Thursday, July 05, 2007
Zinn
AND THE ART OF NEWS CYCLE MAINTENANCE
Howard Zinn's love is just too big for America this 4th of July.
"...pacifists like Zinn, Noam Chomsky or Cindy Sheehan make conservatives angry, they make mainstream liberals nervous. The problem is that the hard left follows liberalism’s premises to their logical conclusions. The soft left doesn’t, but only because it knows that proclaiming these conclusions would be, politically, self-annihilating. Liberals cannot explain what principled differences separate their position from Howard Zinn’s. And because they cannot explain that difference, they can only hope to stand far enough away from Zinn so that no one notices the resemblance."--William Voegiel
UPDATE: A Ted R. of New York e-mails this:
"Let me say at once that I am no advocate of a foolish cosmopolitanism. I believe that a man must be a good patriot before he can be, and as the only possible way of being, a good citizen of the world. Experience teaches us that the average man who protests that his international feeling swamps his national feeling, that he does not care for his country because he cares so much for mankind, in actual practice proves himself the foe of mankind; that the man who says that he does not care to be a citizen of any one country, because he is the citizen of the world, is in fact usually and exceedingly undesirable citizen of whatever corner of the world he happens at the moment to be in. In the dim future all moral needs and moral standards may change; but at present, if a man can view his own country and all others countries from the same level with tepid indifference, it is wise to distrust him, just as it is wise to distrust the man who can take the same dispassionate view of his wife and mother. However broad and deep a man's sympathies, however intense his activities, he need have no fear that they will be cramped by love of his native land."
Howard Zinn's love is just too big for America this 4th of July.
"...pacifists like Zinn, Noam Chomsky or Cindy Sheehan make conservatives angry, they make mainstream liberals nervous. The problem is that the hard left follows liberalism’s premises to their logical conclusions. The soft left doesn’t, but only because it knows that proclaiming these conclusions would be, politically, self-annihilating. Liberals cannot explain what principled differences separate their position from Howard Zinn’s. And because they cannot explain that difference, they can only hope to stand far enough away from Zinn so that no one notices the resemblance."--William Voegiel
UPDATE: A Ted R. of New York e-mails this:
"Let me say at once that I am no advocate of a foolish cosmopolitanism. I believe that a man must be a good patriot before he can be, and as the only possible way of being, a good citizen of the world. Experience teaches us that the average man who protests that his international feeling swamps his national feeling, that he does not care for his country because he cares so much for mankind, in actual practice proves himself the foe of mankind; that the man who says that he does not care to be a citizen of any one country, because he is the citizen of the world, is in fact usually and exceedingly undesirable citizen of whatever corner of the world he happens at the moment to be in. In the dim future all moral needs and moral standards may change; but at present, if a man can view his own country and all others countries from the same level with tepid indifference, it is wise to distrust him, just as it is wise to distrust the man who can take the same dispassionate view of his wife and mother. However broad and deep a man's sympathies, however intense his activities, he need have no fear that they will be cramped by love of his native land."
You May Be A Progressive If...
...you claim that you've moved beyond patriotism, that you love the whole wide world...yet your ex hates you, your kids hate you and you still haven't moved to France like you promised.
...you think local zoning commissions and skool boards should pass resolutions on Iraq... and federal officials in Washington should determine local fence-height regulations and which textbooks your school uses.
...you think Tookie Williams was a political prisoner ...but Scooter Llibby wasn't.
...you think Cindy Sheehan has all moral authority...but Spec. Casey Sheehan, who volunteered for duty three times, has none.
...You think Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have a sure-fire Mid-East Peace Plan...but God doesn't.
...you think fire can't destroy steel...but you can create world peace by visualization.
...you think Nike can't make a pair of shoes humanely...but Chinese factories will safely produce mercury light bulbs 'cos it's, you know, "For the Earth" and all.
...you think that whether the Palestinian Crips or the Palestinian Bloods win the Defenestration League Championship, the Palestinians will retain their moral authority...but America only has moral authority when the Clintons are in the White House.
...you support the troops...by claiming their actions and indeed, their very presence have cost us all our moral authority.
...like Michael Moore, you think that terrorists in Guantanamo are being treated like animals...while demanding that you get the same medical care they recieve.
...you think that we should accept the dubious "consensus" of Global Warming scientists...yet you reject the solid consensus of astronomers who have upgraded the status of Michael Moore's posterior from "dwarf moons" to "planet".
...you think that the lack of freedom to dissent causes young men to turn to terrorism...but you oppose George Bush's effort to spread freedom. If a a Bush official should disagree with your position, then he's "quashing your dissent". And yet you don't become a terrorist.
...you think that anything which offends women or minorities is hate speech which must be banned and prosecuted...and anything that offends majorities must be art and should be celebrated and publicly-funded.
...you heard about Al Gore III going 100 mph on 5 different drugs and you were deeply concerned...about the fuel inefficiency.
...you say you want to ban Fred Thompson in 'The Hunt for Red October' out of concern for the Fairness Doctrine...but it's really because you didn't like the ending.
...you think giving amnesty to thousands of foreign gang-members is reasonable...but giving amnesty to Scooter Libby isn't.
