovernmental" networks and "direct the national response to the cyber threat." That seems vague: does it mean the executive branch does or does *not* have the power to disconnect private networks? . . .

As of late August, MCCullagh was still waiting for an answer.

I think it’s doubtful that either of the above mentioned bills have a snowball’s chance of passing out of committee (last action on both was April 1, 2009), but that’s beside the point. The POTUS does have the constitutional authority to shut her down, and that just might include private networks.

What on earth would we do without social networking? Perhaps it’s time to reintroduce ourselves to other more primitive forms of communication while we still have a chance to openly communicate on the internet? Try these Google searches “homing pigeons for sale” and “basic cursive for computer junkies.”

See also:

US relinquishes control of the internet

After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system.

Icann – the official body that ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and .org – said today that it was ending its agreement with the US government. . .

Technorati Tags: National Cybersecurity Awareness Month,Senator John D. ( Jay ) Rockefeller IV,Senator Olympia Snowe,Sen. Dianne Feinstein,Disconnect,Private Networks,Interrnet,security,President,U.S. Constitution,cyber threats,Icann,Faultline USA,Open Congress,social networks,networking

Copenhagen: President Obama reveals unfitness for office more every day

By Jim Simpson

Ignoring pressing national security issues, President Obama flew off to Denmark yesterday to literally beg the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to accept Chicago as location for the 2016 Olympics.

Chicago.

Barack met up with Michelle, who had arrived on Wednesday, already suffering through her second day of sacrifice exploring Copenhagen with "chit-chat buddy" Oprah Winfrey. As Michelle related in an inspiring speech to supporters:

As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days, so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home.

She can't be serious. Obama was even less convincing:

I urge you to choose Chicago... And if you do - if we walk this path together - then I promise you this: The city of Chicago and the United States of America will make the world proud.

Chicago will make the world proud? How? And why shouldn't we feel proud now?

In what is widely percieved as a deliberate snub, the IOC rejected Chicago in the first round of decision- making shortly after Obama's speech. As Axcess News reported, one IOC member was overheard snickering: "there's no 'change' for Mr. Obama here."

Meanwhile PR consultant and Administration behind-the-scenes puppetmaster, David Axelrod, dismissed Obama's failure as "politics." There it is again: racism! I bet there were a bunch of Republicans over there spreading false rumors too! Or maybe it was one of those Tea Party people spreading lies about the corruption of Chicago!

No sitting president has ever gone before the IOC to plead our case. Oh wait! He wasn't pleading our case. He was pleading Chicago's case! Accompanying Obama was "the other side of Obama's brain," Valerie Jarrett. It seems that not only is Valerie Obama's confidante and senior advisor, she also was on the board of the Chicago 2016 olympics committee until joining the White House. No conflict of interest there. And while she resigned that position, she let everyone know this would be a big priority. Two more friends of Obama, John Rogers and Marty Nesbitt, remain on the Board. They went to Denmark too.

In fact an entire contingent of Obama's Chicago network, including Obama campaign finance chair Penny Pritzker, traveled to Copenhagen to "sacrifice" among the glitterati along with Oprah and the Obamas, while the President did his best to bring home the bacon.

This humiliating trip cost U.S. taxpayers one million dollars. That he would sully the office of the President for such naked parochial interests demonstrates just how out of touch, and entrenched in Chicago's corrupt politics, Obama is.

As we reported yesterday, it has recently been revealed that Obama isn't the great writer he claims to be either. He relied on the writing skills of Bill Ayers to compose his bestselling book "Dreams From My Father." So nix that qualification.

General Stanley McChrystal revealed Sunday that he has only spoken with Obama once since taking over U.S. military leadership in Afghanistan.

Once. For about a half-hour.

