Wednesday, 12 December 2007
R.I.P. IKE TURNER
Ike Turner, one of the seminal R&B singers of his time, died today at the
age of 76.
Aside from a boatload of extremely popular music, Ike Turner discovered a
young woman who could sing like there was no tomorrow. Her name was Anna
Mae Bullock, but when Ike married her, she became reincarnated (musically at
least) as Tina Turner. I'm sure I don't have to tell you more about
Ike didn't always walk the straight and narrow. He led an emotionally tortured life - as
do many performers who have reached the top and then slid down a few pegs. There is no doubt he had
his demons, many of them drug and alcohol related. They caused his marriage to Tina
to end and put him in jail for a period of time.
But that in no way minimizes the impact he had on music from the
1940's (that's no typo) right to the present. In fact, he won his first solo Grammy
just this year, for his album "Risin' With The Blues".
May he rock in peace.
OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY
Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo strikes again.
As some of you may know, I call the congressperson from San Francisco Nancy
Pelosi-Ricardo because - absent any humor - her antics sometimes are so bizarre
that she is a dead ringer for Lucille Ball's character on I Love Lucy.
This time, the goofball behavior relates to spending our taxpayer
money. Nancy is rich as Croesus - a little something she doesn't feature
when she talks to poor people to con..er, explain to them how sympatico she is
with their plight. So maybe it's just a little whoopsie and she
occasionally forgets that it isn't her money being spent, it's ours.
Here is an article from Roll Call which provides the details. You
|Pelosi buys $16K worth of flowers
|December 12, 2007 |
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has spent $16,000
on flowers since taking office, one reason why she spent 63 percent more
in her high-profile inaugural year than her low-key predecessor did last
Pelosi (D-Calif.) spent a little more than
$3 million in the first nine months of 2007, records show, compared to the
$1.8 million Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) spent during the same period in
Republicans are spending more as well. House Minority Leader John
Boehner (R-Ohio) has increased spending 23 percent above what Pelosi spent
when she held the same job. That would be 16 percent if some of Hasterts
closing-out costs were deducted.
The spending patterns indicate Pelosi is
seeking to restore the Speakers role as a counterweight to the president
and reclaim some of the responsibilities Hastert had ceded to his
aggressive majority leader, Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Because of their
different roles, Pelosi aides say it is unfair to simply compare Pelosis
spending to Hasterts.
When Speaker Pelosi took the gavel, it was
an historic moment. In the days since, the Speaker has hosted leaders from
across the country and around the world opening the Peoples House to
the people and discussing the work of the 110th Congress, Pelosi
spokesman Nadeam Elshami said in response to e-mailed questions. There
are major new costs associated with setting up the new office of the new
Speaker of the House.
Republicans say Pelosis office spending
undercuts her message that Democrats are restoring fiscal responsibility
to the halls of Congress.
They could have saved the taxpayer $16,000
by sending out an intern to pick flowers from the Capitol lawn, but I
guess that would have detracted from the $4 million worth of pork they
planted as part of the greening project, said Brian Kennedy, spokesman
Boehner will be refunding more than $1
million to the treasury from the money he was allocated, Kennedy
Most of the $16,058 that Pelosi charged
taxpayers for flowers, Elshami said, was for the visits of foreign
dignitaries, such as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, French President
Nicolas Sarkozy and Jordans King Abdullah.
Many of the same dignitaries and
international leaders hosted by the White House are also hosted by
Speaker Pelosi, Elshami said. This expense is associated largely with
these occasions and other Congress-wide, bipartisan events
While Hastert didnt appear to spend any
money on flowers last year, bouquets are not new to Pelosis office. She
spent about $5,000 on flowers last year when she was minority
Attempts to find out how much the White
House spends on flowers were unsuccessful.
The increase from Hastert to Pelosi was
driven largely by a surge in travel and a heavily fortified
Pelosi has more people working for her.