And finally, you may be a Progressive if...
...you think SiCKO is about Castro's health care system...and not about Castro
...you think local zoning commissions and skool boards should pass resolutions on Iraq... and federal officials in Washington should determine local fence-height regulations and which textbooks your school uses.
...you think Tookie Williams was a political prisoner ...but Scooter Llibby wasn't.
...you think Cindy Sheehan has all moral authority...but Spec. Casey Sheehan, who volunteered for duty three times, has none.
...You think Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have a sure-fire Mid-East Peace Plan...but God doesn't.
...you think fire can't destroy steel...but you can create world peace by visualization.
...you think Nike can't make a pair of shoes humanely...but Chinese factories will safely produce mercury light bulbs 'cos it's, you know, "For the Earth" and all.
...you think that whether the Palestinian Crips or the Palestinian Bloods win the Defenestration League Championship, the Palestinians will retain their moral authority...but America only has moral authority when the Clintons are in the White House.
...you support the troops...by claiming their actions and indeed, their very presence have cost us all our moral authority.
...like Michael Moore, you think that terrorists in Guantanamo are being treated like animals...while demanding that you get the same medical care they recieve.
...you think that we should accept the dubious "consensus" of Global Warming scientists...yet you reject the solid consensus of astronomers who have upgraded the status of Michael Moore's posterior from "dwarf moons" to "planet".
...you think that the lack of freedom to dissent causes young men to turn to terrorism...but you oppose George Bush's effort to spread freedom. If a a Bush official should disagree with your position, then he's "quashing your dissent". And yet you don't become a terrorist.
...you think that anything which offends women or minorities is hate speech which must be banned and prosecuted...and anything that offends majorities must be art and should be celebrated and publicly-funded.
...you heard about Al Gore III going 100 mph on 5 different drugs and you were deeply concerned...about the fuel inefficiency.
...you say you want to ban Fred Thompson in 'The Hunt for Red October' out of concern for the Fairness Doctrine...but it's really because you didn't like the ending.
...you think giving amnesty to thousands of foreign gang-members is reasonable...but giving amnesty to Scooter Libby isn't.
And finally, you may be a Progressive if...
...you think SiCKO is about Castro's health care system...and not about Castro
The FALN, Billy Dale, Bill and Hillary Grifton...
AND YOU.
The first thing that jumps out after reading Mike's post on Bill Clinton is...what the hell happened to grown-ups?
For you kids who weren't there, once upon a time in this country, former presidents didn't constantly and publicly criticize their successors. Oh, you might get an occasional barb at a convention or something, but you never had the kind of nonstop public second-guessing you see today from Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Even former Vice-President Walter Mondale is taking shots at Cheney. Walter Mondale--the guy who showed up at Jimmy Carter's year-late hostage-rescue meeting with Delta Force, wearing tennis shoes and playing with a pair of handcuffs throughout!
Talk about your 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'!
No, you just didn't see Truman bashing Eisenhower or Johnson bashing Nixon, or Nixon and Ford shivving Carter, or Reagan and Bush1 dumping on Clinton. It just wasn't done. For one thing, those men realized that they had their chance and now it was someone else's turn. The country would somehow struggle by without their withering critiques--indeed the country would be better off without it. It would have been seen as juvenile, selfish, immature, classless, unstatesman-like and generally bad form.
Yet today, it passes unremarked. Jimmy Carter seems never to have recovered from being fired. Yes, it must have been humiliating--but look at George H. W. Bush; he's managed to comport himself with dignity and class, yet Jimmeh still suffers from post-presidential priapism, the heartache and frustration of POTUS Interruptus.
Bill Clinton is a different matter. For Bubba Narcissus the First, it's simply All About Him and always has been. For him to charge anyone else with considering themselves above the law is mind-boggling in it's brazeness. Yet given the potpourri of pathological pottage that is Bill Clinton, he probably believes it himself. It's not hypocrisy, it's not even projection--it's sociopathic.
With John Conyers, however it is pure hypocrisy and political opportunism. Conyers full-throatedly supported the Clinton pardons of the FALN terrorists and a president's--any president's--unqualified and unquestionable right to grant them. Now Conyers will conduct hearings into Bush's suddenly qualified and questionable authority.
But let's get to the heart of the matter.
With the possible exception of an unrequited Rita Moreno fantasy, Bill Clinton didn't give a rat's ass about any Puerto Ricans. Although as a rule Democrats have a man-crush on incarcerated terrorists, this wasn't about that. If it was, then David Geffen would have gotten the pardon he purchased for the American Indian Movement's cop-killer Leonard Peltier. Geffen learned the hard way that the Clintons fail the test of a good politician; once they were bought, they didn't stay bought.
Peltier's problem was this; he was all downside for Hillary. You see, New York doesn't have very many American Indian voters. But it has lots of Puerto Rican voters. And those voters were vital to Hillary's election to the Senate. And her election to the Senate was vital to her plans to become president, an ambition nursed since she first tasted power by being elected Junior Hall Monitor of the Week at Oak Park Elementary in 1959.
