Tuesday, 05 February 2008
THE NOMINEE WHO CRIED (AND COUGHED) WOLF
We've seen Hillary Clinton cry her way to a desperately needed primary
victory in New Hampshire.
We've seen Hillary Clinton reprise her sob-a-thon just days ago, before Super
Now we have Ms. Cliinton going into an uncontrollable coughing fit while
being asked what Bill Clinton would be doing in the White House during her
administration (if this doesn't play, click on http://drudgereport.com/flashco.htm):
Lucky the interviewer didn't ask her about Norman Hsu. She'd probably
cry again. Heck, a question or two about all those Chinese waiters
and dishwashers with their $2,000 checks and she'd have a stomach problem
on camera. Toss in the years when she sat on Wal-Mart's board as they
union-busted and you might actually see flying body parts.
So tell me, do I sound a tad skeptical?
OVERWHELMED BY PARTISANSHIP
I just read Richard Cohen's column in today's Washington Post. It
prompted me to e-mail Mr. Cohen and comment on what he had written.
Let me show you the column and how I responded to it. See if you
First, the column:
Hillary's baggage is just too heavy for this
voter to carry
Tuesday, February 5th 2008, 4:00
At the most recent Democratic debate, moderator
Wolf Blitzer referred to "a dream ticket for the White House" - either Hillary
Clinton for President and Barack Obama for veep or the other way around. Both
candidates demurred, giving me the opportunity to describe my own dream ticket:
Obama for President; Clinton for chief of staff.
That's the long and the short of it. Just about
everything Clinton says about herself - her experience, her indomitability, her
presumed ability to work long hours - says to me that she would make a swell
chief of staff. Beyond that, she either lacks the qualities that would make a
great - not merely competent - President or hides them from us, as she has
occasionally done with her own pain.
My conclusions about Clinton, forced upon me by
the need to vote in a Super Tuesday primary, come from her own campaign. Whether
she meant to or not, she has presented herself as a model of caution, of
experience hard-earned and not enjoyed and an inability to admit fault or lousy
Two matters stand out. The first, of course, is
her vote in favor of the Iraq war. I, too, supported going to war, so I don't
think this alone disqualifies her from the presidency. I do think, though, that
her refusal to simply admit that her judgment - not simply her facts - was
faulty says something about her. We all knew George Bush was going to launch the
invasion and was not merely seeking permission to stare down Saddam Hussein. If
Clinton did not know that, then her judgment was doubly faulty.
Her refusal - her inability - to simply confess
poor judgment says to me that her vote was politically motivated. In that, she
was not alone. All of her 2008 Democratic primary colleagues who were in the
Senate at the time voted for the war resolution. Many other Senate Democrats
voted against it - not on the basis of different facts but on the basis of a
different judgment about the same facts.
If that were the only example of Clinton voting
suspiciously like a presidential candidate, I would not be troubled. But in
2005, she co-sponsored a bill that would make flag-burning illegal. It just so
happened that around that time I heard Associate Justice Antonin Scalia explain
why he, a conservative so conservative you cannot be more conserv.ative,
considered flag-burning a form of political expression. It was therefore, he
said, protected. Precisely so.
Look, I know what Barack Obama was doing when he
refused to confront his minister about the latter's embrace of Louis Farrakhan.
He was ducking an issue with no upside for him. He will not get my Profiles in
Courage award for this, but the rest of his record overwhelms this one chintzy
Not so with Clinton. The fact remains that as a
politician, Hillary Clinton is a creature of her husband. This is reality, not a
putdown. In this respect, she is like George W. Bush or any of the Kennedys now
out there telling us how to vote. Even the mighty Teddy is the product of
nepotistic politics, and his adoration of Obama is, I suspect, partly a function
of Obama's qualities and partly a function of the perceived slight of John F.
Kennedy by Hillary Clinton some weeks ago.
But for Hillary Clinton, the Bill thing looms
larger. He was a good President with bad associations - beginning with Jim
McDougal of Whitewater fame and ending with Marc Rich of pardon infamy. Bill
Clinton has a tropism for the faintly corrupt and his wife has more than a
tropism for him. He would stalk her presidency as he has her campaign, and when
she vows that she alone would rule the White House, she is talking personnel,
not marriage. It ain't the same.
