Sunday, 17 June 2007
BARAK & HAMAS
Ehud Barak did not impress me as Israel's Prime Minister. But it is
undeniable that, before entering the political arena, he was a terrific
Now Prime Minister Olmert has suddenly appointed Barak the Minister of
Defense. Why did he do that?
Maybe this article from today's Jerusalem Post sheds some light on this
to crush Hamas in Gaza'
Incoming Defense Minister Ehud Barak is
planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush Hamas, it was reported on
Britain's Sunday Times quoted senior IDF
sources as saying that the planned Gaza assault would require 20,000 troops to
destroy the bulk of Hamas's military capability in a few days.
The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket
attacks or a resumption of suicide bombings, said the British newspaper.
Barak, who is expected to become defense
minister on Monday, has already demanded detailed plans to deploy two armored
divisions and an infantry division, accompanied by assault drones and F-16 jets,
against Hamas, claimed the Times.
The IDF would expect to be confronted by about
12,000 Hamas operatives with arms captured from Fatah in last week's fighting in
A senior Hamas official in Gaza City said
Saturday that his men had captured more than 50,000 rifles and pistols during
raids on the headquarters of the Fatah-controlled security forces.
Hamas also seized dozens of vehicles and "important" military equipment,
according to the official.
IDF officials believe troops would face even
tougher resistance in Gaza than they encountered during last summer's war
against Hizbullah in south Lebanon, asserted the newspaper, quoting a source
close to Barak as saying, however, that Israel could not tolerate an aggressive
"Hamastan" on its border and an attack seemed unavoidable.
"The question is not if, but how and when,"
said the source. --
I wonder if this is true. And I very especially wonder if it would be
done on the basis of some deal with fatah, the opposition to hamas, which
- at least until now - has hated Israel and does not recognize even one
square inch of Israel as legitimate (just like hamas).
Now that hamas, not content with winning a parliamentary majority in the
so-called palestinian territories, has taken over Gaza through violent overthrow
of the government, it certainly would be understandable if fatah made their
"deal with the devil". It certainly would not be because they
suddenly like Israel, that's for sure. Instead, it would be because
Israel, however much it is hated, will support what's left of fatah's
authority in Judea/Samaria (the west bank). Maybe they'll even enable
fatah to regain a modicum of its former governance in Gaza.
Given what hamas has done in Gaza, there is little doubt they will get rid of
fatah on the west bank too, unless someone stops them. And fatah
can't. Enter Israel, under the military authority vested in Ehud
Wouldn't it be something if Israel finally gets a real deal from a major
palestinian Arab group, fatah, because of how much MORE hateful and violent the
other major palestinian Arab group, hamas, is? The implications could be
amazing (and not necessarily positive either, but there is a good shot they
Is this the start of a proxy war between Israel and hamas' Iranian
UPDATE: The Associated Press is now reporting
that..."Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has outlawed the Islamic militant
Hamas movement and its militias, his office says."
Do you think there is any way on earth Abbas can make this stick without an
additional, militarily superior force backing it up? This is getting more
and more interesting - and more and more dangerous - by the minute.
GUEST COMMENTARY: WWW.SWEETNESS-LIGHT.COM ON MICHAEL MOORE
How big a fraud is michael moore, and how willing are major media to run
interference for his fraudulence?
Read the piece from www.sweetness-light.com below and
see. Believe me, it ain't the only example:
June 17th, 2007
From his lickspittle fans at the
Moore says he didnt interview Smith for
Roger & Me
Jun 16, 2007
BELLAIRE, Mich. Michael Moore says he
hasnt seen Manufacturing Dissent, a film that accuses him of dishonesty in
the making of his politically charged documentaries.
But he denies one of its most explosive
allegations: that he did interview Roger Smith, then-chairman of General
Motors Corp. and the subject of Moores 1989 debut Roger & Me, but left
the footage on the cutting room floor.
Anybody who says that is a
liar, Moore told The Associated Press in an interview Saturday after
a showing of his new film, Sicko, in the northern Michigan village of
Toronto-based filmmakers Rick Caine
and Debbie Melnyk released Manufacturing Dissent in March. It
includes a clip of a question-and-answer exchange between Moore and Smith
during a May 1987 GM shareholders meeting.
Caine and Melnyk say it undercuts the
central theme of Roger & Me Moores fruitless effort to interview an
evasive Smith about the effects of GM plant closings in Flint, Moores
In the AP interview, Moore
acknowledged having had a good five minutes of back-and forth with Smith
about a company tax abatement at the shareholders meeting, as reported by
Premiere magazine in 1990. But that was before he began working on Roger
& Me and had nothing to do with the film, Moore said.