Hastert employed 35 people during the third quarter of last year. Pelosi,
by contrast, had 51 people on her payroll during the same time
As the first Democratic Speaker in 12
years, there was a responsibility to the American people and the
Democratic Caucus to hit the ground running and to pass the New Direction
agenda, Elshami said. To achieve this goal, more resources were needed,
including the hiring of additional staff in policy and research areas, for
Another factor in the disparity is travel.
Hastert didnt bill much official travel last year, spending only about
$1,700, while Pelosi racked up many times that at nearly $60,000 a
figure that does not include her congressional delegation journeys to
Europe and the Middle East. It does, however, include many visits to
As the first woman Speaker of the House and
first Democratic Speaker in 12 years, there continues to be a demand for
her to travel across the country to appear in congressional districts with
members, to meet with local press and editorial boards, and to meet with
representatives of the private sector, Elshami said.
Pelosi also has use of a legislative floor
activity account, while Boehner controls extra money for minority
employees, which include his employees and those of other Republican
If those accounts are factored in, Pelosis
spending increased 52 percent, and Boehners spending increased 12
$16,000 for flowers? One thing you have to say about Speaker
Pelosi: she knows how to put the petal to the metal.
I also love that explanation by her "spokesman" that she
spends more because she's a woman. Who else but a Ricardo would come up with that one? How do
you think it would have played if a Republican male said it?
Da Da Daaaaaa Dada Da, Da-Daaaaaa!
UPDATE: Our friends at www.sweetness-light.com have
scrutinized Ms. Pelois-Ricardo's itemized expenses, and here's one you might be
especially interested in: she hired a makeup artist for inaugural
week.....at a cost of $2,400. $2,400 for makeup!!!
In fairness, she did eventually reimburse the taxpayers for her $350 a day
makeup habit -- probably because a staff lawyer came upon the expenditure and
told her she'd never get away with it.
Me? I think of it the same way I think of a lot of spending in D.C. Way
too much money for minimal results.
PSSSSSSSSSST: THEY HELD AN ELECTION YESTERDAY
You may not know this, but there was an election yesterday. In fact
there were two.
Two congressional districts were up for grabs in special elections, both to
replace Republicans who have died during their current term.
Democrats pumped a lot of money into these elections, hoping to gain one or
I'll let John Hinderaker of www.powerlineblog.com tell you how that
There were two special Congressional elections
today, in Ohio and Virginia. Both districts are generally Republican, but both
states are also considered to be trending toward the Democrats. So the Dems were
hopeful that they might increase their House majority by winning one or both of
the open seats. Yesterday, MSNBC, which
made a corporate decision to go in the tank for the Democrats a couple of years
ago, was hoping that the Ohio election, in particular, would be a
If Democrats can win a special
congressional election tomorrow in a GOP district in Ohio, doesn't that tell
us that Ohio may not be as in play as the Republicans would like to believe
So if the Democrat won today, Ohio could safely be
tallied for Hillary in 2008!
As the Washington Post's Cillizza noted
on Sunday: "Despite the heavy spending, strategists for both parties sought to
play down expectations in advance of the vote. Republicans noted that Gov. Ted
Strickland (D) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) carried the 5th District in 2006.
Democrats pushed back, arguing that the very fact that House Republicans are
being forced to spend from their very limited war chest is a victory. Should
Latta lose, which remains unlikely, it would be a powerful symbolic blow for
House Republicans seeking to reassure their members that 2008 won't be a
repeat of 2006."
Happily, the Democrats' hopes were frustrated. The
vote in Ohio wasn't close, with the Republican, Robert Latta, winning by a 57%-43% margin. In
Virginia, the result was even more one-sided, with Republican Rob Wittman winning by a landslide 63% to 35%
What does it mean? Obviously, one shouldn't draw
too many conclusions from a couple of special elections in traditionally
Republican districts. But the fact is that the Democrats spent a lot of
money--money is currently their biggest advantage--in hopes of scoring upsets in
one or both of these contests. Had they done so, the results would have been
trumpeted as evidence that voters are deserting the Republicans in droves.
Instead, reality asserted itself.