And that's why Peltier rots in jail while 16 Puerto Rican murderers walk--one was politically helpful to the Clintons while the other was not. Regardless of whose signature appeared on them, Hillary issued those pardons, so that the future presidency of Hillary Clinton, by Hillary Clinton and for Hillary Clinton might not perish from the earth.
Now let's look at the seemingly unrelated case of Billy Dale.
Mr. Dale was in charge of the White House Travel Office and by all accounts did a fine and nonpartisan job--all accounts, that is, until Hillary wanted to give his job to one of her Hollywood pals. When the charge of cronyism was made, rather than weather the charge and look bad for a minute or two, Hillary decided to sic the entire apparatus of the Feddle Gumment on Billy Dale. If Billy Dale could be made into a criminal, then his firing would be not just okay, but a good thing.
So the appropriate charges were manufactured, then investigated and prosecuted. A jury took only minutes to acquit Mr. Dale, but the point is, Hillary Clinton was perfectly willing to make an innocent man rot in jail rather than take a pr hit. And she was perfectly willing to abuse government power to do it.
Whether sending an innocent man to prison or releasing the guilty for personal benefit, the common denominator is the Clintons' abuse of power, or as Bill put it; " You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”
Whether it was Al Gore using the Naturalization Office as a voter mill, or Sandy Berger trying to deceive the 9/11 Commission, or auditing politcal opponents or swapping pardons for ballots or prosecuting innocent people, The Clintons used every office, policy and program of government for their own personal advantage.
And this is who Democrats want to reinstall in the White House?
That IS the Cult of Personality of which the Left is always accusing us of bestowing on George Bush.
I would oppose the Clintons on policy grounds even if they were honest, principled and honorable. But they aren't. This family of jack-leg reprobate grifters belong nowhere near the levers of power for that reason alone. By the way, in Hillary's World, YOU are Billy Dale--a mere flea to be stepped on if need be.
Sadly, the press corps are so far up the Clintons' posteriors that when the light is just right, you can make out Keith Olbermann's profile in Hillary's Adam's Apple.
But on the bright side, Fred Dalton Thompson is tied with Hillary in the polls...and he hasn't even announced, while she's been running since, oh, the Eisenhower Administration. And Fred has already taken out one crooked, pardon-selling, Southern Democrat governor's regime.
He did it once and he can do it again.
The first thing that jumps out after reading Mike's post on Bill Clinton is...what the hell happened to grown-ups?
For you kids who weren't there, once upon a time in this country, former presidents didn't constantly and publicly criticize their successors. Oh, you might get an occasional barb at a convention or something, but you never had the kind of nonstop public second-guessing you see today from Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Even former Vice-President Walter Mondale is taking shots at Cheney. Walter Mondale--the guy who showed up at Jimmy Carter's year-late hostage-rescue meeting with Delta Force, wearing tennis shoes and playing with a pair of handcuffs throughout!
Talk about your 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'!
No, you just didn't see Truman bashing Eisenhower or Johnson bashing Nixon, or Nixon and Ford shivving Carter, or Reagan and Bush1 dumping on Clinton. It just wasn't done. For one thing, those men realized that they had their chance and now it was someone else's turn. The country would somehow struggle by without their withering critiques--indeed the country would be better off without it. It would have been seen as juvenile, selfish, immature, classless, unstatesman-like and generally bad form.
Yet today, it passes unremarked. Jimmy Carter seems never to have recovered from being fired. Yes, it must have been humiliating--but look at George H. W. Bush; he's managed to comport himself with dignity and class, yet Jimmeh still suffers from post-presidential priapism, the heartache and frustration of POTUS Interruptus.
Bill Clinton is a different matter. For Bubba Narcissus the First, it's simply All About Him and always has been. For him to charge anyone else with considering themselves above the law is mind-boggling in it's brazeness. Yet given the potpourri of pathological pottage that is Bill Clinton, he probably believes it himself. It's not hypocrisy, it's not even projection--it's sociopathic.
With John Conyers, however it is pure hypocrisy and political opportunism. Conyers full-throatedly supported the Clinton pardons of the FALN terrorists and a president's--any president's--unqualified and unquestionable right to grant them. Now Conyers will conduct hearings into Bush's suddenly qualified and questionable authority.
But let's get to the heart of the matter.
With the possible exception of an unrequited Rita Moreno fantasy, Bill Clinton didn't give a rat's ass about any Puerto Ricans. Although as a rule Democrats have a man-crush on incarcerated terrorists, this wasn't about that. If it was, then David Geffen would have gotten the pardon he purchased for the American Indian Movement's cop-killer Leonard Peltier. Geffen learned the hard way that the Clintons fail the test of a good politician; once they were bought, they didn't stay bought.
Peltier's problem was this; he was all downside for Hillary. You see, New York doesn't have very many American Indian voters. But it has lots of Puerto Rican voters. And those voters were vital to Hillary's election to the Senate. And her election to the Senate was vital to her plans to become president, an ambition nursed since she first tasted power by being elected Junior Hall Monitor of the Week at Oak Park Elementary in 1959.
And that's why Peltier rots in jail while 16 Puerto Rican murderers walk--one was politically helpful to the Clintons while the other was not. Regardless of whose signature appeared on them, Hillary issued those pardons, so that the future presidency of Hillary Clinton, by Hillary Clinton and for Hillary Clinton might not perish from the earth.
