In GMA Interview Hussein Freaks “Leave My Wife Alone!”- With Controversial Ad

U.S. Senate: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Refute “Man-Made” Global Warming

Da Goracle Says: Scientists Dissing Man-Made Warming Are Tied To Big Oil

31,000 Scientists Rejecting Goracle’s Global Warming To Be Named Monday

Friends in high places

Friends in high places

Ethel C. Fenig
Senator Barack H. Obama’s good pals, that dynamite duo of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, in addition to being urban terrorists are also hot air hypocrites, proving that old adage “It’s not what you know but whom you know.”  Chicago Tribune reporter Ron Grossman researched how a couple of notorious self confessed bomb throwers, who cowardly went into hiding (romantically–and erroneously–labelled underground, like the rats they were) instead of facing the consequences of their actions managed to continue and graduate from universities and then obtain jobs at universities–he a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago, she

on the faculty of Northwestern University’s School of Law. She teaches a course titled Children in Trouble with the Law.


How did that happen?  Apparently crime pays when you have connections; even for obtaining jobs at those bastions of knowledge and truth–universities.  And bomb thrower Ayers certainly had the connections–his daddy. While Ayers mocked his pop and all he stood for,  those upper middle class rebels without a cause–or any shred of decency–took full advantage of his power, his connections when necessary.
As reporter Grossman so delicately phrased it


But it’s hard for an outsider not to see the map of family connections behind their paths.


Yes indeedy.


Ayers’ father, Thomas Ayers, was CEO of Commonwealth Edison as well as a trustee of Tribune Co. and chairman of the board of Northwestern University.
Ayers was raised in Glen Ellyn, played football at Lake Forest Academy and graduated from the University of Michigan. He joined the Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society movement, and in the 1970s went underground-“fleeing what the government winkingly calls justice,” as he put it.
You know, justice for people who destroy, bomb, injure, maim. 


Ayers’ father moved in philanthropic circles with Howard Trienens, an attorney with the powerhouse firm of Sidley Austin. The two served together on Northwestern University’s Board of Trustees. Ayers was chairman of that group, then handed the post off to Trienens in 1986.


Surprise! Surprise!  After slithering above ground Dohrn was hired by . . .”the powerhouse firm of Sidley Austin.”  The very same law firm where Barack Obama was hired as a summer associate after his first year at Harvard Law School. Where he met Michelle, his future wife. And just how did that coincidence happen? 


Trienens headed Sidley Austin when the firm hired Dohrn in 1984. She had never practiced law and had been out of law school for 17 years.

When I asked Trienens if he had hired Dohrn, he replied: “Yes.”

Wasn’t that a bit of nepotism, considering his relationship to her father-in-law? A lot of lawyers would love a first job with such a prestigious firm.

“We often hire friends,” replied Trienens, 84.


Oh?  Really good friends because not only had she not practiced law and been out of law school for 17 years while she was oh so busy doing, uh, other things,


Dohrn wasn’t licensed to practice law. Though she passed the bar exam, the ethics committee turned her down because of her rap sheet. That limited the type of work she could do at Sidley Austin, which she left after a few years.

“Dohrn didn’t get a license because she’s stubborn,” Trienens said. “She wouldn’t say she’s sorry.”


Oh again. That unethical ethics committee.  But again, not really a problem for her. 


Dohrn’s route to Northwestern is harder to discern. Trienens said he had nothing to do with it, though he was then board chairman.

“The dean hired her,” he said, referring to Robert Bennett, who was then law school dean. (Bennett did not return phone calls seeking comment.)

Daniel Polsby, a law school faculty member in 1991, recalls Dohrn’s appointment going through an academic side door. Because she was brought on as an “adjunct,” she was never put before a faculty vote.

Seeking clarification from the university, I was told to put my questions in writing. Which I did:

Was her appointment at NU’s law school made by the dean acting alone? Did it have to be ratified by the Board of Trustees?

Instead of answering the questions, the university responded with a boilerplate statement of support: “While many would take issue with views Ms. Dohrn espoused during the 1960s, her career at the law school is an example of a person’s ability to make a difference in the legal system.”


Read that again.  With a straight face.


her career at the law school is an example of a person’s ability to make a difference in the legal system.”


I’m sure the victims of Ayers/Dorhn have words to say about her ability “to make a difference in the legal system.”


The Ayers and Dohrn story can be read as a tale of redemption, albeit lacking an act of contrition. Or it could be seen as verifying Ayers’ conviction that life’s playing fields aren’t level. There is one set of rules for those with the good fortune to live in places such as Glen Ellyn or Kenwood, where the couple lives now. There is another set of rules for the rest of American society.


Except for those who don’t believe in justice or meritocracy, there is no way the story of these two “can be read as a tale of redemption” with or without contrition. There is nothing redeeming about it.




