Friday, 21 September 2007


Ken Berwitz

You don't need an explanation of why I'm calling this imbecile an imbecile.  Here, courtesy of WBZTV/Boston, is the story:.

MIT Student Arrested For Fake Bomb At Logan

(WBZ) BOSTON A woman who walked into Logan International Airport allegedly wearing a fake bomb strapped to chest was arrested at gunpoint Friday, officials said.

Star Simpson, 19, had a computer circuit board, wiring and a putty that later turned out to be Play-Doh in plain view over a black hooded sweatshirt she was wearing, said State Police Maj. Scott Pare, the commanding officer at the airport.

After a Massachusetts Port Authority official notified State Police about 8 a.m., troopers tracked Simpson down outside Terminal C, where they arrested her and later determined the device was a fake.

"She's extremely lucky she followed the instructions or deadly force would have been used," Pare told The Associated Press. "And she's lucky to be in a cell as opposed to the morgue."

Simpson is a Massachusetts Institute of Technology sophomore from Hawaii, officials said.

Pare said authorities had not determined a motive. Simpson was to be arraigned in East Boston District Court later in the day. She's charged with disturbing the peace and possessing a hoax device.

A Massport staffer manning an information booth in the terminal, home to United Airlines, Jet Blue and other carriers, became suspicious when Simpson -- wearing the device -- approached to ask about an incoming flight, Pare said. Simpson then walked out of the terminal and the information booth attendant notified a nearby trooper.

The trooper, joined by others with submachine guns, confronted her at a traffic island in front of the terminal.

Pare said Simpson took an MBTA subway to the airport, but he was not sure if she had the device on at that time. She was arrested near an area where shuttle buses arrive to take passengers back to the airport subway station.

"She was allegedly picking somebody up," said Pare.

The major praised the booth attendant but said the incident is a reminder of the terrorism threat confronting the civil aviation system. Two passenger jets were hijacked from Logan on Sept. 11, 2001, and later flown into the World Trade Center as part of a broader terrorist attack that crashed other jets into the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

Nearly 3,000 died in the attack, and Logan has since become a model and test bed for many aviation security techniques.

"In this day and age, the threat continues to be there," said Pare. "She certainly jeopardized her own safety by bringing this to the airport, as well as the safety of everybody around her."

A spokeswoman for MIT had no immediate comment.

Can you believe someone smart enough to get into MIT is this big an imbecile? 

License to kill? License revoked. Iraqi's want PRIVATE contractors OUT

Barry Sinrod
How much more can we take?  Private contractors in Iraqi are IMMUNE from anything. They can kill, rape and do whatever they want with full immunity.  Iraqi government wants all of them out of the country and wants the immunity, which the Bush administration and it's friends the Private Contractors passed in 2004 to be revoked.  Read on

License to Kill? License Revoked.

Yesterday, the Interior Ministry of Iraq announced that it was revoking the license of Blackwater USA, a private American company that provides security to government and private officials in Iraq such as Amb. Ryan Crocker. Employees of the firm were involved in Baghdad shootout that killed at least nine civilians, including a mother and her child. Details of the shootout are murky. The shooting began after a car bomb exploded near a State Department motorcade in central Baghdad. Blackwater and U.S. officials say the security contractors then exchanged fire with armed attackers, but "three people who claimed to have witnessed the shooting" told McClatchy that "only the Blackwater guards were firing." Regardless, the incident has sent shockwaves through Iraq. "We have canceled the license of Blackwater and prevented them from working all over Iraqi territory," said Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf. "We will also refer those involved to Iraqi judicial authorities." A senior Iraqi official, however, told Time that "as far as the license being permanently revoked, 'it's not a done deal yet.'" Additionally, it is unlikely that Iraqi courts would have the legal ability to hold the contractors accountable. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Iraqi Prime Minister Mouri al-Maliki yesterday to offer condolences and the promise of a "fair and transparent investigation," one American official in Baghdad told The New York Times that "this incident will be the true test of diplomacy between the State Department and the government of Iraq."
THE FALLOUT: Approximately 1,000 Blackwater employees are currently operating in Iraq. If the Iraqi government is able to successfully kick Blackwater out of the country, the move would deal "a blow to U.S. government operations in Iraq by stripping" many "diplomats, engineers, reconstruction officials and others of their security protection." "There is simply no way at all that the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security could ever have enough full-time personnel to staff the security function in Iraq. There is no alternative except through contracts," said Crocker in his Senate testimony last week. The Iraqi government has also said that it will "review the status of all private security firms operating in the country" to "determine whether such contractors were operating in compliance with Iraqi law." The total number of private contractors in Iraq is estimated between 126,000 and 180,000, which includes 20,000 to 50,000 private security guards. The expulsion of Blackwater from Iraq would be a boon for Iraqi politicians as "newspapers in Iraq on Tuesday trumpeted the government's decision." Maliki is expected to "gain political capital from the move against unpopular foreign security contractors" while the national government as a whole would be given a political "boost."