McChrystal requested more troops in August. That Obama would fail to discuss even this with his top military commander in Afghanistan for a month at the height of a shooting war is inexplicable. In an aptly titled post "Obama Lied, People Died," Redstate points out that Obama has dithered on troop strength increases since February, and:

To the detriment of us all, while Obama waffles and flips and flops (like the fish out of water we all knew he WOULD be in trying to fake it as a legitimate Commander in Chief) between all these strategies he can’t seem to make up his mind about, 317 MORE Soldiers have died fighting in defense of Operation Enduring Freedom which is more than 30% of the total lives lost during the entire 8 years of the conflict.

This week however, McChrystal has had an opportunity to speak with Obama twice by video phone. Wonder why? In an apparent effort to blunt criticism of his preoccupation with Chicago's bid for the Olympics, Obama met with the General for 25 minutes on Air Force One while it was parked on the tarmac at Copenhagen Airport.

That's reassuring. The President is on the case. Not to worry.

This comes on the heels of Obama speaking "without preconditions" to that lunatic Ahmadinejad. Note that Ahmadinejad never said he had no preconditions. So while Iranian democracy advocates get murdered in the streets, Obama seeks to "engage" with the Iranian thug responsible, but can't find time to speak with his own military commanders?

What planet are these people from?

Finally, the healthcare debate, the limp economic "stimulus" that appears in need of a big shot of Viagra, the 821 page Cap and Trade (read massive tax increase) bill, and every other facet of Obama's domestic policy, demonstrate an ignorance of basic economic principles so profound it defies belief.

That is why I do not believe these people are ignorant. They are simply reckless. They don't care. They are out to destroy this country.

They are succeeding.

The “Sonic Assault” of TV Commercials on the American TV Viewer.

The “Sonic Assault” of TV Commercials on the American TV Viewer.… and How To Stop It!

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

********************************************************************You are watching your favorite TV Drama. There is a tender, quiet, moment in the story line and the network chooses this touching scene to cut to commercial. There is a sudden explosion of sound causing your roof to lift a full three inches, your windows to bulge outward by one and three-quarters inches while at least two stress cracks suddenly appear in panes near the center of the window. There is the tinkle of broken glass as a wine glass vibrates from your chair side table and smashes to the oak floor below. Pictures suddenly slip sideways and swing dizzily from side to side, barely secured by the wire thread on their backsides. Photos of the grandchildren, which had been reigning majestically on the mantle board, suddenly leap from their oaken thrones and crash on the inlaid ceramic tile hearth below. In the kitchen, canned goods leap from the wall cabinets and crash on the granite counter tops below. The refrigerator’s icemaker suddenly spews ice like an inverted geyser onto the terracotta tile floor. In the bathrooms, the flapper valves of all three toilets snap upwards just enough to cause all three of the ceramic thrones to flush simultaneously. In the den the heirloom coo coo clock’s bird hangs lifeless, swinging slightly from side to side, it’s spring sprung. The air has a talc-like mist of gray dust suspended in the atmosphere of all the rooms as though undecided as to which way is down. You gasp for breath and struggle to hear above the awful, awful, roar deep down in your ears painfully vibrating the mastoid bones in your skull. Then your wife, struggling valiantly, manages to reach the “mute” button on the remote and – there is pure, blessed, blessed, silence.

No, you did not just travel through the Twilight Zone, and it was not an earthquake. What I just described happens millions of times every hour all over the United States, because the government agency charged with the authority to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen, simply refuses to issue the order to stop it.

Ok, OK! So I laid it on a little thick in describing the sonic assault of TV commercials in your favorite TV show. But, as lavish, as over-expansive, as my description was, I’ll bet you knew EXACTLY what I was describing before you were half way through the description paragraph -- didn’t you?

The aggravation of having to turn the volume up and own and then down and back up while trying to watch a favorite TV program is just way, way, over the top!
If you were one of the few million who thought, til now it was your imagination, I am here to erase all doubt! YOU ARE NOT HALLUCINATING! IT REALLY IS HAPPENING!