Besides, he said, the film wasnt primarily
about interviewing Smith, but getting him to observe the economic devastation
If Id gotten an interview with him, why
wouldnt I put it in the film? Moore said. Any exchange with Roger Smith
would have been valuable. And GM surely would have publicized it in response
to the movie, he said.
Im so used to listening to the stuff
people say about me, it just becomes entertainment for me at this point,
Moore said. Its a fictional character thats been created with the name of
Once again note how in typical fashion
the AP only reports any negative news about one of its heroes when it can
present their side of events.
Note too that the AP cut out any
references to the multi-millionaire propagandists notoriously foul mouth with
Anybody who says that is a
Also note that the article seems to say that
the anti-Moore documentary claims Mr. Moore filmed the interview and
left it on the cutting room floor. But it does not provide direct quotes.
Given that Mr. Moore works in video, this
statement would perforce be technically untrue. But it is clear that the more
significant charge is that (like Cindy Sheehan, who was inspired by him) Michael
Moore had indeed been able to address the subject of his stalking though he
The article accepts Moores claim that this
exchange occurred before he began his project. But why then was he at a GM
stockholders meeting if he wasnt already working on his documentary?
Lastly, notice how the AP carefully
fails to mention anything about the background of the people who made the
Manufacturing Dissent film, who are devout leftists who were appalled at Mr.
Moores dishonest actions.
And while we are on the subject of accuracy,
Mr. Moore propaganda piece is regularly presented at such places like
Wikipedia as having
been funded by Michael Moores mortgaging of his home and partly by bingo
In fact, a major source of money was the
left-wing magazine Mother Jones. Mother Jones had fired Mr. Moore after
only three months of his services because he had put one of his friends on the
Mr. Moore sued the company and rather than go
to trial Mother Jones gave him some money in an out of court
settlement. Moore then used this money to make Roger & Me his
evisceration of personal greed and lack of responsibility.
And speaking of lawsuits (and honesty) Michael
Moore was successfully sued for another misrepresentation in his epic. His
former friend, Larry Stecco successfully argued that his portrayal in the
movie was not an accurate reflection of his character and won.
Stecco was interviewed attending a society
fund raising ball and was made out to be a high-society fat cat who partied
while people where starving outside. He was actually a lawyer who worked
pro-bono for the poorer residents of Flint.
But anyone who still has any doubts about
Michael Moore being a pathological liar need only explore his claims about the
Katrina Relief work of the Veterans For Peace, for which he shilled relentlessly
in the aftermath of the storm.
In fact by their own admission the VFP did
next to nothing to help the Katrina victims. But Michael Moore claimed they had
elaborate food kitchens and medical clinics, all to help them raise money that
could have gone to helping the victims.
But the truth has never mattered to Michael
He makes documentaries.
"JUDGE" ROY PEARSON.AND THE $54,000,000 PAIR OF PANTS
NOTE: To protect myself
from a lawsuit - which, under the circumstances is probably a very worthwhile
thing to do - let me remind anyone reading this that it is
my OPINION. Despite how strongly I feel about what
I am saying here, I do not claim that it is provable fact.
(Whew, given that I don't have
$54,000,000 in discretionary assets laying around, I feel much better
Maybe you have heard or read about the $54,000,000
lawsuit over a pair of pants. That is NOT a typo: a "man" - a
sitting judge in Washington DC no less - is suing a dry cleaning store
for fifty four million dollars , because he claims they
lost a pair of his pants (a claim that they dispute, incidentally).
Anyone who watches Leno or Letterman probably knows all about this. The possibilities for
joke material are certainly endless. But what isn't funny is
what this insane lawsuit has done, and continues to do, to a family owned cleaning
store that is going broke defending itself against this utter lunacy.
Here is an article from the Newark Examiner, which explains the lawsuit (to
the extent that it can be explained), and tells you about this "judge".
Read it and then wonder what circus clown put him anywhere near a judicial
could cost D.C. judge his $100,000 job
The boss of Roy L. Pearson Jr., the
administrative law judge whose $54 million pants lawsuit has turned the D.C.
legal system into a punch line on late-night talk shows, has recommended that
the city deny Pearson another term on the bench, D.C. government sources said
In a letter to the three-person commission
that will decide whether Pearson gets reappointed, District of Columbia Chief
Administrative Judge Tyrone T. Butler said Pearson does not deserve a 10-year
term to the post, which pays more than $100,000 a year.
My sense is that the commission will not
reappoint him, a D.C. government source said.