PRIVATE CONTRACTOR'S DARK PAST: "Visible, aggressive" private contractors have "angered many Iraqis, who consider them a mercenary force that runs roughshod over people in their own country." At Abu Ghraib, "the U.S. Army found that contractors were involved in 36 percent of proven abuse incidents," but "not a single private contractor named in the Army's investigation report has been charged, prosecuted or punished." Though many other private security firms are operating in Iraq, Blackwater is perhaps the most visible. On March 31, 2004, four contractors working for Blackwater were brutally killed in Fallujah. After images of their mutilated bodies were shown hanging from a bridge, the American military laid siege to the city, resulting in some of the most intense fighting of the war. In Dec. 2006, a Blackwater employee allegedly drunkenly killed a guard for the Iraqi Vice President. Instead of being held accountable in Iraq, the contractor was smuggled out of the country and fired by the company. This past May, "Blackwater guards were involved in shooting incidents on consecutive days in Baghdad." In total, Interior Ministry officials say they have "received reports of at least a half-dozen incidents in which Blackwater guards allegedly shot civilians, far more than any other company."

"A Blackwater employee is not going to be subject to Iraqi courts," says Scott Silliman, director of the Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security at Duke University. The day before the Coalition Provisional Authority ceased to exist, L. Paul Bremer, the chief American envoy in Iraq, issued CPA Order 17, which "granted American private security contractors immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts." Though "the Iraqi government has contested the continued application of this order," they are restrained from "changing or revoking CPA orders," so the order is still in effect. It is unclear what U.S. laws would govern the actions of private security contractors operating in a foreign country. Though "uniformed military personnel are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and 'persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field' are technically subject as well," the application of the UCMJ to these private contractors would likely face constitutional challenges. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 covers civilians working for the Department of Defense, but even this would be insufficient to cover Blackwater employees involved in Sunday's shootout, since they are actually employed by the State Department.

CONGRESS NEEDS TO ACT: Yesterday, House Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) announced that "the Oversight Committee will be holding hearings to understand what has happened and the extent of the damage to U.S. security interests." In addition to investigating this specific incident, action needs to be taken that explicitly clarifies what laws govern private contractors and how they can officially be held accountable for their actions. In fall 2006, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) added a clause to the 2007 Defense bill that "changed the law defining UCMJ to cover civilians not just in times of declared war but also contingency operations." But "no Pentagon guidance has been issued on how this clause might be used by JAGs in the field." Graham's clause also didn't not extend to contractors not working for the Defense Department. Rep. David E. Price (D-NC) "has proposed legislation that would make all contractors, whether they work for the State Department or the Defense Department, to be subject to prosecution under U.S. law."


ETHICS -- INVESTIGATION INTO ROVE'S CORRUPTION IN JEOPARDY DUE TO FUNDING: In April, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) launched a six-member task force examining "the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities." The probe -- the most "broad and high-profile inquiry" in the OSC's history -- focused on the activities of Karl Rove and White House political operations that allegedly violated the Hatch Act, which bars federal officials from partisan political activity while on the job. Scott Bloch, head of the OSC, began the investigation promising to "leave no stone unturned," but has now gone over budget. "Without a last-minute infusion of nearly $3 million, the special task force may be unable to pay its staff and buy the kind of technical assistance it needs." The office Bloch heads is actually "a White House office, and the House of Representatives apparently told Bloch to go ask for the extra money from the White House."