So I vote, as I must, for Obama and against
Hillary. This is not an easy choice. But the time has come and, really, hers has
Now, my response:
Thank you for today's column.
It certainly held my interest.
I was particularly interested by the
-You did not challenge Wolf
Blitzer's idea that the combination of Clinton and Obama would be a "dream
ticket". A little reality has to obtain here. There are many
people who would never vote for a woman on the ticket and many people who
would never vote for a Black on the ticket. Add in the great many
people who would never vote for Hillary Clinton in particular and what do you
get on election day? If this is a "dream ticket" it is a Republican
dream; a very wet one.
-The fact that you seem surprised
at Ms. Clinton playing politics with her war vote on Iraq. When did
either Clinton ever NOT play politics? It's hard to imagine you are
gullible enough to think her initial support and various revised
positions on Iraq were not politically motivated. If Charles Schulz had
lived long enough to draw it, even Charlie Brown would have eventually
realized that Lucy was going to pull the football away.
-The ease with which you slide by
Senator Obama's 20 year association with a racist, separatist church (read its
mission statement and see for yourself) whose magazine celebrated the
career racist/anti-Semite louis farrakhan as 2007's "Man Of The Year'.
This is not a one-time anomaly that can conveniently be ducked, it is the coin
of the realm for Trinity United Church of Christ. You would never in a
million years let a Republican skate on belonging to a church that made david
duke its man of the year, would you?
-The characterization of Bill
Clinton as "faintly corrupt". That is like saying the Pacific ocean is
Mr. Cohen, I admire your writing
skill. And I know you have analytical talent. But sometimes
that talent is overwhelmed by your political leanings. Today's column is a
I wrote to Mr. Cohen once before and he didn't respond to me.
Maybe he will now. I'll let you know one way or the other, of
THE ROTTEN APPLE DOESN'T FALL FAR FROM THE DISEASED TREE
In my opinion (and I'm far from alone) lynne stewart is one of the most
objectionable human beings in this country. But little did I know how
"successfully" she taught her own children.
Read the specifics in this report from today's New York Times:
Teacher Held in Forgery of Time-Off
A daughter of Lynne F. Stewart, the
defense lawyer convicted of aiding terrorism by smuggling messages out of prison
for a client, was arrested on Monday on charges of forgery and falsifying
documents she submitted to take time off from her teaching job, some of it
during her mothers trial and sentencing.
Skip to next paragraph
Paul O. Boisvert for The New York
Lynne Stewart in 2006 at her home in
South Bombay, N.Y.
The daughter, Brenna Stewart, 46, was in custody
and was awaiting her arraignment in the Bronx. The most serious charges against
her, forgery and criminal possession of a forged instrument, are felonies that
would carry a maximum of seven years in prison if she is convicted, said Steven
Reed, a spokesman for the Bronx district attorney, Robert T. Johnson.
The charges against Ms. Stewart, a physical
education teacher at Bronx Leadership Academy II, are based on an inquiry by
Richard J. Condon, the special commissioner of investigation for the city
Ms. Stewarts lawyer, Daniel N. Arshack, declined
to comment on the charges, which were announced in a press release by Mr.
Lynne Stewart was sentenced on Oct. 16, 2006, to
28 months in prison for illegally helping her client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman,
get messages to his followers in Egypt. Her sentence was significantly less than
the 30 years sought by prosecutors. Ms. Stewart has not begun serving her term,
pending an appeal.
According to a report by Mr. Condon in April,
which spelled out his allegations against Brenna Stewart, the case involves her
sister, who is a doctor practicing in Florida, a forged death certificate, and
faked doctors notes.
Brenna Stewart obtained permission from school
officials to take nine days off in 2006 and 2007, according to Mr. Condons
report. It was unclear what Ms. Stewart did during most of her time off, but the
report said that she attended her mothers sentencing on one of those
In her application for time off, the report said,
Ms. Stewart included letters from her sister, Zenobia Brown, who said that Ms.