Butlers letter reverses his previous
recommendation in support of Pearson that he sent to the commission before the
pants suit case gained worldwide notoriety.
Butler would not comment on his
recommendation, according to his office.
Administrative judges preside over disputes
between a government agency and people bringing complaints against the
Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff said she
would rule on Pearsons lawsuit by next week. Pearson broke down on the stand
twice trying to describe the day he learned that he would never see his pants
again. He has requested $500,000 in legal fees for the 1,400 hours he says he
put into the case. A friend testified that Pearson had no life outside the
office because he was consumed with the case, working nights and
Pearson has had a history of doggedly pursuing
Before he became a D.C. judge two years ago,
Pearson was unemployed after working as legal aid attorney for 24 years. He
worked on one tenant lawsuit for 18 years, appealing the case all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
His former boss once called him the best
attorney he ever hired, but their relationship soured and Pearson quit in
In 2005, in his divorce suit, Virginia courts
ordered him to pay his ex-wife, also a lawyer, $12,000 for creating unnecessary
litigation and threatening her and her attorney with
At the time of the ruling, he had no steady
job, no bank account and less than $2,000 in cash. -
The one issue I have with this otherwise accurate and informative article is
that there is no mention of the carnage which has been visited upon Ki, Jin and
Soo Chung, the hard-working family which operates Custom Cleaners. How
could there be no mention of the hell they are being put through and the
legal fees they have had to suffer because of this insanity? Can anyone
find a joke in that?
As regards Pearson, could this "man" possibly be less qualified to judge
other people? What in the world was going on in the mind of Judge
Butler when he actually RECOMMENDED such an utter lunatic, with a crazy-quilt
personal history like this, for the bench?
Given the quality of Pearson's selection, maybe they can replace him
with Marion Barry. At least with Barry you could get an extra-sensory
bonus if you breathe the air in his chambers.
Or maybe he can become partners with Michael Nifong, the just-disbarred DA of
Durham County, North Carolina. Pearson could handle the endless
litigations and nifong, now that he's no longer able to practice, could
organize the files and check the briefs for spelling
NANCY PELOSI: MODERATE(?)
It isn't every day that you hear Nancy Pelosi has been attacked as too
moderate. But today is the day. Here are the particulars, from Bob
The powerful left wing of the House Democratic
Caucus is unhappy with Speaker Nancy Pelosi for being too attentive to a
handful of moderate members, especially those elected last year from normally
Protesting liberals grumble Pelosi has been too
cautious setting policy during six months in the majority, especially
regarding the Iraq war. The response is that Democrats will revert to minority
status in the House if they stray too far to the left.
A footnote: Some liberal
Democratic House members returned after the Memorial Day recess to tell
colleagues how they were assailed by normally staunch supporters during town
meetings, complaining not nearly enough had been done to end the Iraq
Isn't this the same Nancy Pelosi who demanded a prescribed timetable for
withdrawing our troops in Iraq? Who declared the troop surge a failure
before it began? Who tried to appoint John Murtha the majority leader?
This is the Nancy Pelosi that is now being attacked as too
The most comical part is where Mr. Novak describes the people doing the
attacking as "liberal". They're no liberals. That is a perversion of
the word. They are LAMBS: Members of the Lunatic-left And
Mega-moonbat Brigade. Plain and simple.
If you believe the latest major poll, (reported this week), the
Democratic-majority congress now has an approval rating of 23%. That is
appreciably lower than President Bush. (When do media start talking about
this? They sure talk about President Bush's low poll numbers).
What little coverage I've come across regarding this remarkably precipitous
drop in Democratic fortunes, assures me that while Republicans and conservatives
are, of course, negative toward them, the problem is exacerbated by people on
the left who feel they are not going far enough in that direction -- in other
words, the LAMB crowd.
Funny, when I see George Bush's low approval ratings, I don't recall the
same media telling me that, while Democrats and liberals are, of course,
negative toward him, the problem is exacerbated by people on the right who feel
he is not going far enough in that direction.
When it comes to Bush, low approval numbers seem to mean that the
liberal/left is gaining. Period. None of that "he's not
conservative enough" stuff.
It will be interesting to see how Speaker Pelosi addresses her LAMB
issue. Being an eternal optimist, I picture her using this as an
opportunity to break free of the virtual stranglehold they have on her,
Harry Reid and much of the Democratic party. She could actually move back
from the hard left and do herself, her party and us a big favor.
Unfortunately, as I picture this happening I also picture, with the same
level of expectation, Porky Pig sprouting wings and flying over the New
Hmmm, maybe if Porky can get up to 91 miles an hour he can lay a
dropping on Jon Corzine's SUV.