A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that "hundreds of millions of people in developing nations will face natural disasters, water shortages and hunger" due to climate change. The report warned that global warming's effects are already being felt "on every continent, and sooner than expected." "Professor Martin Parry, who chairs the working group, said today that he was pessimistic about the chances of keeping the increase in global average temperatures below 2C," which would severely damage the environment. "Africa will be one of the areas worst hit" by climate change; by 2020, "the report warns, up to 250 million Africans may be left short of water, while access to sufficient food is 'projected to be severely compromised by climate variability and change.'" Coinciding with last month being the "second warmest August on record," the IPCC stated that "[d]eveloped regions like the US and southern Europe are likely to experience more severe summer heatwaves."

CONGRESS -- SENATORS REINTRODUCE HABEAS CORPUS RESTORATION ACT: Yesterday, Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) reintroduced the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. The act would restore the right of habeas corpus to so-called enemy combatants, which was stripped by last year's Military Commissions Act. "I take a back seat to no one, when it comes to defending our national security. ... But there is a right way and a wrong way to win the fight we are in," Dodd said. Though the bill enjoys bipartisan support, some conservatives are determined to fight the measure. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) explained yesterday that "we don't allow enemy combatants to continue their war against us through the judiciary, through litigation." As the New York Times wrote, "There is nothing conservative about expressing contempt for the Constitution by denying judicial procedure to prisoners who happen not to be Americans."

See what's new at and Make AOL Your Homepage.

See what's new at and Make AOL Your Homepage.


Ken Berwitz

Until recently, just about no one ever heard of Jena, Louisiana other than its own residents and those of surrounding areas. 

But now it is nationally - probably world- famous.  All because of what appears to be a racially inspired attack.

Many of you know some of the facts in this case.  But if you are relying on mainstream media for a complete view, for the full story, you are almost certainly not getting it. (What a surprise).

Here, courtesy of, is an excellent study of the Jena incident, with a number of empirical, easy-to-check facts that a) are virtually unreported by mainstream venues and b) put a very, very different face on what happened:.

The notorious Jena case

posted at 11:18 am on September 21, 2007 by Bryan

The Reverends Al and Jesse have once again parachuted into a small town to throw their weight around and relive the glory days of the Civil Rights Movement. Perhaps we'll one day get to the point where the two reverends have become so radioactive that no one will look to them for any answers on any issue, but we're not yet at that day. The MSM still treats them as credible, though one has blood on his hands and the other is a reverend in name only who has never led a church or even held down a real job. In a just world, the two reverends from the North would be mentioned alongside Louisiana's own David Duke among the nations most notorious racists. Though northern white liberals would have us all think that racism is exclusively white and exclusively Southern, it's neither.

But back to our story. This time, it's Jena, Louisiana, which is currently embroiled in a case that is being compared to the Duke rape case, but in reverse: Six young black men stand accused of attempted murder for beating a young white man over an incident at the "white tree."

The New York Times reports the sequence of events as follows .

They called it the White Tree. Not because of the color of its leaves or tint of its bark, but because of the kind of people who typically sat beneath its shade here at Jena High School.

And when a black student tried to defy that tradition by sitting under the tree last September, it set off a series of events that have turned this town of 3,000 in central Louisiana's timber country into a flashpoint over the issue of racial bias in the criminal justice system.

Three nooses quickly appeared on the tree a day after the black student sat under it, and not long afterward, the authorities said a white student had been beaten by six black schoolmates. The white student was treated at a local hospital and released; the black students were charged, not with assault, but with attempted murder.

Wikipedia (with appropriate accuracy warning) has a useful timeline.

Racial tensions resurfaced in Jena on September 1, 2006, when hangmans nooses were discovered in an oak tree on the campus of Jena High School after a black student had asked the vice principal if he and some friends could sit under the tree, where white students had typically congregated. The school administration recommended that the noose-hangers be expelled. The elected La Salle Parish School Board overruled the school, he and the three white student perpetrators received in-school suspension.[4][5][6] On November 30, 2006, an arson fire destroyed the main academic building at the school. On December 4, a fight broke out on campus, after which six African-American students, later dubbed the Jena 6,[7] were arrested and charged with attempted second-degree murder.

The black kid who sat under the tree showed courage; the noose hangers showed that racism is unfortunately alive and well.

