Tuesday, 24 June 2008


Ken Berwitz

Remember that Columbia University Teachers College professor who claimed someone put a noose on her door one night last fall?  Remember all the attention and all the sympathy this generated for her?  Remember all the charges of institutional racism at Columbia and all the protest rallies? 

Do you also remember that there was 56 hours of tape from various security cameras which would have shown how the noose got there, but Columbia would not release it for days? 

One other remember:  Do you remember that it turned out the professor in question, Madonna G. Constantine, was under investigation for plagiarism during the time this sympathy-generating event supposedly took place?

If you forgot any of this, you can refresh your memory by reading my blogs on the subject, which became more and more skeptical of Professor Constantine as time went on:








Well, some more time has passed.  And here, via excerpts from today's New York Times article, is the latest news about Professor Constantine:

June 24, 2008

Columbia Professor in Noose Case Is Fired on Plagiarism Charges

The Columbia University professor who gained widespread attention last fall after a noose was found hanging on her office door was fired on Monday after months of wrangling over charges that she plagiarized the work of two former students and a former colleague.

Madonna G. Constantine, a professor of psychology and education with a focus on racial issues at Columbias Teachers College, was sanctioned in February, after an 18-month investigation into the plagiarism charge, but allowed to stay in her job and to appeal the ruling that she had violated the universitys academic standards. But over the last five months, tensions between Dr. Constantine and the administration grew more strained as she vigorously defended herself, filing not just the appeal but also a grievance against Susan Fuhrman, the college president.

Paul Giacomo, Dr. Constantines lawyer, said that the colleges move to dismiss his client was purely retaliatory.

Dr. Constantine has until July 15 to decide whether to challenge her ouster before one of two faculty committees, Mr. Giacomo said, adding that she also might sue the college for wrongful termination in either state or federal court.

A Teachers College spokesman confirmed that Dr. Constantine had been dismissed pending a hearing by a faculty committee, but otherwise refused to comment on what led to the action.

Meanwhile, we are still waiting to see any evidence about how the noose got on that door.

I don't know, of course, but I strongly suspect that the person who hung that noose on the door was either Ms. Constantine herself or someone acting on her behalf.  There is no other explanation to me for Columbia refusing to give police the tapes for days (long enough to edit them) and the police never showing us how the noose got there (which the tapes would have to have shown).

But don't expect to hear any condemnations of Ms. Constantine from the people who rallied on her behalf last year.  And don't expect to hear any apologies for the charges they tossed around either.

Sometimes aggrievement is a one-way street.


Ken Berwitz

Zimbabwe's election is now over.

No, there was no determination of who won.  It is over because the person who DID win, Morgan Tsvangirai, quit trying to overcome robert mugabe's cooked election returns and his tidal wave of threats and overt violence, even murders against anyone who supported Mr. Tsvangirai.

I have blogged about Zimbabwe and its hitlerian "president" robert mugabe for months.  When Tzvangirai won the national election by so much even the mugabe thugs could not cheat enough to reverse it, I commented that there was no way mugabe would leave anyway.

I'm not always right about these things, but I would have bet body parts on this one.  

Now, what will the UN and/or the African Union do about it?  Given that the mugabes of the world are specifically what they exist TO do something about, you'd think that finally, at long last, now would be the time.  

This, folks, is something I would not bet body parts on. 

Here's how the LA Times sees it, via today's editorial:

Getting Mugabe out

The world needs to take a strong stand against the dictator, or prepare for the worst in Zimbabwe.
June 24, 2008

'Only God will remove me."

With this public vow, Zimbabwe's strongman president, Robert Mugabe, officially ended the campaign for the presidential runoff election that is to be held on Friday. The campaign had already turned brutal, with Mugabe's thugs making nightly visits to opposition supporters, beating them, arresting them and forcing tens of thousands of people out of their homes. At least 85 opposition figures have reportedly been killed. Still, other African leaders -- notably Mugabe's chief enabler, South African President Thabo Mbeki -- looked the other way.

But when Mugabe, who has ruled Zimbabwe for 28 years, announces that only God and not mere voters will remove him from office, why bother with an election?

Opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai got the message. He
quit his campaign on Sunday, saying he could no longer ask supporters to endanger themselves for what was not an election but a war. Tsvangirai then sought refuge in the Dutch Embassy after Mugabe's men raided his headquarters, dragging away about 60 people.

Will the world finally take Mugabe at his megalomaniacal word? Until now, the U.N. Security Council, which Mbeki had obstructed, and the African Union, which was formed to prevent precisely the kind of catastrophe that is now unfolding in Zimbabwe, have allowed Mugabe to follow in the bloody footsteps of
African dictators past. Will they now act to forestall a repeat of the unchecked excesses of Uganda's Idi Amin, the Central African Republic's Jean-Bedel Bokassa or Congo's kleptocratic Mobutu Sese Seko?

We're about to find out. The U.N. Security Council on Monday was poised to declare that the campaign of violence has "made it impossible for a free and fair election to take place on June 27." The watered-down language of the resolution stopped short of blaming Mugabe's forces for the violence. But it did indicate that the results of the last election -- won by Tsvangirai -- should stand. The U.N. must now send an investigative team to Harare to report on the violence. More important, it must come up with a plan for forcing Mugabe to take responsibility for his depredations.

Meanwhile, the African Union should send a high-profile team of diplomats and notables with the stature to privately urge Mugabe to retire, now, perhaps to a quiet farm in Namibia. He may be immune to international pressure, but the people in his inner circle can be made to understand how unpleasant their lives will be if they persist in holding their miserable citizens hostage to his rule

Got that?  The UN's response is a "watered down" resolution that "stopped short of blaming Mugabe's forces for the violence".  Who the hell do they think is to blame?  The opposition party that had its victory taken away? 

This is nothing more than another way of the UN ducking any responsibility to do what it was created to do.  Ironically - and lamentably - ducking away from responsibility is the one thing the UN does really well.

And the African Union?  If there is such a thing as an organization that makes the UN look effective by comparison, this is it.  Can the LA Times possibly believe that a team of diplomats urging Mugabe to step down is going to get him to do so?  He just OVERTURNED AN ELECTION and MADE WAR ON THE WINNERS to stay in power.  He's going to listen to them?

The sad truth is that this is the state of the UN (and the African Union) when it comes to doing something about a murderous madman who disregards an election and continues to brutally repress, attack and starve his own people en masse. 

I would love to hear another word or two from the geniuses who thought the USA should let the UN take care of saddam hussein, as he laughed at them for 12 years until we finally gave up the wait and removed him ourselves.

J Hauser The situation in Zimbabwe continues to defy any rational understanding. The President of South Africa, Mbeki has shielded Mugabe starting from the escalation of massive problems in Zim since 2000 when the Zim government started taking rightfully owned farms of africans who happen to be white. The current crisis is the icing on the Mugabe cake. Mbeki has shield Mugabe for Mugabe's support during the years of the struggle to end apartheid in So Africa. How much will these comrades comprise for their own self-servcing agendas. Mbeki is confronted with high unemployment in his own country which is being overrun by zimbabweans seeking safety and a better life. In the last month extreme xenophobia attacks are occuring in black townships with black african killing black african and the same root cause is extreme poverty due to lack of employment. GDP in post apartheid So Africa has doubled from that of the white controlled government and given the unstability of the area, further investment in So Africa is at risk. It appears the comrades will sacrifice all to protect their comrades. Nelson Mandela who just celebrated his 90th birthday has spoken out in the past. Unfortunately, Mr Mandela is not a well man and has no official standing with the So African government. Mr. Mandela is a stabilizing force in So Africa by his mere presence. The UN should deploy peacekeeping troops to Zimbabwe but they need a resolution!! Such a resolution can only be adopted if the host nation requested it or if there was proof of gross human rights violations, right there are NO human rights violations in Zim!! In this case, the UN will have to ask the Southern African Development Community and the African Union, who each has its own policy around interference. It will not happen as Mbeki heads the Southern African Development Community and past head of the African Union. Does the international community have a responsibility to involve itself in the Zim problem of Mugabe? My opinion is that the intermational community has a moral obligation to step in at this point but the question is how since the UN is totally impotent as an organization to do anything but debate. Will the UK have the moral courage to invade? Zim is a former british colony and benefitted from the imperialism. The US will not invade as we have our own agenda for human rights violations and it must involved strategic interests such as oil as in the case of Iraq. We talk the talk of democracy but we only walk the walk for own strategic interests. Face it, Zim is a country with resources such as minerals but no oil and full of poor blacks. Will the UK make the tough decision and stop the suffering of million people?? (06/24/08)