Much like the Republicans of 1994, the Democrats
post-2006 are misinterpreting the "mandate" the voters gave them last year. The
American electorate hasn't suddenly swerved to the Left, much as Democrats might
wish it were so. .
The one thing I disagree with John on is that only Wittman won by a
landslide. 57% - 43% for Latta is a landslide too.
I'll just bet your local newspaper and the news show you watch had this as a
lead story. Or at least some kind of a story. Right?
Pssssssssst: They held an election yesterday.
IT'S GOOD TO BE A DEMOCRAT (cont.)
First, a few examples:
-RepublicanTom DeLay resigned without being convicted of a thing, only
because he was indicted by a Javert-like prosecutor who specifically, publicly
stated he was going to "get him". Media made him lead-story news
for months until he resigned.
-Democrat William Jefferson was caught on tape taking a $100,000 bribe
and most of the money was found hidden in his home. But he remains a
congressperson of "good standing" in the Democratic party. Media gave
him the two-day-and-out treatment and don't say a thing about him
anymore. He's just fine and dandy with them.
-Republican Tom Foley resigned in disgrace over some suggestive internet
correspondence with a page (who was of legal age, despite what some reports
said). No charges have ever been filed against him because there is
nothing to file. Media made him lead story news for weeks until
-Democrat Jim McDermott stands convicted of illegally passing along
illegally gotten tapes of a private political conversations. He remains
a congressperson of "good standing" in the Democratic party, without
media giving a damn about it.
Seeing a trend here? Believe me there's more.
-Alan Mollohan and the contracts to his pals. Dianne Feinstein and
the millions to her husband. John Murtha, the unindicted ABSCAM
co-conspirator and the tens of millions in contracts to his brother and his
pal. No media coverage, no media coverage and no media coverage.
Now we have another one. A corrupt Democratic state
representative whose corruption is so blatant and so bad that a major
newspaper in his district just published an editorial detailing how dissolute he
is and demanding that something be done about it.
But you did not see a thing about it on the Today show this morning
(the same Today show that couldn't get enough of DeLay and Foley). And it
is not mentioned in the New York Times this morning (though I'll be blogging
about what is in the Times later on today).
Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Here, courtesy of Raleigh NC's News and Observer, is the editorial
I'm talking about. See if you think it's worth a mention in mainstream
Indicted on corruption charges, state Rep. Thomas
Wright should bow out of the House. Or be shown the door
A year that began with a cold shower of scandal in the General Assembly
ends, in a warm, dry December, on formal charges of still more corruption in the
In February, the scandal centered on Democrat Jim
Black of Matthews. After pleading to state and federal charges, the former
four-term House speaker is serving a five-year sentence in a U.S. prison.
Now the object in the justice system's headlights
is state Rep. Thomas Wright of Wilmington, an eight-term Democrat, former
committee chairman and key ally of Jim Black.
Indicted Monday by a Wake County grand jury on six
corruption counts, Wright is presumed innocent. But his situation is an
embarrassment to the legislature, to his party and to the public. With his
credibility and effectiveness under such a cloud, it's high time he resigned
from the House.
Current Speaker Joe Hackney took a big step in
that direction yesterday, saying a special session of the legislature to
consider expelling Wright could well be in order. Wright already has become a
legislative ghost. This year he missed more votes than any other rank-and-file
House member. (That didn't prevent him from picking up the standard $104 per
diem payment for days he was absent.) He's being investigated by the
legislature's Joint Ethics Committee, and his campaign committee has been
suspended by the state.
Following the money
Now, if convicted on the six felony counts, he
could face a state prison term of up to 11 years, becoming the latest in a line
of North Carolina political figures to spend time behind bars, reflecting,
presumably, on greed and abuses of power.
For the public, the issue is graver still. Can we
still expect honesty from North Carolina legislators, long considered relatively
free of the outright corruption that taints so many statehouses?
The jury is out. But the indictment's theme is a
pattern of buccaneering conduct by an officerholder seemingly bent on financing
his personal life and political goals with other people's money. A key date is
May 15 of this year, when the State Board of Elections referred Wright's case to
Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby. Having gone over allegations
against him at a hearing, the elections board said Wright should be investigated
for perjury and for accepting illegal campaign contributions.