Now let's look at the seemingly unrelated case of Billy Dale.
Mr. Dale was in charge of the White House Travel Office and by all accounts did a fine and nonpartisan job--all accounts, that is, until Hillary wanted to give his job to one of her Hollywood pals. When the charge of cronyism was made, rather than weather the charge and look bad for a minute or two, Hillary decided to sic the entire apparatus of the Feddle Gumment on Billy Dale. If Billy Dale could be made into a criminal, then his firing would be not just okay, but a good thing.
So the appropriate charges were manufactured, then investigated and prosecuted. A jury took only minutes to acquit Mr. Dale, but the point is, Hillary Clinton was perfectly willing to make an innocent man rot in jail rather than take a pr hit. And she was perfectly willing to abuse government power to do it.
Whether sending an innocent man to prison or releasing the guilty for personal benefit, the common denominator is the Clintons' abuse of power, or as Bill put it; " You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”
Whether it was Al Gore using the Naturalization Office as a voter mill, or Sandy Berger trying to deceive the 9/11 Commission, or auditing politcal opponents or swapping pardons for ballots or prosecuting innocent people, The Clintons used every office, policy and program of government for their own personal advantage.
And this is who Democrats want to reinstall in the White House?
That IS the Cult of Personality of which the Left is always accusing us of bestowing on George Bush.
I would oppose the Clintons on policy grounds even if they were honest, principled and honorable. But they aren't. This family of jack-leg reprobate grifters belong nowhere near the levers of power for that reason alone. By the way, in Hillary's World, YOU are Billy Dale--a mere flea to be stepped on if need be.
Sadly, the press corps are so far up the Clintons' posteriors that when the light is just right, you can make out Keith Olbermann's profile in Hillary's Adam's Apple.
But on the bright side, Fred Dalton Thompson is tied with Hillary in the polls...and he hasn't even announced, while she's been running since, oh, the Eisenhower Administration. And Fred has already taken out one crooked, pardon-selling, Southern Democrat governor's regime.
He did it once and he can do it again.
Doctor, Doctor
GIMME THE NOOSE
“Realize that the doctor’s fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can’t socialize the doctors without socializing the patients.”–Ronald Reagan, 1964
Dr. Steyn diagnoses something very important here:
“…I think socialized health care is the single biggest factor in transforming the relationship of the individual to the state. In fact, once it’s introduced it becomes very hard to have genuinely conservative government - certainly, not genuinely small government. I think I say in my book that in Continental cabinets (and in Canada) the Defense ministry is somewhere you pass through en route to a really important portfolio like Health. Election campaigns become devoted to competing pledges about “fixing” health care, even though by definition it never can be.
In a public health care system, the doctors, nurses, janitors and administrators all need to be paid every Friday so the only point at which costs can be controlled is through the patient, by restricting access. If you go to an American doctor with a monstrous lump on your shoulder, it’s in his economic interest to find out what it is and get it whipped off as soon as possible. If you go to a British or Canadian doctor, it’s in the system’s economic interest to postpone it as long as possible. And because the public will only sit around on waiting lists for two or three years, eventually in order to control costs you have to claw it out of other budgets - like Defense. Socialized health care is the biggest cause not just of the infantilization of the citizenry but of the state.
On the former point, the unloveliness of any British city after six in the evening - the dolly birds staggering around paralytic, the pools of “pavement pizza”, the baying yobboes gagging for a shag and hurling bollards through the bus shelters to impress the crumpet - is a natural consequence of what happens when the state relieves the citizen of primal responsibilities.”
Who wants their medical care dependent on whether or not HILLARY’08! is in a good mood today? (Hint: She’s not.) Do we treat your phlebitis or fill your potholes? Choose one. Shall we mimic Canada’s 10-month waiting period for 9-month pregnancies? And if the State pays, do they get to put a security camera on your refrigerator to make sure you don’t eat too much. Or smoke. Or drink. Or drive too fast. Or sleep around. Or engage in extreme sports. Or stay up late blogging. Especially blogging. Or…
But the larger point is this:
When a populace is told that there is no transcendent moral order, that their heritage is not a source of pride but only a well of guilt, that there are little or no consequences for bad behavior nor rewards for good behavior, that they are responsible for nothing and entitled to everything, then that society has entered a vicious circle of degradation, a cultural death spiral.
Is England there? I don’t know. But I do know that for a thousand years, Englishmen trusted each other to bear weapons. No longer. Once a populace has been infantilized, there are not enough security cameras in the world to provide the restraint that should come from within. And once a government itself has been infantilized, how will it fare in a world of ravenous adult regimes?
Chesterton said it well: “When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.”
And the Leviathan Ninny Nanny State.
“Realize that the doctor’s fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can’t socialize the doctors without socializing the patients.”–Ronald Reagan, 1964
Dr. Steyn diagnoses something very important here:
“…I think socialized health care is the single biggest factor in transforming the relationship of the individual to the state. In fact, once it’s introduced it becomes very hard to have genuinely conservative government - certainly, not genuinely small government. I think I say in my book that in Continental cabinets (and in Canada) the Defense ministry is somewhere you pass through en route to a really important portfolio like Health. Election campaigns become devoted to competing pledges about “fixing” health care, even though by definition it never can be.