Ken Berwitz

Charles Black, a senior advisor to John McCain, was interviewed by Fortune Magazine.  During the interview he pointed out that Mr. McCain is far more capable than Barack Obama on national security.  But he worded his comments in a way that could be projected to mean the McCain people were rooting for such an event during the campaign because of the boost it would give them among voters.

Let me be clear here.  Mr. Black did not say any such thing.  But his wording could be projected into it - which, you have to know, the Obama people were immediately going to do - in fact they've already done so.

But, frankly, John McCain's reaction to the Black comment was even worse.  Hard to believe, but true.

Here, from Fortune Magazine is what Mr. Black said.  Below it is how Mr. McCain reacted:

Charles Black:  On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.

John McCain:   "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true. I've worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear.  I cannot imagine it, and so, if he said that and I don't know the context I strenuously disagree."


Why is Mr. McCain's reaction worse than what Mr. Black said?

Because Mr. Black's point, however poorly he worded it, was exactly right.  John McCain is dramatically more capable than the utterly experience-less Barack Obama to handle a terrorist attack or any other national security issue.

But by saying "It's not true" and "I strenuously disagree", Mr. McCain is telling the world that that there is a parity between he and Mr. Obama in these situations.  He is literally giving away one of the biggest advantages he has over Barack Obama

Why did he do this?  Did he misunderstand the question?  If so, he damn well better say so and quick.  Because while it will make him look confused, which also plays into the Obama people's hands, suggesting that Barack Obama is as capable as he is on national security is even worse.

That is the terrible choice John McCain has created for himself.  What a blunder.


Ken Berwitz

If Barack Obama got hold of a magic lantern, rubbed it, and a genie appeared offering him one wish to make his campaign easier, he would do well to ask that Steve Gilbert, who runs www.sweetness-light.com, be taken from his computer and put in the cave next door to osama bin laden until after election day.

Gilbert has a nasty little habit of exposing the Obama campaign's fraudulent claims, one after the next -- in spite of copious help for Mr. Obama from our wonderful, "unbiased" media.

Here are two blogs on the sweetness-light web site today.  Read them and see what I mean:

AP Keeps Pushing Racist Campaign Angle

June 23rd, 2008

From the Democrat Party owned and operated propaganda organ, the Associated Press:

Obama braces for race-based ads

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Mon Jun 23

WASHINGTON - A presidential candidate whos named Hussein and wears a turban? A building thats called the White House but run by a black guy?

Those political images and ideas already have found their way onto TV airwaves and campaign buttons, possible harbingers of racially tinged messages in a general election involving the first black candidate to head a major partys ticket

The Obama campaign vows to fight back fiercely and fast, not repeating John Kerrys mistake of waiting to respond to the 2004 "Swift Boat" ads that Democrats saw as a smear of his military record

Obama adviser David Axelrod said the Democrats campaign will be on high alert for code words or innuendo meant to play on voters racial sentiments. "Were going to be aggressive about pushing back on anything that we feel is inappropriate or misleading," he said.

Its not enough for McCain to say he cannot control independent groups airing racially charged ads on his behalf, Axelrod said, noting that the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" was independent of President Bushs campaign.

"Weve seen this movie before," he said. "And were not going to be passive in the face of those kinds of tactics."

Racially charged criticism of Obama already has surfaced in several states.

Shortly before North Carolinas May 6 primary, the state Republican Party aired a TV ad linking Democratic candidates to Obama, who was described as "too extreme" because of his ties to the retired Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr

In South Dakota, a TV station briefly aired an ad that was edited to show Obama saying, "we are no longer a Christian nation, we are also a Muslim nation." It omitted his saying, in the same speech, that the United States is not solely a Christian nation.