Monday's indictments -- five counts of fraud and
one count of obstruction of justice -- are an outgrowth of that referral. Wright
is accused of misusing more than $350,000 he had collected from banks,
corporations and campaign contributors. In one instance he supposedly secured a
$10,000 line of credit for a foundation he led, then withdrew the money for
himself. In another, he's charged with raising $8,900 in donations for the
foundation from corporate donors, then keeping the money.
Through the cracks
The two big-dollar allegations, however, center on
Wright's persuading then-state official Torlen Wade to write a bogus letter to
help Wright secure a bank loan for $150,000, and on Wright's pocketing $185,000
in campaign contributions between 2000 and 2006, without reporting any of the
The letter affair is troubling all around -- even
if Willoughby apparently decided that Wade will not face charges -- but,
charitably viewed, might be related to a public purpose (a museum marking the
Wilmington race riot of 1898). But what possible justification could a lawmaker
have for not reporting campaign contributions totalling $185,000? Bad
bookkeeping? Bad memory?
Perhaps, but if you don't report the
contributions, you don't have to say how you spent the money (until late last
year legislators could spend duly reported campaign contributions as they
wished). And when your personal shopping is alleged to have included a trip to a
lingerie shop, that's convenient.
All the legal charges are a matter for judge and
jury. But Wright's colleagues should promptly render their political judgment on
a legislator whose honesty commands no confidence. .
Media could find a year's worth of front page space to elevate a mentally
unbalanced nutjob named Cindy Sheehan into an international celebrity, because
she took a lawn chair and sat on a roadside with about a dozen other people near
President Bush's ranch.
Media can still find room for major coverage of code pink, a small
organization dedicated to USA hatred of the worst order, whose "contribution"
seems to begin and end at minor disruptions during hearings and in front of
buildings, for which its members are arrested and then released.
But a thoroughly corrupt Democrat, taking bribes and stealing money?
What are you, kidding? We have real news to report.
Then listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them
ABOUT THAT "HALLIBURTON RAPE".....
I don't know if Ms. Jamie Leigh Jones was raped in Iraq and don't claim
But I do know that the more someone changes his/her story about an
incident, less likely I am to believe it.
With this in mind, here is a fascinating analysis of Ms. Jones' claims and
revised claims along with the equally fascinating review of how selectively
this is being reported. It is written by Ted Frank of
www.overlawyered.com. See what
you think of it:.
In February 2006, Jamie Leigh Jones filed an
arbitration complaint, complaining that, for her administrative assistant job
with KBR in Iraq, she was placed in an all-male dorm for living arrangements,
and a co-worker sexually assaulted her. (KBR says the co-worker claimed the sex
was consensual, though Jones claims physical injuries, such as burst breast
implants and torn pectoral muscles, that are plainly not consistent with
consensual sex. The EEOC's Letter of Determination credited the allegation of
Fifteen months later, after extensive discovery in
the arbitration, Jones, who lives in Houston, and whose lawyer is based in
Houston, and who worked for KBR in Houston, sued KBR and a bunch of other
entities (including Halliburton, for whom she never worked, and the United
States), in federal court in Beaumont, Texas. The claims were suddenly of much
more outrageous conduct: the original allegation of a single he-said/she-said
sexual assault was now an allegation of gang rape by several unknown John Doe
rapists who worked as firemen (though she did make a claim of multiple rape to
the EEOC, though it is unclear when that claim was made); she claims that after
she reported the rape, "Halliburton locked her in a container" (the EEOC found
that KBR provided immediate medical treatment and safety and shipped her home
immediately) and she threw in an allegation that a "sexual favor" she provided a
supervisor in Houston was the result of improper "influence." (But she no longer
makes the implausible claim that she was living in an all-male dorm in
The US got the claim dismissed quickly (Jones
hasn't yet followed the appropriate administrative claims procedure); the case
was transferred back to Houston where it belonged (the trial lawyer's ludicrous brief in opposition didn't help). But the fact that the defendants are pointing out that the
lawsuit over a pending arbitration violates 28 U.S.C. 1927 and
are asking for the court to mandate only one single proceeding in arbitration
rather than a multiplicity of parallel proceedings, is now being treated as a
cause clbre by the left-wing blogosphere in its campaign against the
contractual freedom to arbitrate. (Note that two elements explicitly designed to
arouse the ire and inflame the passions of the leftHalliburton and
gang-rapeonly came about after Jones switched attorneys.)