In a public health care system, the doctors, nurses, janitors and administrators all need to be paid every Friday so the only point at which costs can be controlled is through the patient, by restricting access. If you go to an American doctor with a monstrous lump on your shoulder, it’s in his economic interest to find out what it is and get it whipped off as soon as possible. If you go to a British or Canadian doctor, it’s in the system’s economic interest to postpone it as long as possible. And because the public will only sit around on waiting lists for two or three years, eventually in order to control costs you have to claw it out of other budgets - like Defense. Socialized health care is the biggest cause not just of the infantilization of the citizenry but of the state.
On the former point, the unloveliness of any British city after six in the evening - the dolly birds staggering around paralytic, the pools of “pavement pizza”, the baying yobboes gagging for a shag and hurling bollards through the bus shelters to impress the crumpet - is a natural consequence of what happens when the state relieves the citizen of primal responsibilities.”
Who wants their medical care dependent on whether or not HILLARY’08! is in a good mood today? (Hint: She’s not.) Do we treat your phlebitis or fill your potholes? Choose one. Shall we mimic Canada’s 10-month waiting period for 9-month pregnancies? And if the State pays, do they get to put a security camera on your refrigerator to make sure you don’t eat too much. Or smoke. Or drink. Or drive too fast. Or sleep around. Or engage in extreme sports. Or stay up late blogging. Especially blogging. Or…
But the larger point is this:
When a populace is told that there is no transcendent moral order, that their heritage is not a source of pride but only a well of guilt, that there are little or no consequences for bad behavior nor rewards for good behavior, that they are responsible for nothing and entitled to everything, then that society has entered a vicious circle of degradation, a cultural death spiral.
Is England there? I don’t know. But I do know that for a thousand years, Englishmen trusted each other to bear weapons. No longer. Once a populace has been infantilized, there are not enough security cameras in the world to provide the restraint that should come from within. And once a government itself has been infantilized, how will it fare in a world of ravenous adult regimes?
Chesterton said it well: “When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.”
And the Leviathan Ninny Nanny State.
She's Selling Pardons
FROM THE BACK DOOR IN THE ROSE GARDEN
Hillary on the Libby Commutation:
“Nonviolent offenders shouldn’t be serving hard time in our prisons!”
Oops–wrong quote!
Ahh–here we go:
“Today’s decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration’s politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House’s efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”
“Cronyism”? “Justice”? "above the law"?
Ya’ know, I wasn’t going to bring this up…but it’s bad enough that her husband sold the Riches a pardon for a $400,000 bribe contribution to the Clinton Library. It’s even worse that Hillary allowed both her brothers a cut of the pardon action, even though both have had trouble keeping their ill-gotten gains:
The Washington Times:
“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother Anthony D. Rodham has been barred from accessing his bank account while a bankruptcy trustee demands that he repay more than $100,000 in loans from a carnival company whose founder was pardoned by President Clinton, filings in federal bankruptcy court in Alexandria show.
[Tony] Rodham, one of Mrs. Clinton’s two brothers, received $107,000 in loans from United Shows of America Inc. after its owners obtained the presidential pardon over the objections of the Justice Department. […]
Hugh Rodham, 56, also came under scrutiny for his role in Mr. Clinton’s pardons. A lawyer, he returned about $400,000 he received for lobbying for a presidential pardon and prison commutation for two clients. […]
United Shows’ owners — Edgar Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo Gregory — won a pardon from Mr. Clinton in March 2000. They were convicted of bank fraud in 1982 for illegally giving loans to friends.”
So a family of carnival grifters in jail for writing illegal checks buys a pardon from another family of carnival grifters…and pays for it with more illegal checks!
Layers of irony. LAYERS. Also of ponys.
An ethically-challenged, morally-retarded gnat could grasp why it’s wrong for in-laws to represent pardon-seekers before a pardon-granting brother-in-law. But this fine ethical point was evidently beyond the comprehension of the Clinton-Rodham Crime Family.
But even worse were the pardons granted at Hillary’s behest. For those pardons were not just sold, but traded for votes as well, corrupting both the electoral process and the criminal justice system.
In one case, Hillary had a crooked rabbi pardoned for the votes of his community, which were dutifully delivered on election day as promised. But at least the rabbi had asked for a pardon. In the case of the Puerto Rican bombers, they hadn’t even asked for pardons. They were in fact unrepentant and began setting terms and conditions on which they would accept pardons.
And why not? After all, the pardons weren’t for them–they were for Hillary, to acquire Puerto Rican votes in her Senate campaign. How would you feel if your loved one was killed by these bombers and they were being freed solely to advance a politician’s career?
The pardon power is a last resort for the prisoner, a chance to temper justice with mercy. Under the Clintons, that power was stood upon its head. Instead of a last resort for the weak, it became the first resort for the powerful to become even more rich and powerful, and a tool not for mercy to the prisoner, but for the selfish and self-serving ambitions of a politician; to wit, one Hillary Clinton.