Stewart was under her care for an acute contagious illness. The investigation
by school officials found that Dr. Brown was not licensed to practice in New
Time off also was approved for Ms. Stewart to
attend a family funeral, and her request was accompanied by the death
certificate of a relative in Texas. According to Mr. Condons inquiry, the
relative had died two years earlier, and the death certificate had been
Ms. Stewart, who began working in the citys
schools in 1984, has been reassigned to duties outside of the classroom, and
termination proceedings have been brought against her, said Margie Feinberg, a
spokeswoman for the Department of Education. Since Ms. Stewart is a tenured
teacher, she can be terminated only after an administrative hearing, which has
not taken place, Ms. Feinberg said.
Ms. Stewart is also a lawyer, having been admitted
to practice in New York in 1984. Mr. Condon said in his report that the New York
Supreme Court should consider disciplinary action in regard to her ability to
practice law. No action has been taken.
Mr. Condon said he had referred his findings about
the actions of Dr. Brown to the Florida Department of Health. A spokesman for
that agency said on Monday that no action had been taken.
There are the stewarts. Some bunch. Comparatively speaking,
they make The Addams Family look like an outtake of Leave it to Beaver.
Let's see: lynne stewart is convicted of illegally helping a
murdering terrorist get messages to his terrorist cohorts. One of stewart's
daughters decides she wants lots and lots of time off from her teaching
position so she uses a forged death certificate and forged doctor's notes, along
with a phony diagnosis from a doctor in Florida. And the doctor
turns out to be stewart's other daughter.
If this isn't enough for you, how outrageous is it that lynne stewart
only got 28 months instead of the 30 years she could (and should) have been
sentenced to? And what about the fact that well over a year has
passed without her spending even one day in prison?
Do you think a right wing lunatic would get this kind of preferential
treatment? Uh-uh, no way no how. It is only reserved
for Lunatic-left and Mega-moonbat Brigade icons like lynne stewart.
I wonder if her daughters will be tried, convicted, get jail tme and
serve it before she even goes in.
A NEW YORK TIMES CONSERVATIVE
I use political labels all the time in here. But I don't really like them. Many people
(most, I hope) are more than a list of positions someone else has staked out
which they are supposed to swallow whole.
With this in mind, I would like to talk about David Brooks of the New York
Times. Until a few weeks ago, Mr. Brooks was the its sole
"conservative". But now they have brought in William Kristol to write one
or two columns a week - which apparently is supposed to "prove" how
evenhanded the paper is.
The Times' regular columnists include Paul Krugman (hard left), Nicolas
Kristof (hard left), Frank Rich (hard left) Bob Herbert (almost always hard
left) and Maureen Dowd (bizarre left). That ain't exactly matching up
to two conservatives even if they ARE conservative.
But are they?
Here is the first paragraph of David Brooks' column in today's Times:
Im not a Hillary-hater. Shes been an outstanding
senator. She hung tough on Iraq through the dark days of 2005. In this campaign,
she has soldiered on bravely even though she has most of the elected Democrats,
news media and the educated class rooting against her.
This is a CONSERVATIVE?????
I'm glad Mr. Brooks does not hate Hillary Clinton. Neither do I.
But, I know that she is a far left senator who is viciously and mindlessly
attacking our Iraq effort every day, even as it shows significant success and
Since Mr. Brooks considers Ms. Clinton's senate performance "outstanding" I
would like to show you a compendium of ratings given to her by various right and
left wing interest groups. You can find them yourself at the invaluable
web site www.vote-smart.org, and I urge
you to check me for accuracy there. In fact, while you're there why
not check every other candidate too, so you know who and what they are for
yourself being at the mercy of what partisan sources (like the Times for
example) tell you.
The scoop on Senator Hillary Clinton is as follows (all ratings are the
-Abortion: NARAL and Planned Parenthood rate her 100%. That
means, for every issue they have a position on, she votes their side.