The Public Citizen blog
complains that "the allegations of corporate and governmental misconduct will
never see the light of day" in arbitration. Which is absurd:
1) For crying out loud, her case is on
20/20, which, as is
its ken, happily unquestioningly gives the plaintiffs' opening statement in
handy manipulative video newsertainment form without mentioning any of the
counterevidence. That sort of widespread publicity is hardly the lack of
"light of day."20/20 repeats the meaningless claim that "In recent testimony before
Congress, employment lawyer Cathy Ventrell-Monsees said that Halliburton won
more than 80 percent of arbitration proceedings brought against it"meaningless
because (1) it doesn't include the cases that settle before arbitration with a
favorable result to the employee and (2) there's no comparison with how well
such employees would do in the far more expensive forum of litigation (where the
vast majority of employees lose at trial as well).
2) If the government fails to offer Jones an adequate
settlement for their alleged bungling of the criminal investigation, she has
recourse under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the federal
governmentthough she likely will not have any more recourse against them than
any other criminal victim does when the government fails to protect them
against crime or prosecute the criminal.
3) If the court system is about
having recourse for injuries, she has that recourse. The judicial system is
not for public storytelling; if you want to send a message, use Western Union
(or ABC News, as the case may be).
20/20 also adds the claim (absent in the
arbitration and in the otherwise-lurid civil complaint) that Jones
was threatened that she would be fired if she sought medical
It goes without saying that any criminal assault
should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I haven't seen any support
for the contention that there is a loophole that leaves an American contractor's
attack on an American outside the scope of criminal prosecution, as some
left-wing blogs have claimed. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of
2000, 18 U.S.C. 3261 ff., permits prosecutions of criminal acts committed by
defense contractors working with troops overseas, and there has been a child
porn and an attempted rape prosecution under this law for crimes committed in
Iraq. The loophole in the news applies to contractors working overseas with the
People with legitimate claims usually don't have
lawyers trying so desperately to forum-shop that they file amateurish briefs like this, and Jones loses a ton of credibility with me over that. At a minimum,
Jones's story has changed over time, and has gotten considerably more lurid. The
original allegations are bad enough, and, if true, actionable. If the implant
rupture and other physical injuries are true, I'm inclined to believe that she
was raped, perhaps even gang raped. (Machismo environments like fraternity
houses and athletes' dorms are responsible for a disproportionate number of gang
rapes, which is why the Duke Lacrosse allegations had so much weight in the
early going.) I'm inclined to believe that there was a hostile work environment,
and that it was possible that KBR was not doing enough to correct that problem.
I'm not currently inclined to believe that the criminal action was the
employer's fault, unless the employee in question had shown signs of criminal
behavior while working for KBR. And it is entirely consistent with what I know
about government if Jones's allegation that the government botched the criminal
investigation is true.
Of course, more facts could come to light that
change my mind in either direction. There's already been a lot of discovery, but
Jones's papers in court seem to focus on me-too evidence (that should eventually
be held to be inadmissible) rather than evidence related to Jones. I'd love to
see the pending motions for summary judgment in the arbitration that led Jones
to file a second lawsuit.
And one hopes Jones realizes that she's being used
by attorneys who are pursuing their own agenda to promote the litigation lobby's
pet anti-consumer/pro-lawyer legislation. The shenanigans of bringing a second
lawsuit and suing the irrelevant Halliburton are not helping her case if she has
a legitimate one.
Here is the EEOC Letter of Determination. Bill Childs provides many other court
documents. A typical unskeptical adoption
of the Public Citizen line can be found at Jezebel and many other blogs.