Like I said, I didn’t really want to bring this up–it’s not my job. If we had a real press corps in this country, they’d grill her about it. But we don’t; we’ve got a bunch of sychophants and toe-sucking lackeys who would gladly trim Hillary’s toenails with their teeth and swallow the toe-jam.
So I guess its fallen to me to point out the Empress’ New Clothes.
So if I don’t do it perfectly, well, what can I say…
…pardon me?
Hillary on the Libby Commutation:
“Nonviolent offenders shouldn’t be serving hard time in our prisons!”
Oops–wrong quote!
Ahh–here we go:
“Today’s decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration’s politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House’s efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”
“Cronyism”? “Justice”? "above the law"?
Ya’ know, I wasn’t going to bring this up…but it’s bad enough that her husband sold the Riches a pardon for a $400,000 bribe contribution to the Clinton Library. It’s even worse that Hillary allowed both her brothers a cut of the pardon action, even though both have had trouble keeping their ill-gotten gains:
The Washington Times:
“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother Anthony D. Rodham has been barred from accessing his bank account while a bankruptcy trustee demands that he repay more than $100,000 in loans from a carnival company whose founder was pardoned by President Clinton, filings in federal bankruptcy court in Alexandria show.
[Tony] Rodham, one of Mrs. Clinton’s two brothers, received $107,000 in loans from United Shows of America Inc. after its owners obtained the presidential pardon over the objections of the Justice Department. […]
Hugh Rodham, 56, also came under scrutiny for his role in Mr. Clinton’s pardons. A lawyer, he returned about $400,000 he received for lobbying for a presidential pardon and prison commutation for two clients. […]
United Shows’ owners — Edgar Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo Gregory — won a pardon from Mr. Clinton in March 2000. They were convicted of bank fraud in 1982 for illegally giving loans to friends.”
So a family of carnival grifters in jail for writing illegal checks buys a pardon from another family of carnival grifters…and pays for it with more illegal checks!
Layers of irony. LAYERS. Also of ponys.
An ethically-challenged, morally-retarded gnat could grasp why it’s wrong for in-laws to represent pardon-seekers before a pardon-granting brother-in-law. But this fine ethical point was evidently beyond the comprehension of the Clinton-Rodham Crime Family.
But even worse were the pardons granted at Hillary’s behest. For those pardons were not just sold, but traded for votes as well, corrupting both the electoral process and the criminal justice system.
In one case, Hillary had a crooked rabbi pardoned for the votes of his community, which were dutifully delivered on election day as promised. But at least the rabbi had asked for a pardon. In the case of the Puerto Rican bombers, they hadn’t even asked for pardons. They were in fact unrepentant and began setting terms and conditions on which they would accept pardons.
And why not? After all, the pardons weren’t for them–they were for Hillary, to acquire Puerto Rican votes in her Senate campaign. How would you feel if your loved one was killed by these bombers and they were being freed solely to advance a politician’s career?
The pardon power is a last resort for the prisoner, a chance to temper justice with mercy. Under the Clintons, that power was stood upon its head. Instead of a last resort for the weak, it became the first resort for the powerful to become even more rich and powerful, and a tool not for mercy to the prisoner, but for the selfish and self-serving ambitions of a politician; to wit, one Hillary Clinton.
Like I said, I didn’t really want to bring this up–it’s not my job. If we had a real press corps in this country, they’d grill her about it. But we don’t; we’ve got a bunch of sychophants and toe-sucking lackeys who would gladly trim Hillary’s toenails with their teeth and swallow the toe-jam.
So I guess its fallen to me to point out the Empress’ New Clothes.
So if I don’t do it perfectly, well, what can I say…
…pardon me?
Who's the Fairest of Them All?
A.: RUSH LIMBAUGH, OF COURSE
*Liberals have control not just of the Journalism schools, but of most universities, their presses, stages, newspapers and radio stations.
*Liberals have most of the magazines.
*Liberals have most of the newspapers.
*Liberals have most of the wire services.
*Liberals have most of the network news operations.
*Liberals have most of Hollywood films and TV shows.
*Liberals have most of the music industry.
*Liberals have most of the book publishing industry.
*Liberals have most of the “public broadcasters”; PBS, etc.
*Conservatives have most of the talk radio.
Only a liberal could look at that list and conclude “The problem is obviously…talk radio!”
In other words, if you consider talk radio discretely, then yes, conservatives have the lead (albeit freely given to them by radio consumers).
But one has to ignore a dozen other categories of communications in which the cold, dead Gramscian hand of Liberalism still predominates. It’s (like) the old Commie negotiating posture: “What’s ours is ours; what’s yours is negotiable.”
There’s your “Fairness Doctrine” in a nutshell.
The Bible speaks of the Good Shepard who will leave his flock to find one or two strays and return them to the safety of the fold. That’s how liberals are with talk radio and FOX News–except the liberal shepard is more like an East German border guard, relentlessly chasing down the fugitives Limbaugh and FOX, who have escaped over the Berlin Wall of Media Omerta.
Liberals want them by god captured and returned to their proper owners, the One-Party Media State.
Rush Limbaugh is right: he IS the balance. He IS the Fairness Doctrine. What liberal journalists fail to realize is that they helped to create Rush’s market–and now FOX’s–by their relentless advocacy of the One True Point of View(tm).