Ayers put the issue succinctly: “Why all the pretense of equity when some people get four or five outs to the inning while others get only two?”
Better late than never but Ayers and Dohrn should be declared  out and out!  With penalties.  And the universities employing  these two should finally do some solid, untainted research into their hiring practices. 
Among other research.   


Your Energy Future Under the Democrats

Your Energy Future Under the Democrats

By Larrey Anderson

The “energy plan” announced by the Democrats offers one thing: a significant slowdown of our economy for at least twenty years. Those who run both legislative branches of the congress, and the energy plans of both of their leading candidates for president clothe themselves in the mantle of righteousness. That the Republicans are allowing this to happen, right before our eyes, tells us much about the sad state of American politics.


From their official website, here is the summary paragraph (including the bad grammar) of the Democrat plan to solve the energy crisis:


We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology.


This is also the Democrat solution.  Get it?  The Democrat plan is the Democrat solution. In logic this is called petitio principii or “begging the question.”


Ask yourself: which of the five components of the “plan” should happen first?  “Reducing our dependence on foreign oil” is listed first.  But it cannot happen first.  In order to keep the economy moving ahead, some type of energy must replace foreign oil-and this energy must be tangible, readily available, and close to the market price of the energy it is replacing.


This is a crucial point and very few people seem to understand it.  We cannot solve the energy crisis by talking about the creation of, say, hydrogen fuel cells for cars.  We must have a fully functioning economy in the intervening thirty or forty years that it will take to “develop energy alternatives” like hydrogen fuel cells. In other words, the pressing question is not “What energy alternative will we be using in forty years?”  The real question is: What energy alternative will we be using tomorrow that will allow us the economic prosperity to create future alternative energies much further down the road?


Presently, over eighty-five per cent of our energy comes from “fossil fuels.” We use more than twenty million barrels of oil every day in this country. For the economy to expand and give us time to create alternative forms of energy we will need more, not less, moderately priced fossil fuels in the intervening years. Nowhere in the Democrat plan is there a strategy to provide this energy.


Make no mistake, we are entering an energy crisis. At five dollars a gallon a typical low-income family will spend nearly 20% of total income on gasoline each year. At ten dollars a gallon these people will not get to work — especially in rural or suburban America where a car is an absolute must.


Where will the desperately needed and moderately priced energy come from? Most of the currently developed oil fields are in the hands of dictators, like Hugo Chavez and the Saudi Royal Family or in the hands of socialist governments, like Norway, Mexico, and Russia. They can afford to keep production low and prices high. Indeed, given their controlled economies, it makes absolute economic sense for them to do so. It is our job (not Saudi Arabia’s) to develop new natural gas and oil resources to help stem rising energy costs.


The Democrat plan also calls for “eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies.” (I could not discover when and how the federal government has provided “billions in subsides for oil and gas companies.” I assume that this really means raising taxes on oil and gas companies.) How is this strategy going to provide one gallon of fuel for Americans? It certainly has not worked in the past when price controls and higher taxes have always led to long lines at the gas pumps.


The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game.[i]  If we do not have a viable, recession free, economy in the short and medium term, then we will not get to a “cleaner, greener and stronger America” in the long run.  We will not be able to sustain short-term economic growth that leads to long-term technological development without moderately priced energies being available throughout the process.


Republicans, if they are truly interested in America’s future, had better start to point out the obvious flaws in the Democrats’ “plan.” Time to start drilling.
Larrey Anderson is a philosopher and writer living in Idaho.  He can be reached at


[i] Recently passed legislation that tinkered with our strategic oil reserves is nothing but a shallow ploy to try and lower gasoline prices a bit by Election Day. (That is all that the recently passed legislation will do-if it even does that-it is clearly an incumbents’ reelection bill.) The fact that Republican senators rolled over (after their legislation to explore and drill for more domestic natural gas and oil was easily killed), and unanimously (minus one) voted for the Democrat sponsored bill indicates that elected Republicans are far more interested in staying in office than in solving the energy crisis.

The proud Obamas lash back

Obama Whines about attacks on Wife

Obama Whines about attacks on Wife

I’ve written a couple of pieces on my own site about Obama’s whining. It is really getting to be annoying. The candidate takes any criticism levelled against him as unfair or dirty politics.

This will be a common occurrence in the general election. Democrats have it in their heads that one reason their presidential candidates lose to Republicans is because they don’t respond to GOP “lies and swiftboating” vigorously enough. Pretending that Democrats don’t give as good as they receive in any campaign is ludicrous, of course. But to their rabid base of netnuts, Democrats need to hit back harder in answering GOP campaign charges.

Hence, Obama jumped to the fore last week when President Bush mentioned appeasement of evil by some politicians and castigated the president for dealing a political low blow. Some were surprised at the aggressiveness of Obama’s move since the President didn’t mention him by name but it was indicative of what Obama considers “fighting back” against GOP “lies.”