The ad, which included a photo of Obama wearing a turban as part of a traditional outfit given to him in Africa, concluded with a man saying: "Its time for people of faith to stand against Barack Hussein Obama." A group called the Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric paid for the ad, which stations quickly dropped after the Obama campaign complained

By the way, what part of this is not true?

A presidential candidate whos named Hussein and wears a turban? A building thats called the White House but run by a black guy?

Those political images and ideas already have found their way onto TV airwaves and campaign buttons, possible harbingers of racially tinged messages in a general election involving the first black candidate to head a major partys ticket.

Is not Mr. Obamas middle name Hussein? Was it not the Associated Press itself that photographed (though hid) Mr. Obama in a turban? A detail first uncovered by S&L.

Racially charged criticism of Obama already has surfaced in several states.

This is simply a lie from the Associated Press, albeit probably written for them by Obamas handler George Axelrod.

Neither ad they cite was racist.

For how is it "racist "to point out that Mr. Obamas "spiritual mentor" hates this country? How is it "racist" to show Mr. Obama in an outfit he chose to don and to quote his own words?

This is just an attempt on the part of the AP to create a "record" of racism where none exists. Just like they have relentlessly lied about what the Switboat Veterans did to John Kerry. (Also known as telling the truth.)

It should be obvious to all by now that the Associated Press are simply shameless shills for the Democrat Party and whatever candidate they are promoting at the moment.

The APs "journalists" happily prostitute themselves and eagerly rewrite even the most recent history to please their masters at the DNC.

This article, along with the rest of the Greek chorus of "racism" articles over the last few days make it abundantly clear that the AP and the rest of our establishment media are in total lockstep with their DNC overlords.

And why not? They clearly take their marching orders from them.

It is also now beyond question that the earlier red herrings (the "whitey "tape, etc.) which originated with Democrats like Larry Johnson, and the "Fight The Smears" website and now this plethora of "racism" stories from our watchdog media are all part of a carefully coordinated campaign to inoculate Mr. Obama from any and all criticism.

Thats our watchdog media at work.


Obama Also Lied About McCain Lobbyist $

June 23rd, 2008

From Mr. Obamas courageous announcement wherein he became the first candidate to reject public financing for the general election since its inception:

I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents whove become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCains campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And weve already seen that hes not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

As we have previously noted, the claim that Mr. McCain is backed by 527 groups who will spend millions is completely and utterly false.

There are no such groups and none likely to arise.

(Of course that is not the case for Mr. Obama, who enjoys the largess from literally scores of 527s bankrolled by George Soros and other America-hating fatcats and the numerous special interest PACs.)

But the earlier part of Mr. Obamas claims is surprise, surprise also a flat out lie.

From the Annenberg Foundations FactCheck.org:

Obamas Lame Claim About McCains Money

June 20, 2008

To say that either the McCain campaign or the RNC are "fueled" by money from lobbyists and PACs is an overstatement, to say the least. Such funds make up less than 1.7 percent of McCains presidential campaign receipts and 1.1 percent of the RNCs income.

McCain As of the end of April, the McCain campaign had reported receiving $655,576 from lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That is less than seven-tenths of 1 percent of his total receipts of $96,654,783. His campaign also took in $960,990 from PACs, amounting to just under 1 percent of total receipts. The two sources combined make up less than 1.7 percent of his total.

RNC The Republican National Committee has raised $143,298,225, of which only $135,000 has been come from lobbyists, according to the CRP. Thats less than one-tenth of 1 percent. It also took in about 1 percent of its receipts from PACs, CRP said. Taken together, thats about 1.1 percent from PACs and lobbyists.

But will anyone in our watchdog media question the great man about his mendacity?

Of course not. That is not their job.

Their job is to get him elected.

This is a long campaign.  And there are so many lies being pumped out by the Obama people that, at some point, even the media won't be able to help.

Maybe they better find that genie quick.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, 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!!