But there were three months between the nooses and the attacks. There are claims that the intervening months were tense between black and white factions. That's probably true. What's less clear is the connection between the nooses and the attack. More on that below.

Attempted murder does look like an extreme charge to level at the six, since the victim was treated and released for his injuries on the day of the attack. If the six had wanted to murder the victim, numbers were definitely on their side. What the Times doesn't report, though, is how the attack occurred or ended. Did the six fight the one after an argument, and did they get run off by some third parties in the middle of the attack, or did they plot the attack and slip up on the victim? Well, evidently it was the latter, according to Jason Whitlock .

There was no "schoolyard fight" as a result of nooses being hung on a whites-only tree.

Justin Barker, the white victim, was cold-cocked from behind, knocked unconscious and stomped by six black athletes. Barker, luckily, sustained no life-threatening injuries and was released from the hospital three hours after the attack.

Im no lawyer, but if Whitlock's account is accurate, that's at least aggravated assault. If the attack was broken up by third parties in a way that prevented further injury to Barker, then yes, attempted murder would be among the reasonable charges the assailants could expect to face.

This gives us one important distinction between Jena and the Duke case: In Jena, the accused actually did something illegal. The only question is whether they're facing reasonable or extreme charges, and if the charges are extreme, why that would be the case. The prosecutors seem to have answered that themselves when they scaled the charges back to aggravated battery and conspiracy. The conspiracy part goes to the overall charges' seriousness, though, indicating premeditation as opposed to a schoolyard fight.

Whitlock goes on to describe how the case arrived at the point where the Jena Six faced such serious charges.

A black U.S. attorney, Don Washington, investigated the "Jena Six" case and concluded that the attack on Barker had absolutely nothing to do with the noose-hanging incident three months before. The nooses and two off-campus incidents were tied to Barker's assault by people wanting to gain sympathy for the "Jena Six" in reaction to Walters' extreme charges of attempted murder.

Much has been written about Bell's trial, the six-person all-white jury that convicted him of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery and the clueless public defender who called no witnesses and offered no defense. It is rarely mentioned that no black people responded to the jury summonses and that Bell's public defender was black.

Its almost never mentioned that Bell's absentee father returned from Dallas and re-entered his son's life only after Bell faced attempted-murder charges. At a bond hearing in August, Bell's father and a parade of local ministers promised a judge that they would supervise Bell if he was released from prison.

So it's not as cut and dried as the reverends would have the world think. Go figure. Jena is a chance for them to get back in the spotlight and be relevant again. Jesse and Al need cases like Jena.

Now, am I saying that there isn't racial injustice in America today? No. Of course there is. But again, let's look at the Duke comparison to understand how things are today. Yes, a black man faces more scrutiny on average than a white man. But it's also a fact that black men commit a disproportionate share of crime. And it's also true that an ambitious white DA can and did charge white men with a crime that they didn't commit in order to curry favor with the same two reverends who have descended on Jena, among others, and those reverends convicted the Duke players in the court of public opinion before the case could even get to trial (which, thanks to the flimsiness of the evidence, it never got to). Those same reverends haven't apologized for rushing to judgment against the Duke lacrosse players. They won't apologize for making a crusade out of Jena either, even while they ignore inconvenient facts to make their case.

As things stand now, the one of the six who was convicted on the most serious charges, star athlete Mychal Bell, has had his conviction thrown out because he was tried as an adult though he was a juvenile at the time of the attack. He may be re-tried in juvenile court. That's where he should have been tried to begin with.

By the way, Jason Whitlock, upon whose reporting I have based much of this post, is black. .

If this squares with what you've heard and/or read about Jena you are lucky indeed.  But I have a feeling it doesn't.  And I have a feeling the information being left out of what you're heard and/or read has given you a wholly different impression of the incident and its aftermath.

Anyway, there it is.  Make of it what you will.



Ken Berwitz

I don't compliment the Times very often.  But my congratulations to them as they, again, provide front page partial coverage of hillary clinton's serial acceptance of dirty money. 

Other media are not behaving as responsibly as this, very especially the broadcast media.  So credit where credit is due.

Here is the first part of their story.  Bold print is mine:.