Back in my days in radio broadcasting we were not allowed to do that. We had to have what we called “limiters’ on the audio we broadcast. If the signal the board operator sent out was too loud, it was instantly brought down to the predetermined, pre-set levels, proscribed by the government. If that same signal was too low, it was brought up to those same predetermined, preset levels. You, as the listener never heard any difference. What you enjoyed, emanating, from the speakers of your radio was a volume of sound which never varied enough for your human ears to detect any difference, at all. You turned your radio on, set the level of volume you were comfortable with -- and forgot it. It remained right where you set it until you turned off the radio.

I am here to tell you the same science can be very quickly applied to TV sound as well. After all, TV audio is nothing more than FM radio. It would take no rocket science to develop the equipment to do this, at all. As a matter of fact, I’d bet the equipment is already available, sitting, unnoticed, on some dusty shelves in some darkened electronic warehouse(s) somewhere.

Here’s what is happening. The existing rules say that the volume level of TV commercials can be as loud as the loudest sound on the soundtrack of the program you are watching. For instance -- say you are watching a love story and there is a touching, quiet, moment of restrained passion while a background of stringed instruments set the mood in a soft, almost caressing, breeze of lovely, silky smooth, nearly celestial sound. A few minutes later -- there is a scene with a terrible car crash with smashing, rending, metal screeching tires, and smashing glass, and female screams at "decibels" of sound that pin the needles on any and all VU meters. I mean LOUD!

Now, guess which sound levels the commercial production folks will choose for their sonic assault on your ears as they hawk their products. You’ve got it! They choose the car crash sound level. Why? Because it is the loudest sound on the program sound track and THAT is what they are going to use to shred your eardrums and auger their messages way down into the deepest depths of your mind! It is sort of like instant brainwashing. Be aware that the FCC allows them to do it, too.

The government’s answer to the many complaints about this awful problem… turn your volume down. OK, but then you have to turn the volume back up again once the network switches back to the program soundtrack. It is a constant battle with the remote. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Yes, there are TV’s on the market that have an onboard limiter. But, the consumer must fork out more cash to purchase a product that does what the networks, the broadcaster, the cable companies, and/or the satellite TV companies OUGHT to be doing out of sheer common courtesy for the consumers of their broadcast, or cable delivered, or satellite delivered product.

In our opinion, it is the duty of the Federal Communications Commission to take up this matter – and I mean seriously, and not as some distasteful duty they must perform to get us off their backs. The only way we are EVER going to get the FCC to take notice of this very real problem is to get the proper Congresspersons and proper Senators to act as our advocates with the FCC and explain to them, in no uncertain terms, what their constituents want and why the members of the Federal Communications Commission had better get off their collective behinds and get it done. We also need to see some action, some hearings, from the proper Senate and House committees.

Look, fellow TV viewers, this CAN be fixed! But it won’t be fixed if we don’t take the bull by the horns and lean on Congress to go after the FCC and force them to do their job.

So, let’s get those keyboards smoking and flood Congress, both houses, with demands for the sonic assault on the eardrums of America to be stopped by mandating that commercial content be aired at an acceptable "decibel" level for the human ear. One that won’t startle, and one that will allow American TV viewers to watch their favorite TV program(s) in a modicum of peace and relaxation. We know it can be done and it is WAY pass the time to do it -- and insure that it remains “fixed.”

J. D. Longstreet

**************************
Television+Loud+Audio+Limiters

Television+Loud+Audio+Limiters

Media malpractice - silence deafening on Ayers' authorship of "Dreams"

Perhaps one of the biggest political stories of the year is being completely overlooked by the Obama-struck old media. A new biography by veteran author Christopher Andersen, "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of a Marriage," reveals that former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers wrote most, if not all of President Obama’s book "Dreams From My Father."