Some Republican partisans are even more skeptical than I am. A
more nuanced discussion is at Amber Taylor's blog and Ben Domenech.
is a Jamie Jones Foundation; its
chronology omits the arbitration claim Jones filed in 2006. The "take action"
page makes clear the ulterior motives of lobbying for a Congressional ban on
arbitration clausesthough the arbitration clause has nothing to do with
bringing any rapists to justice.
A Congressional investigation into the Justice
Department's criminal investigation is now in the works, so we should see some
answers about why there were no prosecutions. .
For a great many people - me included, I must admit - an accusation of rape
generates immediate sympathy for the woman claiming it happened.
Unfortunately, however, sometimes the claims are untrue. The
allegations made against members of Duke's lacrosse team immediately spring to
mind (by the way, when is Crystal Gail Mangum, the stripper who lied about being
raped, going to be prosecuted?).
Is this another Crystal Gail Mangum moment? Again, I don't know.
But it has the same smell, doesn't it? And Ted Frank (Brandeis
undergraduate, University of Chicago Law School) ain't exactly chopped
I think I'll wait and see how this one plays out. Meanwhile, it
would be nice if the same media which seem so joyously willing to
provide the accusations, would also provide a word or two about the very
significant reasons for skepticism.
THE NEO- CON AS A DIRTY JEW
Are you offended by my blog title? I certainly hope so.
That is exactly what the term "neo-con" was created to mean. It is a
sanitized way of saying "dirty Jew".
"Neo-con" came into use as a descriptor for people like
Irving Kristol (William Kristol's father), Norman Podhoretz (John Podhoretz'
father), Midge Dechter and other Jews who had the temerity to think
outside the parameters of what some people expected of educated urbane Jews. In other
words, they started out as liberal-left and evolved in a rightward direction. So
the entrenched leftist elite - i.e., the crowd they moved away from -
disdainfully classified them as newly conservative people. Neo-cons.
To many within the liberal-left Jewish sphere, the insult was only to their
political evolution. To many liberal-leftist who were not Jewish (and some
who were, by the way), it made them "dirty Jews".
"Neo-con" was, and remains, an anti-semite's delight;. something that could be said by a
Jew-hater, who then could tell you it wasn't his/her anti-semitism at all because, see,
some JEWS say it too, just like I do. A little like the Jew
haters who attack Israel, because it enables them to hide behind the
claim that it's not JEWS they hate, just Israel. What a great
During the early years of the Bush administration, "neo-con" was used
relentlessly to describe three specific Jews - Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and
Douglas Feith. The argument was that we went into Iraq as puppets of
Israel, and these three (dirty) Jews facilitated the whole thing from the
inside. Lovely, just lovely.
Over recent years, however, the term has "pooled out" and is now more
generally used to describe both Jews and non-Jews who have moved rightward
over time. It is still just as disdainful and dismissive, but at least it
is not as anti-semitic.
This, sadly, brings me to Maureen Dowd of the New York Times. Ms. Dowd
has written a column today, titled "The Dream Is Dead", which reverts the term
right back to its roots - as a metaphor for "dirty Jew". Let me show you
the beginning of her column and you'll see what I mean, I promise:.
The Dream Is
The man crowned by Tommy Franks as the dumbest
[expletive] guy on the planet just made the dumbest [expletive] speech on the
Doug Feith, the former Rummy gofer who drove the
neocon plan to get us into Iraq, and then dawdled without a plan as Iraq crashed
into chaos, was the headliner at a reunion meeting of the wooly-headed hawks
Monday night at the American Enterprise Institute.
The room was packed as the former No. 3 at the
Pentagon, previewing his upcoming book, War and Decision, conceded that the
case could be made that mistakes were made. His former boss, Paul Wolfowitz,
and the former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle sat supportively in the front
But he wasnt self-flagellating. He was simply
trying to put an egghead gloss on his Humpty Dumpty mishegoss. .
