Apparently William Ayers past is immaterial, even though as recently as last year he expressed no remorse for his participation in the infamous Weather Underground bombings. If our nation is ready to hand the presidency to a radical leftist, why not take the logical step of at least expecting Barack Obama to consider his former Chicago Annenberg Challenge mate William Ayers for the post of Secretary of Education? While we are suggesting cabinet members, let’s also consider:

• Secretary Of Treasury - William “Cold Cash” Jefferson
• HUD Secretary - Tony Rezko (following presidential pardon)
• Health and Human Services - Kathleen Sebelius (Under Secretary - Michael Moore)
• Secretary of Peace (replacement for Defense) - Dennis Kucinich
• Secretary of State - George Clooney
• Homeland Security - Susan Sarandon

**Updated thanks to George’s reminder of a couple of Obammunist departments I missed (From Let Them Eat Cake):

• Department Of Climate Change - Al Gore (Under Sec. Sheryl “One Square” Crow)
• Department Of Service - Rod Blagojevich?

Back to education, which in addition to plotting and executing bombings, is Bill Ayers area of expertise. Of course we are not talking about the type of boring traditional education one might expect for his or her child. Ayers is an education reformer… or radical as Sol Stern wrote in The City Journal:

Chicago’s liberals have chosen to define deviancy down in Ayers’s case, and Obama can’t be blamed for that.

What he can be blamed for is not acknowledging that his neighbor has a political agenda that, if successful, would make it impossible to lift academic achievement for disadvantaged children. As I have shown elsewhere in City Journal, Ayers’s politics have hardly changed since his Weatherman days. He still boasts about working full-time to bring down American capitalism and imperialism. This time, however, he does it from his tenured perch as Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Instead of planting bombs in public buildings, Ayers now works to indoctrinate America’s future teachers in the revolutionary cause, urging them to pass on the lessons to their public school students.

“Teaching For Social Justice” sounds like a noble title for a book edited by a terrorist and his “education reforming” colleagues. It leads me to wonder if a Secretary of Education Ayers would work to remake the bulk of the nations public schools in the mold of Social Justice High School, an institution in Chicago on whose “About Us” web page includes:

Critical Knowledge:

To Our Students

• We will use math, science, english and history classes to equip our students with the analytical tools to investigate the injustices around us.
• Culture, ethnic identity and language will be valued and used for relevant learning.
• Social justice issues of race, equity, peace, gender, and the environment will help us address the real life needs that impact our kids and of our communities.
• We must also understand our youth, their struggles, their identity, the way they learn and their pain if we want them to be come powerful change agents of our society.

Barack Obama must share some of these teaching for social justice ideals, otherwise his being the former head of the board of Chicago Annenberg Challenge would not make sense. That is, unless a cynical aspiring politician simply thought this was the path of least resistance or expedience.

It is almost funny the way Barack Obama complains about “divisiveness.” This indoctrination in the name of “social justice” is divisive. In fact, like Obama’s healthcare plan (which will be reviewed in the coming days) this type of “education” appears focused on creating a victim mindset and highlighting perceived race, gender, and ethnic disparities.

I suppose if Barack Obama is the candidate of choice for noted “Team America: World Police” character, “Matt Damon,” he should be accepted by all… our future be damned.

I wish I could support Barack Obama in this election season. The reason for this wish is relatively simple, convenience.

Imagine how much easier life would be if you possessed the loose grasp on reality that would allow you to support Barack Obama. Imagine how simple your daily life would be if you cared only for yourself and viewed the rest of the world in terms of what it could give you. Imagine the liberating sense of being moral-free, as one might need to be in order to support Barack Obama. Imagine what a relief it would be to not care about the march toward an Orwellian vision of society as would be expedited by Barack Obama.

I’ve long thought that to be a liberal, one must be evil, stupid, or a combination of the two. The Obama candidacy and terrifying level of mindless support he enjoys serves to reinforce my original beliefs. Some poor souls actually believe that Obammunism would be a good thing for the common citizens of this nation. Some hope to enjoy power and control over the common citizens under Obammunism. Others don’t care enough to be informed.

Think about the mental state of the Obamoron that cheers when he “y’ohs” (his contraction of “you know”) about the tax breaks to the wealthy and the redistribution of “windfall profits” to “American families.” It must be nice to have such a narrow view of the horizon that one could support such a notion. A thinking person would realize that penalizing producers and employers will reduce production and employment. An Obamoron sees only that “evil” businesses are getting punished for success and gives no thought to anything more. A related source of relief would be to be so unencumbered by thought that one doesn’t see the ridiculous hypocrisy of bemoaning the profits of productive business and celebrating the profits of useless “entertainment” ventures (music, movies, and television.)

Think about the freedom enjoyed by the people that could be so clueless that they believe that only by increasing the size and scope of government can we be saved from today’s biggest problems, while ignoring the fact that the biggest of our problems are caused by overreaching government involvement. It must be comforting to look to the government to meet an increasing number of an individuals needs without regard for the snowballing effect of growing government control. Medicine would be best distributed by a benevolent government. Education would be better delivered by a “progressive” government. Wages would best be dictated by an all-knowing government. The weather would best be controlled by an all-powerful government.

I personally believe it would be fabulous to have a mind so dull that I could ignore Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, and ACORN. I would be relieved to have such a shallow conscience that I could disregard Barack Obama’s active role in blocking the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” in The Illinois Senate.

I wish I could support Barack Obama… but I can’t. I am not capable of turning off my mind, ejecting my morals, and dulling my desire for liberty!