In a series of American Thinker articles over the past year, PhD author and columnist, Jack Cashill has been asserting just that. But while he found striking similarities between the two men’s writing styles he could never conclusively prove Ayers' ghost authorship. Andersen’s book does.

Cashill relates: "relying on inside sources, quite possibly Michelle Obama herself, Andersen describes how Dreams came to be published -- just as I had envisioned it in my articles on the authorship of Dreams.

"With the deadline pressing, Michelle recommended that Barack seek advice from 'his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.' Despite a large advance, Obama found himself 'hopelessly blocked.’ After four futile years of trying to finish, Obama ‘sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.' This he did 'at Michelle’s urging.'"

Andersen explains their rationale: "Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together. It was no secret. Why would it be?"

I don't know, but it was certainly considered a secret by candidate Obama, and the media bent over backwards to keep it that way.

This was not the first time Mr. Obama was "blocked" either.

Shortly after Mr. Obama was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, an aggressive literary agent named Jane Dystel secured a $125,000 advance from Simon & Schuster for him to write his book. An astounding sum for a first-time author, he never delivered. After years of waiting, the publisher dropped him.

Dystel then secured him a second advance for $40,000 from Random House, and in 1995 "Dreams" was finally published. After gaining his U.S. Senate seat, Mr. Obama dumped Dystel in favor of someone cheaper. She was understandibly infuriated. It is worth noting that as president of the Law Review, Mr. Obama wrote one short article. No other has ever been found. For such a supposedly gifted writer this is truly odd. And as Cashill has noted, Obama's published poetry is truly sophomoric.

Furthermore, "president" of the Law Review is not the same as "editor" of the Law Review. Being editor requires a commanding knowledge of both writing skills and law. It is a very demanding job. Being president, on the other hand, is more of a figurehead position.

Andersen concludes: "In the end, Ayers's contribution to Barack's Dreams From My Father would be significant--so much so that the book's language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers's own writing."

All this has somehow been lost on mass media's intrepid investigative journalists. Nary a peep.

During his campaign, candidate Obama took great pains to distance himself from Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the many other radicals he knew. But investigation by many independent journalists overcame the media blackout to reveal extensive connections between the two men.

It is old news now that Ayers and Obama served on the boards of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund together, but in total, Obama worked with Ayers and other radicals on at least six related non-profit boards and shared the same office for three years with Ayers and fellow radicals, Susan and Mike Klonsky.

Now this latest revelation about Ayers' ghostwriting suggests that not only did they work together, but Ayers essentially gave Obama his voice.

Barack Obama is no literary giant. Furthermore, his steadfast refusal to provide any concrete information about any details of his past, his college grades, past job performance, or even voting record in the Illinois Senate, makes one wonder if Mr. Obama has any qualifications -- besides a polished public persona -- at all.

He is looking more and more like a mere construct, a carefully crafted mouthpiece for a cabal of anonymous radicals. Consider just a few of his "Czar" picks:

Kevin Jennings the openly homosexual "Safe Schools Czar" who encouraged pedophilia;

Cass Sunstein, the "Regulatory Czar" who believes, among other things, that animals should have the right to sue humans in court;

Van Jones, like Ayers, a self-described communist, fortunately resigned under a cloud. As "Green Jobs Czar," Jones was to distribute stimulus money based on formulas worked up by the Apollo Alliance, run in NY by Jeff Jones. No relation to Van, Jeff is an old Weather Underground friend of Bill Ayers.

Valerie Jarrett -- the "other side of Obama’s brain," -- has spent a lifetime working with and around the American Communist Party and is thoroughly plugged-in to Chicago radical networks. Jarrett recommended Van Jones for Green Jobs Czar.

The list goes on and on.

Obama’s early denial of Ayers is ringing ever hollower. Rather than being just "some guy in my neighborhood," Ayers and Obama are fused at the hip. And Ayers is typical of the rabid, anti-American lunatics Barack has surrounded himself with.

Meanwhile, the media's silence is deafening.