Complaint Says Hsu Admitted Fraud

Norman Hsu, the Democratic fund-raiser with a habit of fleeing the law, confessed to F.B.I. agents last week that he had swindled investors in what the government describes as a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, and acknowledged pressuring at least some of them to contribute to political campaigns, prosecutors said in a criminal complaint unsealed yesterday.

The complaint, filed in the Federal District Court in Manhattan, charges Mr. Hsu with bilking hundreds of investors around the country out of at least $60 million over the last four years. It says he used some of that money to reimburse, in violation of election law, at least two people who, the government says, made a total of $60,000 in campaign donations at his request.

The complaint does not contend that Mr. Hsu confessed either to so vast a swindle or to reimbursing the donors. Nor does it specify which candidates received the illegal or coerced contributions, or who made them.

But the authorities confirmed that one of the candidates was Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, whose presidential campaign has already said that it intends to return $850,000 to more than 200 people whose donations were bundled by Mr. Hsu. At a news conference yesterday, Michael J. Garcia, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said the Clinton campaign was cooperating in the investigation that led to the new complaint.

Mr. Hsu, 56, an apparel industry executive and major donor to Democratic candidates and causes, is charged with mail fraud, wire fraud and violating the Federal Election Campaign Act. Conviction on all counts could bring 45 years in prison.

Mr. Hsu surrendered to the authorities in San Mateo County, Calif., at the end of August after reports surfaced that he had been a fugitive in a separate fraud case there for the last 15 years. He was released on $2 million bail, but a week later fled again. On Sept. 6, while riding an Amtrak train from California bound for Denver, he fell violently ill. Taken to a hospital in Grand Junction, Colo., he was eventually arrested there by federal agents. He agreed not to fight extradition, and was returned to California yesterday.

The new complaint said that while in Colorado, Mr. Hsu reached out to federal agents on three occasions and asked to speak to them without his lawyers present. He is said to have told the agents that his business deals involved no real investments but were in fact fraudulent, and admitted that he made implied threats to his investors to pressure them to contribute to political candidates he supported. The threats, the authorities said, were that Mr. Hsu would cut the investors out of deals that he described as lucrative.

Working through two shell companies, Components Ltd. and Next Components Ltd., Mr. Hsu persuaded numerous investors from across the country to give him money, ostensibly to help secure short-term loans for various companies doing business in the apparel industry, the government said. .

Why did I call the coverage partial?  Because of what they left out regarding Hillary Clinton's promise to return the $850,000 of dirty money amassed for her by hsu.  The Times' coverage of how Clinton got to this point is, shall we say, a bit lacking in detail.

But not to worry.  You can get the detail right here:

-First reports were that hsu gave Clinton $23,000;

-Then it was $45,000 with $23,000 coming directly from hsu and the rest from third parties arranged by him.  At that point Ms. Clinton said she would only return the $23,000;

-Then it ballooned to $850,000 given to Ms. Clinton, who said she would not simply return it all, she would ask the third party donors to re-give it, but this time without hsu's involvement.  This, presumably would mean that hsu had no involvement in procuring this money or literally giving it to the people who then gave it to Clinton;

-Now she's just giving it all back. 

How bad does this have to stink before media start doing stories on the Clinton campaign scandal, maybe even talking about the numerous other people who are part of this overall scandal? 

Evidently it doesn't stink bad enough for most media yet - not even the Times, which didn't mention any of the above in their article.

From this I conclude that - even when they DO go after's good to be a Democrat.

tess I have contacted the "agents" and told my piece on the Clinton's Dishonesty! If the "agents" fail to act and act very soon we, the American People, will go against the authorities in this country for being hopelessly partisian in not investigating (thoroughly)the Clintons from 1992 to the present! They have been given ample evidence to do so and seem to be holding off until after the election. This is against our laws and against all morals of our population. The Clintons are constantly changing everything they say, write, do and it is never considered odd. How may times has Hillary changed the FEC report to conform with what is found out?? How many times has Hillary/Bill changed their income tax form to conform to new stuff?? How many times has it been said both in print and spoken that Bill and Hillary are ".LIARS."? (09/26/07)


Ken Berwitz

Last year Jim Gilchrist, who heads the Minutemen - a group attempting to prevent illegal aliens from ignoring our legal borders - was scheduled to speak at Columbia University.