How instructive. There are the same three dirty Jews, back to their old tricks. And just
in case you had any lingering doubt that this was an attack on them
as Jews -- just in case the fact that the rest of that first row was
not mentioned, only those two Jews sitting in it didn't tip you off -- Dowd
uses the term "mishegoss".
anyone who doesn't know already, "meshugenah" is a Yiddish word that means "crazy".
"Mishegoss" is derived from it and means a state of craziness.
There is only one reason that Dowd tossed in a Yiddish word while talking
about Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle. We both know damn well what it
I will give Dowd some credit, though. She didn't claim that any of the three had big noses or that they
were cheap and grasping. That, I suppose, is left to our imagination. How nice of
If there ever was a reason a columnist should apologize for something she
wrote - as opposed to what she thinks, which is going to stay the same no matter
what apology she gives - this is it. But don't bet a cent that the apology
will be forthcoming.
PEACE PARTNER UPDATE
Here is what the world - now including the USA, to our shame - expects Israel
to make peace with.
This is presented to us from the invaluable site www.memri.org. Read it, watch the
video, remember that nothing gets on "palestinian" TV without the government's
explicit approval, and then explain to me how there could ever be a peace with
Children on Hamas TV
Children's Show: 'Liberate' Al-Aqsa by Force, 'Wipe Out' Zionists to the
The following are excerpts from a
children's show which aired on Hamas Al-Aqsa TV on December
To view the clip, visit: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1625.htm. To view the MEMRI TV page devoted to Al-Aqsa TV
Boy: "My beloved brothers, as
you know, today the Al-Aqsa Mosque is crying out: 'Where are the people of
the frontline, the Palestinian people?' Yes, my dear brothers, that is the
Al-Aqsa Mosque. The subject of our lesson today is Jerusalem, to where
your Prophet made his nocturnal journey - the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
"Yes, my beloved brothers, as you know
today, and as you knew yesterday and the day before, the Al-Aqsa Mosque
has fallen into oppressing and malicious hands, the hands of those who
know nothing but injustice. But let me tell you how the Al-Aqsa Mosque
will be returned, how we shall rescue it from the shackles of the
occupation, from the shackles of the Zionist entity.
"Will it be through conferences? No, not
through conferences, but by means of force, because the Zionist entity,
your enemy, the enemy of Allah, the enemy of Islam, knows nothing but
injustice and the killing of Palestinians, the persevering people on the
frontline. Indeed, the [mosque] will be returned only by means of force.
"In 1917, the Balfour Declaration was
issued. Balfour decided on the cleansing of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. But look
what the Zionist enemy has done, look what Israel and America have done.
Look what the allies of Israel and America have done. They have dug
tunnels underneath the Al-Aqsa Mosque, but the sheikhs and
mujahideen of the Al-Aqsa Mosque have exposed these tunnels and
called upon the Palestinian people: 'Look what has happened, look what has
"These calls have gone unheeded, my beloved
brothers. But is it too late? No, it is not too late. If we all unite, the
Al-Aqsa Mosque will not remain in the hands of the Zionist enemy, it will
not remain in the hands of your enemy, despite all their conspiracies
against the Palestinian people."
Girl: "To Al-Aqsa, to Al-Aqsa -
we shall unite our ranks. We will wipe out the people of Zion, and will
not leave a single one of them."
It is one of the superseding idiocies of the world that this group could be
characterized as a "peace partner" or that anyone could possibly believe they
are interested in peace.
This is what they are teaching THEIR CHILDREN. What do you think those
children will "know" growing up? What do you think they will teach THEIR
The current administration has apparently given up on reality, and now joins
most of the rest of the world in their mindless, logic-less tra-la-la-la-la
world of saying "there should be talks" and "we should continue the peace
Talks with who? People who teach their children to kill every Jew in
Israel while they're talking?
That is not a peace process, it is a pathetic charade and it
puts Israeli Jews (and every Jew outside of Israel too, don't you doubt
that) in jeopardy.
Some people may sell themselves on the ridiculous fantasy that there is
anything to be gained by such talks, other than legitimizing avowed
murderers. I can't.