The dirty little secret is this: broadcast groups like the evee-ill Clear Channel already carried the orphanage-bilking Air America as a way of staving off further government interference. Liberals are already reaping the rewards of the “Fairness Doctrine” simply by threatening to re-impose it.
Fact is, Clear Channel or any other business would happily carry the now-bankrupt Air America all day long if it could fill up the seats. And why can’t liberal talk succeed? I wish it was just because their ideas were completely unpopular–it’s not.
The problem is market saturation. Liberals already have their own national radio network–it’s called “NPR”. And their views are re-enforced almost every time the news comes on or a new movie comes out or another book is published. They simply don’t need A.M. talk radio the way conservatives do.
Write this down: If the Feddle Gummint could do fairness, then the government-funded PBS and NPR would be the most fair and balanced networks out there. Instead, they’re just two more highly-trained monkeys in House Organ-Grinder Media Circus.
And who will give the official Democratic Response to the Rush Limbaugh program? Al Franken? Al Sharpton? Jim Hightower? Ralph Nader? And what if there are more than two sides to an issue? And who decides?
All the Democrat candidates have refused to appear at a debate if FOX News is there. I’ve teased them about being afraid of Laurie Dhue, but the real reason they’ve done this is in an attempt to pander to their Nut-Roots base who simply can’t stomach the fact that one runaway network has escaped the Liberal Plantation. If FOX is unfit to conduct a debate, then surely they are unfit to have press credentials in any Democrat White House. That is the implication of these Democrat candidates’ position, isn’t it? Democrats: Ban FOX from White House–Fairness Demands It!
Some 30 years ago, Richard Milhous Nixon threatened to yank CBS’ broadcast license. And now, 30 years later, Hillary Milhous Clinton and the Democrats threatened to yank ABC’s broadcast license over a made-for-TV movie that suggested that Bill Clinton golfed while Osama bombed. As in the Berger Affair, they claimed the Divine Right to Edit.
And these are the people who are going to decide what constitutes “fairness”? I think not.
It’s not about fairness. It’s about silencing opposing views. If stations wanted to carry the money-making Limbaugh show, they would also have to carry dead-weight money-losing shows like Al Franken’s. For some stations, that would simply mean a decision to drop Limbaugh’s show and do away with talk entirely. And that’s the whole point of this renewed “Fairness Doctrine” talk–to remove Rush Limbaugh & Co. from the airwaves.
Reporters reportedly contribute 9 to 1 in favor of Democrats. And that’s just cash, not the in-kind contributions we laughingly call “today’s headlines” or “the Evening News”. If we’re going to have “fairness”, then let’s force those reporters to contribute evenly to both parties. And give us control of a few networks, a couple of universities and the New York Times while you’re at it.
Tyranny, you say?
Then why force radio stations to do the same?
Our elites have given porn more protection than political speech–after all, porn isn’t banned 30 days before an election, is it? And we can’t even rouse public officials to prosecute leaks of vital information helpful to our enemies in time of war. Yet we’re going to have a Dept. of Fairness? Blogger, please.
I tell you what; if you want fairness, enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for a change.
Besides, we’ve already got a Fairness Doctrine; around here, we call it “the First Amendment”.
As Rush would say, “Learn it, love it, live it.”
I do.
*Liberals have control not just of the Journalism schools, but of most universities, their presses, stages, newspapers and radio stations.
*Liberals have most of the magazines.
*Liberals have most of the newspapers.
*Liberals have most of the wire services.
*Liberals have most of the network news operations.
*Liberals have most of Hollywood films and TV shows.
*Liberals have most of the music industry.
*Liberals have most of the book publishing industry.
*Liberals have most of the “public broadcasters”; PBS, etc.
*Conservatives have most of the talk radio.
Only a liberal could look at that list and conclude “The problem is obviously…talk radio!”
In other words, if you consider talk radio discretely, then yes, conservatives have the lead (albeit freely given to them by radio consumers).
But one has to ignore a dozen other categories of communications in which the cold, dead Gramscian hand of Liberalism still predominates. It’s (like) the old Commie negotiating posture: “What’s ours is ours; what’s yours is negotiable.”
There’s your “Fairness Doctrine” in a nutshell.
The Bible speaks of the Good Shepard who will leave his flock to find one or two strays and return them to the safety of the fold. That’s how liberals are with talk radio and FOX News–except the liberal shepard is more like an East German border guard, relentlessly chasing down the fugitives Limbaugh and FOX, who have escaped over the Berlin Wall of Media Omerta.
Liberals want them by god captured and returned to their proper owners, the One-Party Media State.
Rush Limbaugh is right: he IS the balance. He IS the Fairness Doctrine. What liberal journalists fail to realize is that they helped to create Rush’s market–and now FOX’s–by their relentless advocacy of the One True Point of View(tm).
The dirty little secret is this: broadcast groups like the evee-ill Clear Channel already carried the orphanage-bilking Air America as a way of staving off further government interference. Liberals are already reaping the rewards of the “Fairness Doctrine” simply by threatening to re-impose it.