But instead of coming off as angry, he sounds like an whining child – as he did this morning after an appearance on Good Morning America where he defended his wife from criticism by the Kentucky GOP who created a video of all the things Kentuckians are proud of about America (in contrast to Michelle Obama’s comment that this was the first time she had been proud of America in her lifetime).

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air nails it:

If Obama doesn’t want his wife to receive criticism, then he shouldn’t use her as a surrogate on the campaign trail. Whatever she says on the stump at campaign events is fair game for criticism, just as it has been with Bill Clinton. Obama’s camp has unloaded on the former President for statements he made about Hillary’s loss in South Carolina and several other incidents in which they believe Bill played the race card to explain Obama’s success. Bill’s not running for anything this year, but he has made himself a public figure in this primary race, and his statements are also legitimate targets for attack.
The whininess factor has become a real problem for Obama. Presumably, we’d like a President who doesn’t play a perpetual victim on the national stage. What happens when he has to tangle with Congress over policy, or more to the point, when he has to represent America on the world stage? If he can’t deal with legitimate political criticism now, what will we get for a response when Obama runs the federal government?
Toughen up, buttercup, and stop whining about criticism of speeches at political events. If you can’t handle that much, you have no business running for re-election to your current job, let alone for the presidency.

As Ed mentions, the Obama camaign felt absolutely no reluctance going after Bill Clinton nor have they shown much hesitation in attacking Cindy McCain for being rich.

But we better get used to this kind of whining from Obama. If he’s not playing the race card every chance he gets he will be crying “foul” when the GOP says anything negative about at all.


Obama: Wrong on Iran

Obama: Wrong on Iran

By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann | 5/19/2008

President Bush is absolutely right to criticize sharply direct negotiations with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Barack Obama’s embrace of the idea of direct negotiations is both naïve and dangerous and should be a big issue in the campaign.

The reason not to negotiate with Ahmadinejad is not simply to stand on ceremony or some kind of policy of non-recognition. It is based on the fundamental need to topple his regime by increasing the sense the Iranian people have — that he has isolated Iran from the rest of the world, to its severe and ongoing detriment.

The Iranian regime is almost entirely dependent on oil and gas revenues to pay for the vast program of social subsidies with which the government buys domestic support. Gasoline costs 35 cents a gallon in Teheran. Bread and all other staples are subsidized from public funds. But 85 percent of all government revenues come from oil and gas exports. There lies the regime’s vulnerability.

Iran is sitting atop the second largest oil reserves in the world. Only Saudi Arabia has more. But it can’t get at them. It lacks the foreign investment and technology necessary to increase, or even to sustain, its petroleum output. Under the Shah, Iran pumped upwards of six million barrels of oil a day. Now, Iran generates fewer than four million daily barrels. With domestic consumption of energy increasing at 10 percent a year — due in part to the massive subsidies which hold the price down — Iran is expected to see its oil exports cut in half by 2011 and entirely eliminated by 2014. If Iran cannot export oil, it cannot pay for social peace and the regime could be in dire trouble.

Without subsidies, the Iranian people, half of whom are under 30 and only 40 percent of whom are ethnically Farsi, will become restive and resentful. Already, many complain that Ahmadinejad’s policies have led to global isolation of Iran and stymied economic growth and social upward mobility. While opinion surveys in Iran indicate that the people support the nuclear aspirations of the regime, they are not willing to pay a price of international isolation.

If a President Obama were to meet with President Ahmadinejad, it would send a signal to the Iranian people that they are not isolated but that the rest of the world has come to respect them and to have to deal with them. The leading argument for toppling the current regime will have been fatally undermined.

But if the West sustains a policy of economic sanctions, curbs on foreign investment, and diplomatic isolation, the Iranian regime’s days are numbered.

Official United Nations sanctions are having some effect on Iran but the real power lies in cutting off investment by foreign companies, particularly in the banking and energy sectors. American companies are already prohibited from doing business there, although General Electric may be seeking ways around this prohibition through foreign subsidiaries.

Frank Gaffney, formerly of Reagan’s Pentagon, has pioneered the use of private economic disinvestment in companies that do business with Iran, Syria, North Korea, or Sudan. On his Web site, he has identified almost 500 companies that do business with these terror sponsoring nations. They include such international powerhouses as Sieman’s, Shell, Repsol, BNP Paribus, and Hyundai. He has crafted a terror free mutual fund which can earn good returns while avoiding investment in any of these companies.

Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman — now running for governor — pioneered disinvesting pension funds in these companies. Now California, Florida, and Louisiana have followed suit.

We need to let these policies work and global isolation of Iran is the way to do it. Negotiating with Ahmadinejad would simply boost his domestic stature and enhance his political stability, the exact opposite of what we should — and must — be doing.

Dick Morris is a former adviser to Bill Clinton. Eileen McGann is an attorney and CEO of Together, they collaborate on books, columns and foreign political campaigns. To receive free copies of all of their commentaries, please sign up at