The Washington Post might be the odds-on favorite for the D.C. base of “Big Brother” Barry’s “Ministry Of Truth,” but The L.A. Times is a leading contender for “The Left Coast Satellite Ministry.” Op-Ed writer Neal Gabler takes offense to the characterization of “The One” as a rock star. Apparently movie stars and Kennedies are deeper than rock stars and the emotional connections with their adoring fans are much stronger. Gabler’s five-star review of “Obamunism, Episode ” seeks to explain why feelings over thought should carry the vote for an Obamanation. This thinly veiled campaign ad is titled:

His ‘celebrity’ comes from an emotional identity with voters, not from ‘rock star’ hysteria.

Like all cliches, this one has some truth and a lot more gas. The last time the media carted out this theme was 40 years ago, when Robert Kennedy, running for president, attracted the same sort of frenzied adulation and also threatened to upset the political apple cart by assembling a coalition of the young, the disenfranchised and the well-educated. But for Obama and for Bobby, the characterization is insulting and

imprecise. It is insulting because it suggests that their devotees’ effusions are just a visceral reaction — the political equivalent of puppy love. And it is imprecise because Obama is — and Bobby was — more movie star than rock star, which is an analogy with a difference. Rock stars, with some glaring exceptions, typically whip up the crowd; the thrill tends to be short-lived. Movie stars, by contrast, tend to create a long-standing emotional identification with their audience. It’s a difference that may have a bearing on the outcome of this election as voters weigh the advantages of being a movie star against its disadvantages. Movie stardom can be confused with mere celebrity, which has connotations of insubstantiality.

Obama faces that obstacle too. It is the downside of being a star. What this election may finally come down to is a choice between politics and movie stardom, between the safety of what we think we know and the expansiveness of what we dream, or, in more prosaic terms, between good old John Wayne and the less predictable but more exciting Will Smith. In any case, rock stars need not apply.

Celebrity libiots like those that whine on a regular basis at Huffington Post originally inspired me to start this particular blog. Steven Weber, John Cusack, and Alec Baldwin are all actors whose work I have enjoyed in the past. Of course being liberal, acting talent automatically (just like the ability to sing) equates to a heightened understanding of the real world and policy. I mean, how could a fantasy based, life of luxury not lead to a flawlessly crystal clear understanding of the world?

The biggest of these celebrity libiots (measured in pounds) would have to be father of the year candidate Alec Baldwin. Alec took a few moments away from calling his daughter a pig to write an important piece, “The Importance of Electing Al Franken.”

Voters of Minnesota, your choice could not be simpler. Coleman is a pathetic hack who will do as little as possible in a US Senate office other than cover his own ass and protect his power. Meanwhile, Al Franken is everything you could hope for in a candidate to represent your state in the world’s most august deliberative body. Smart, caring, brave. That’s the choice. Mitt Romney light. Or a return to someone special in the US Senate from the great state of Minnesota.

“Doggone it, people like me!” Alec didn’t mention Stuart’s failure to provide worker’s compensation insurance for his employees, nor did he discuss Stuart’s sticky tax issues. The important issues are much more shallow! Al Franken is a celebrity and therefore, highly intelligent and qualified! His status as a celebrity libiot is enough to overcome his apparent propensity for being duped by accountants (as all his problems stem from bad accountant advice) and enable him to accomplish the work of Minnesota in the Senate.

As an aside, I must point out the typical libiot hypocrisy of labor unions supporting anti-worker candidates is also at work in Franken’s case. Why should labor unions care that Franken avoided worker’s comp. for his employees when he meets all relevant criteria? He is a Democrat and he used to be on TV!

Back to the super-sized star of  “30 Rock.” Maybe Tina Fey has told Alec that Franken has always been playing a character and therefore there could be actual substance there, hidden way down deep. Another possibility is that Alec likes the strength Franken shows by shouting “Liar” over and over at those with whom he disagrees. That type of courage would undoubtedly be awe-inspiring to an excuse for a man who usually reserves screaming and bullying for his eleven year old daughter.

The Drudge Report has a link that reads: JUPITER IN THE BALANCE: Recent ‘red spots’ likely due to climate change…

I would like to know what the parishioners of Al Gore’s Church of Climate Change (formerly known as Church of Global Warming, but that was before even the libiot supporters of this religion started to realize that wee seem to be entering a cooling cycle) are going to do to fix this problem. Will donations to be directed such that The Goreacle can commission the construction of a green space shuttle (hybrid, of course) that would enable the round one, himself to fly to Jupiter and seek out the culprits? I’m guessing the shuttle would have a catchy name like “Inconvenient 1″ or “Mean Green Flyin’ Machine.”

Is there human life on Jupiter? I guess there must be, since human activity causes climate change. I wonder what the global citizens of Jupiter call SUV’s? Perhaps it is too far fetched to think that there are people living on Jupiter and causing catastrophic, spot-altering, climate change.  Perhaps the citizens of The United States of America, in our greed and selfish desire to live, are causing climate change on Jupiter with our nasty habits of driving and exhaling! Yes, that must be it! Barry Obama and John McCain must ensure that their respective (but certainly not respectable) campaign platforms deal with this crisis! Will Sheryl Crow endorse whichever candidate has the most environmentally socialist plan to stop our emissions from affecting our galactic neighborhood? She could write a campaign song, “Just One Square For Jupiter.”

I can almost hear the speeches now. John McCain will tell us that Theodore Roosevelt new the value of preserving the climate of Jupiter and it would be grossly irresponsible to not strangle American manufacturing in order to deal with Jupiter’s possible crisis. “Big Brother” Barry will say we can’t eat what we want and drive our SUVs and make personal decisions for ourselves and expect the rest of the solar system to just say OK.

I do at least hope Al Gore attempts to travel to Jupiter and assess the situation. I also think the entire nation might benefit as many of the global warming libiots as possible join him.