Not surprisingly the National Right To Life Committee gives her a rating of
-Taxes: Americans For Tax Reform (which favors lower taxes) gives her
a rating of 10%. Citizens for Tax Justice (which favors higher taxes and
redistribution of income) rates her 80%;
-Civil Liberties: The ACLU gives Ms. Clinton a rating of 83%.
To remind you again, this means that she votes their side of things 5 out of
every 6 times. La Raza - a group which demands virtually full rights for
illegal aliens and does not consider the southwest states part of the USA,
rates Ms. Clinton 100%. She votes their side every time;
-Conservative: The American Conservative Union gives Ms. Clinton
a rating of 8%. This means she votes for the conservative position 1
out of every 12 times.
-Liberal: Americans for Democratic Action gives
Hillary Clinton a 95% rating. That would be 19 out of every
I could go on. There are many more examples that show what you should
already know by now. But I'm not into beating dead horses.
Hillary Clinton (like Barack Obama, it should be noted) is hard left. I
don't give a #$*&%($# how reasoned and circumspect she tries to convince you she
is. This is how she VOTES. And it is not my opinion, it is the
opinion of the left and right wing groups who rate her.
David Brooks is certainly entitled to conclude that Senator Clinton's
performance is "outstanding". But, dammit, don't
tell me that he is a conservative. Because there is no way that the
record I just showed you could ever in a million
years be characterized as "outstanding" by any conservative.
Unless, of course, we're talking about a New York Times
conservative. If you compare Mr. Brooks to the rest of the
Times' lineup you might have a point.
Come to think of it, using that logic Hillary Clinton is a conservative too -- if you
compare her to Lynne Stewart.
Here, courtesy of the Daily Californian, is an update on what has
happened since Berkeley, California went to war against the US Marines:
The Daily Californian Online
Business Owners React to Marine Corps Vote
Tuesday, February 5,
Some Berkeley business owners say they have
received such a negative response from the recent City Council resolutions
against the Marine Corps recruiting center in Downtown Berkeley that they may
withhold city taxes in protest.
Last week the council declared that the
center was "unwelcome" in Berkeley and sought to aide Code Pink, a group that
organizes regular protests outside the center, by reserving a parking space for
the group in front of the center, among other actions.
Since then, the
resolutions have elicited a nationwide response. Last Thursday, United States
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said he would attempt to remove funding for programs in
the Berkeley area to protest the council's actions.
Ted Garrett, the CEO
of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce, said he had received at least 140 e-mails
from people who said they would not do business in Berkeley in response to the
"Most are threatening to never set foot in
Berkeley and never have anything to do with businesses in Berkeley," he said. "I
know of at least one instance now where an innkeeper has reported that one
visitor has cancelled their reservation because of the council's actions."
Councilmember Darryl Moore said some of the complaints may have come
from people who never planned on visiting Berkeley in the first place.
"Those people don't live anywhere near Berkeley and who's to say that
they were coming to Berkeley to begin with?" he said. "I just think it would be
unfortunate if the chamber did some sort of knee-jerk reaction to all of this."
At a meeting of the chamber's Government Affairs committee yesterday,
some members discussed a plan to withhold business license taxes to protest the
resolutions' effects on their business.
A formal plan to withhold taxes
would require the approval of the chamber's executive committee or board of
But Carolyn Henry Golphin, the immediate past chair of the
chamber's board, said withholding taxes should only be a last resort.
"We have to do what we have to do," she said. "We do need to make a
stand together if that's what we all agree on."
Liz Stevens, broker and
owner of Windermere Real Estate in Berkeley, said the current controversy was
part of a larger problem.
"The city has a good way of keeping people at
arms length and making decisions that affect them at the same time," she said.
Mark McLeod, a member of the chamber's board and president of the
Downtown Berkeley Association, said he agreed that the council should have
considered the implications of its actions before voting for the resolutions.
"The council can't operate as an isolated unit-the university, council
and chamber have to realize they're all members of a large, complex community
and have to act with a realization of the effect of their actions on all members
of the community," he said..
I fervently hope this is just the beginning for these mindless, censorious, facistic morons.
I especially enjoyed that comment by council member darryl moore, who said "I
just think it would be unfortunate if the chamber did some sort of knee-jerk
reaction to all this". Evidently he just wants to forget about knees and
leave the jerk reaction that is already in place. I guess it takes
one to know one.