The minute he started to do so, the LAMB** crowd, which is in great number at schools like Columbia, disrupted him - first verbally and then physically.  With all the tolerance of nazi brownshirts, they made sure he never got the chance to say anything to anyone.  Seig heil.

What did Columbia do about it?  Nothing, that's what.  And because it did nothing its chancellor, lee bollinger, and the school's reputation took a huge, eminently well-deserved beating.

Now, fast-forward to this year.  Probably out of shame that this happened, Mr. Gilchrist was again scheduled to speak at Columbia. 

But did he speak?  Nope.  Why not?  Because they cancelled him.  Here are the particulars, courtesy of the New York Sun:.

Gilchrist Speech at Columbia University Canceled

By Associated Press
September 19, 2007

 The founder of the anti-illegal immigration Minuteman Project, Jim Gilchrist, who was forced off a Columbia University stage last year, will not be coming back for a return engagement at the school. The Columbia Political Union, a nonpartisan student group that had been planning the forum, said in a statement on its Web site yesterday that "it has become clear that this event cannot take the form we had originally hoped it would and could not effectively accomplish the goals we had hoped it might."

Last October 4, Mr. Gilchrist had to cut short his talk at the school after students from the Chicano Caucus and other groups climbed onstage with banners denouncing the Minuteman Project, which is based in Laguna Hills, Calif., and advocates action to prevent illegal immigration from Mexico.

That event was organized by the school's College Republicans club. The CPU said in its statement that it had envisioned the event as part of a speaker series, "Friendly Fire," created by Columbia history lecturer and author, David Eisenbach, who said he was disappointed by the students' decision. "The health of a free society and a university depends on the free expression of ideas. Only through a free expression of ideas can we reach the truth," he said. .

A disgrace?  You bet it is.  This is the same school that, just two years ago, honored amiri baraka (formerly LeRoi Jones) -- whose incoherent, insane hate-soaked "poem" ( "Somebody Blew Up America,") claims that Jews (no particular ones, just "Jews") knew about 9/11 beforehand and 4,000 "Israeli workers" didn't show up for work at the world trade center that morning.  (Yep, you got it;  in the happy horsemanure world of amiri baraka, every other day there were 4,000 Israeli workers there).

amiri baraka is good enough to be honored by Columbia, but Jim Gilchrist isn't good enough to so much as speak there.  Twice.  That should go a long way towards explaining the title of this blog.

But now let's go the rest of the way.  Who is invited to speak at Columbia, even as they cancel Mr. Gilchrist?  Why mamoud ahmadinejad, the madman who runs Iran.  The one who is supplying the weapons that kill US troops in Iraq.  The one who supplies hezbollah, which kills Jews in Israel.  The one who is telling us Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth as he feverishly develops the nuclear weaponry to do it.  THAT'S ok with Columbia:

Read this Associated Press excerpt -- and pay special attention to the last paragraph, which I've put in bold print:.

Columbia won't cancel Ahmadinejad speech

Columbia University said it does not plan to call off a speech by Iran's president despite pressure from critics including the City Council speaker, who said the Ivy League school was providing a forum for "hate-mongering vitriol."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is traveling to New York to address the United Nations' General Assembly. He was scheduled to appear Monday at a question-and-answer session with Columbia faculty and students as part of the school's World Leaders Forum.

City Council speaker Christine Quinn called Thursday for the university to rescind the invitation, saying "the idea of Ahmadinejad as an honored guest anywhere in our city is offensive to all New Yorkers."

Quinn said Ahmadinejad was coming to the city "for one reason to spread his hate-mongering vitriol on the world stage."

Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust "a myth" and called for Israel to be destroyed.

His planned appearance at Columbia also was condemned by Jewish groups including the Jewish Defense Organization, which described Ahmadinejad as "the Hitler of Iran."

Columbia spokesman Robert Hornsby said Thursday there was no plan to cancel the appearance, though the university dropped plans for an Ahmadinejad speech last year because of security and logistical problems. The decision came after a Jewish activist group expressed outrage over the invitation.

Columbia President Lee Bollinger, in announcing Ahmadinejad's upcoming appearance, described the event as part of "Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate." He said the Iranian president had agreed to answer questions on Israel and the Holocaust..