God help us.

The Demise of the Fourth Estate?

The Demise of the Fourth Estate?

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

************************************

If there was any doubt in your mind that the mainstream media in the United States is bias toward the political left the very fact that two of the major broadcast networks in America recently refused to air any ads that were not favorable to ObamaCare should erase even the slightest among those doubts.

Talk about a “Fairness Doctrine”! Fair is when you present both sides of an issue, isn’t it? Where are the howls of protest from the government about this obviously unfair position on the part of these networks? Do you hear the commissioners at the FCC complaining about the one-sided policy of these networks? No, and I dare say you will not!

Years ago, I found that to get anything approaching a balanced report of news in America one had to go to “off-shore” sources. Many Americans frequent news sites in Australia, Israel, and Western Europe, including the UK in order to get reliable reports on what is happening in America. How sad IS that?

“Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist” is the title of an article you’ll find HERE. I think you will agree, after reading the article, there was little of a surprising nature in it – especially if you happen to be a conservative.

Not too long ago, the press didn’t mind allowing their bias to show. They did not deny them. In fact, they claimed them. They would push the platform of the political party they liked and the candidate or politician they liked. The larger towns and cities would have more than one newspaper and those papers would compete. Now, here is one of the differences between then and now. Back then news and editorializing were kept separate. Back then they kept the news reporting as neutral as possible, and as factual as possible. On the other hand, their editorials expressed the opinions of the publisher of the paper. Often they’d have editorial cartoons, which would support the publisher’s opinion as well. These days, however, editorial comment is mixed right in amongst the news items, sometimes within the news stories themselves.

As a result of these changes in the way media presents the so-called “news” the credibility of the news media has plummeted. In a recent survey, Pew Research found that ”just 29 percent of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63 percent say that news stories are often inaccurate.” You can learn more about this in an article by Geoff Metcalf titled “Credibility of Biased Media Sinking.” HERE.
In his article, Mr. Metcalf quotes David Limbaugh as having said: “the mainstream media have finally been reduced to sputtering incoherence, as they've observed the un-deification of their anointed messiah and experienced firsthand their own diminishing relevance.” However, media malfeasance is more than just the reality check of a begrudging epiphany. The wounds suffered by the mainstream media are all self-inflicted.

As we survey the newspaper industry in America today we find that a number of leading papers are in financial trouble. There is even talk of a government bailout for newspapers! Of all the bad ideas to come out of Washington, since the election of last year, this ranks among the worst! It seems to me that for newspapers to take money from the government would make them beholden to the government. If you take the government’s money, you play by the government’s rules. How then could they ever hold government accountable to the voters? Of course, many of us are asking why the press is not holding government accountable today. The answer is simple – left wing bias.

If the press were not biased in favor of the Obama Administration, the Obama birth certificate question would have been settled a very long time ago. Africa and Hawaii would have been virtually crawling with reporters from the wire services, the broadcast media, the print media, reporters from “news” shows, etc. If he, or she, had press credentials they would be on the story right to the bitter end. But it did not -- and has not -- happened. Somehow, the media seems to think the public did not notice. But we did. Their reluctance to say, or do, anything that might reflect badly on Obama, or his administration, has damaged what was left of their credibility immeasurably.

At the moment I cannot see how the media can regain any of it’s lost credibility. If, perhaps, they returned to the olden ways of presenting the news, as balanced news, with editorials reserved for a specific part of the newspaper, and broadcast media separating and clearly defining editorials within a “newscast, that would certainly be a start -- but ONLY a start. As so many other commentators have already said the wounds the news media is suffering are self inflicted. If there is to be healing, the healing must come from within the news industry. Unfortunately for the media, they have yet to acknowledge their own culpability in what may be the demise of the news industry, as we know it today. As an old “news hound,” I find that very sad, indeed.

J. D. Longstreet

***********************

Conservative+Liberal+Press+Media+Bias