Incidentally, In 2002 tom bates, the mayor of
Berkeley, showed his high regard for free speech by removing and tossing out something like
1,000 copies of The Daily Californian before the mayoral election because it
endorsed his opponent. He was forced to admit doing so and pay
restitution for it (as if money compensated for the people having their news
censored at his whim).
It is a measure of the rampant stupidity in Berkeley that someone who did
such a thing would ever be elected to office there again. But, six years
later, there he is. That tells you plenty.
Free speech, it seems, is valued in Berkeley --- just so long as the
powers that be agree with what is being spoken.
This is an environment stalin, mao and fidel would thrive in. At the
very least, they'd certainly recognize it.
I hope the council idiots (with the notable, honorable exception of
Gordon Wozniak who voted against this sickness) get every bit of the scorn and
ridicule they deserve.
GUEST COMMENTARY: ALAN DERSHOWITZ ON JEW HATRED
This is reprinted from www.frontpagemag.com without further
comment. Because it doesn't need any.
Here is a multiple choice quiz:
By Alan M.
Making These Nazi-like Statements?
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, February 05, 2008
1. Who made the following statement? We have created a
culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that
culture of violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."
A) A person named Hitler,
B) A person named Stalin
C) A person named Gandhi?
2. Who described the establishment of the state of Israel
as a historical, moral, political calamity, blames the existence of Israel for
putting the entire world in peril and condemns American Jews for the shame
of failing to denounce Israel?
A) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
B) The Hamas Charter
C) Award-winning American playwright Tony
3. Who has said that Israel may eventually cause the end
of the human race by means of global warming?
A) American losing politician Ralph Nader
B) American losing politician Pat Buchanan
C) Former minister in the Blair government, Clare
The answer to the first question is Arun Gandhi, grandson
of Mahatma Gandhi, and himself the former head of the MK Gandhi Institute for
Non-Violence at the University of Rochester, who recently wrote those
Nazi-like words in a widely circulated blog. He subsequently apologized for
including all Jewish people, implying that it is only Israel and most Jewish
people who are the biggest players in the culture of violence that is
eventually going to destroy humanity. Not Islamic terrorists, not nuclear
sabre-rattling Iran but the Jews! If you answered Hitler, that is
understandable since Hitler made very similar accusations. Hitler, like Gandhi,
accused the Jews of causing all the problems in the world.
The answer to the second question is Tony Kushner, who is
thoroughly ignorant about the history, morality and politics of Israels
establishment as the result of the United Nations division of the contested area
into two states: one for the Palestinians and one for the Jews. The Jews
accepted the two-state solution and declared statehood. The Arab nations
rejected the two-state solution and declared a genocidal war against the Jewish
state. But you wouldnt know that by listening to Kushner. If you mistakenly
believed that the correct answer was Iran or the Hamas Charter, that too is
understandable, because both have made the same point.
The answer to the third question is Clare Short, former
Secretary of State for International Development in the UK Labor government, who has said that Israel will cause
the end of the human race because it diverts the worlds attention from the
problem of global warming. Not China, the United States or other large
polluters, but tiny Israel, which is one of the most environmental-friendly
nations of the world!
These are highly regarded individuals who have large
followings around the world. Yet they mimic the most despised group in modern
history the Nazi Party in blaming the worlds ills on the Jews, the Jewish
state and American Jews. If this were not so dangerous and tragic, its patent
ignorance would almost be humorous. It reminds me of the old joke about Hitler
making an harangue in Nuremberg, during which he shouted out his favorite
rhetorical question: Who is causing all the problems of the world? A voice
from the back of the crowd shouted out, the bicycle riders. A shocked Hitler
asked Why the bicycle riders? The voice responded, why the Jews?
Its easy to scapegoat the Jews or the Jewish state for
all the worlds problems. One would expect, however, that in light of the
history of Nazism, people like Gandhi, Kushner, and Short would reflect more
deeply before issuing this modern day version of the Blood Libel. Shame on