Yeah, right.  Robust debate as long as you're facilitating the killing of US troops, along with being an insane Jew-hater who wants to vaporize Israel.  No robust debate if you want to have our border laws enforced.

What happened to Columbia University?  When did it descend from a great center of learning (which it certainly was years ago) into the dungpile it is at the bottom of now?


**Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade


Ken Berwitz

In case you're wondering just how different France is, since Nicolas Sarkozy replaced jerk chirac as its head of state, you might want to read this article from today's Washington Post.

As usual, the bold print is mine:.

French Plan to Screen DNA of Visa-Seekers Draws Anger

Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, September 21, 2007; Page A14

PARIS, Sept. 20 -- The French National Assembly on Thursday approved a controversial proposal authorizing the use of DNA testing to determine whether foreigners applying for visas are actually related to family members they seek to join in France.

The plan, part of President Nicolas Sarkozy's efforts to make it tougher for foreigners from Middle Eastern and African countries to immigrate to France, prompted outrage from human rights groups, opposition politicians and some members of the president's cabinet.

The proposal, which also includes requirements that candidates for immigration be proficient in French and know the "values of the Republic," is part of a Europe-wide effort to curtail immigration in the face of growing public concern over the influx of foreigners and angst over the loss of traditional national identities.

"The parliamentary majority decided to use the current fear of globalization and nationalist ideas to draw a parallel between immigrants and cheaters," Dominique Sopo, president of SOS Racisme, one of the country's leading anti-discrimination groups, said of the vote in the lower house. "They definitely crossed a moral line."

At a news conference broadcast on national television, Sarkozy defended the proposed law, saying, "The DNA tests will be voluntary tests" designed to help officials determine family relations.

Opponents of the proposal said applicants would be pressured to submit to expensive DNA testing whenever French embassy authorities questioned the credibility of their birth certificates, marriage licenses and other documents.

"People leave ethical considerations aside, saying that it's a voluntary test, but it's not voluntary," said Claude Huriet, a former French senator who now serves on UNESCO's International Bioethics Committee.

Thierry Mariani, a member of Parliament from Sarkozy's ruling right-of-center Union for a Popular Movement party who sponsored the legislation, described DNA tests as a "sure and rapid" way to deal with document fraud.

The proposed law, which is scheduled for debate in the French Senate next month, would make the testing voluntary until 2010.

Sarkozy campaigned on promises to crack down on illegal immigration. Brice Hortefeux, his minister for immigration and national identity, recently chastised local officials who were not meeting quotas for catching illegal immigrants and sending them back to their homelands, according to French news reports.

Socialist members of Sarkozy's cabinet, including Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, have said they oppose the plan for DNA testing.

During the parliamentary debate, some legislators said DNA testing could prevent stepchildren and adopted children from joining their families. Socialist legislator Sandrine Mazetier questioned whether Sarkozy would be allowed to bring his stepchildren into the country if he were trying to gain entry for his family under the new rules.

The legislation also includes a controversial clause that would allow France to collect census data on the racial and ethnic backgrounds of residents.

France has long maintained that its laws of equality prohibit it from collecting information on an individual's race or ethnicity, but some organizations representing minorities complain that the lack of data serves as a cover for widespread discrimination. .

Hmmmm, let's see:  The French government wants to be sure that people applying for immigration because they are relatives of current legal residents, actually are relatives.  And the government would also like to know who currently lives in France.


Incidentally, the reason I underlined the word legal (a word not in the article itself) is that it occurs to me that people who are in France illegally would not be quick to give their DNA samples.  In other words, this legislation would probably lower the incidence of illegals bringing in more illegals.  

This may be cause for some, concerned citizens to take to the streets.  But I have a feeling that most French citizens will be pretty happy with this legislation. 

What do you think?



Ken Berwitz

Yom kippur is the Jewish high holy day.  Despite my love of food, I will not be eating or drinking from sundown tonight (which is almost here) to after sundown tomorrow night.

I also will not be blogging.

From Sunday through Wednesday I will have limited opportunities to blog, for reasons I'll explain afterwards.  I hope to put some material up, but please excuse me if I'm not as prolific as usual.

I promise I'll be back in full fighting form on Thursday. 

Best to all, and l'shanah tovah to my Jewish readers.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!