Fact is, Clear Channel or any other business would happily carry the now-bankrupt Air America all day long if it could fill up the seats. And why can’t liberal talk succeed? I wish it was just because their ideas were completely unpopular–it’s not.
The problem is market saturation. Liberals already have their own national radio network–it’s called “NPR”. And their views are re-enforced almost every time the news comes on or a new movie comes out or another book is published. They simply don’t need A.M. talk radio the way conservatives do.
Write this down: If the Feddle Gummint could do fairness, then the government-funded PBS and NPR would be the most fair and balanced networks out there. Instead, they’re just two more highly-trained monkeys in House Organ-Grinder Media Circus.
And who will give the official Democratic Response to the Rush Limbaugh program? Al Franken? Al Sharpton? Jim Hightower? Ralph Nader? And what if there are more than two sides to an issue? And who decides?
All the Democrat candidates have refused to appear at a debate if FOX News is there. I’ve teased them about being afraid of Laurie Dhue, but the real reason they’ve done this is in an attempt to pander to their Nut-Roots base who simply can’t stomach the fact that one runaway network has escaped the Liberal Plantation. If FOX is unfit to conduct a debate, then surely they are unfit to have press credentials in any Democrat White House. That is the implication of these Democrat candidates’ position, isn’t it? Democrats: Ban FOX from White House–Fairness Demands It!
Some 30 years ago, Richard Milhous Nixon threatened to yank CBS’ broadcast license. And now, 30 years later, Hillary Milhous Clinton and the Democrats threatened to yank ABC’s broadcast license over a made-for-TV movie that suggested that Bill Clinton golfed while Osama bombed. As in the Berger Affair, they claimed the Divine Right to Edit.
And these are the people who are going to decide what constitutes “fairness”? I think not.
It’s not about fairness. It’s about silencing opposing views. If stations wanted to carry the money-making Limbaugh show, they would also have to carry dead-weight money-losing shows like Al Franken’s. For some stations, that would simply mean a decision to drop Limbaugh’s show and do away with talk entirely. And that’s the whole point of this renewed “Fairness Doctrine” talk–to remove Rush Limbaugh & Co. from the airwaves.
Reporters reportedly contribute 9 to 1 in favor of Democrats. And that’s just cash, not the in-kind contributions we laughingly call “today’s headlines” or “the Evening News”. If we’re going to have “fairness”, then let’s force those reporters to contribute evenly to both parties. And give us control of a few networks, a couple of universities and the New York Times while you’re at it.
Tyranny, you say?
Then why force radio stations to do the same?
Our elites have given porn more protection than political speech–after all, porn isn’t banned 30 days before an election, is it? And we can’t even rouse public officials to prosecute leaks of vital information helpful to our enemies in time of war. Yet we’re going to have a Dept. of Fairness? Blogger, please.
I tell you what; if you want fairness, enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for a change.
Besides, we’ve already got a Fairness Doctrine; around here, we call it “the First Amendment”.
As Rush would say, “Learn it, love it, live it.”
I do.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Free Scooter!
GIVE HIM A MEDAL OF FREEDOM WHILE YOU’RE AT IT.
I Hear George Tenet Has One He Isn’t Really Using.
While rogue intelligence officer Valerie Plame was running her own foreign policy out of her Langley office, Scooter Libby was up in his office working night and day to prevent another terrorist attack on America.
While Plame was busily trying to have her husband installed as the new Secretary of State in a Kerry Administration by covering for Saddam, Scooter Libby was trying to keep me, my family and my neighbors alive.
“Mr. Libby worked himself to exhaustion day after day reviewing national intelligence estimates,” said the White House physician. Meanwhile, Valerie and Joe Plame were testifying falsely before the 9/11 Commission and Congress.
Evidently, there is no “(D.)” in “dperjury”.
Libby didn’t recieve a fair trial–but he did get a fair election. And he lost that election because the voters, i.e., the jury, were all liberal Democrats from D.C..
I’m not saying that Scooter was railroaded--but the Justice Dept. suddenly changed its name to “Union-Pacific”, the judge was wearing a Casey Jones engineer’s cap, the prosecutor was a brakeman, the bailiff was named “John Henry”, the jury consisted of Pullman porters, the witnesses were Chinese coolies and the reporters were all whistling “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad”.
Dianne Sawyer, won’t you blow your horn?
It seems to me that fairness would dictate that Mr. Libby spend the same amount of time in jail as other troubled testifiers, such the Plames, the Clintons or Sandy Berger. That is to say, none.
Berger simply had his National Archive library card temporarily suspended and paid a large overdue book fine. (And if you think Berger acted without orders from above, your faith in the Clinton Crime Family is, well, naive and sweetly touching. p.s: you’re doomed.)
One hopes that the president will pardon Libby. But this is the administration that apologized for the “Sixteen Words”–even though they’re true, as true today as the day the president first uttered them.
And there is some danger; Democrats hope to use any pardon, along with the totally trumped-up US Attorney-firings non-scandal-Scandal, to impeach President Bush.
When Democrats allow themselves to go to their Secret Place–by which I mean their fondest and most secret reveries, not just the Adult Book Store–they hope Bush pardons Libby. Then, ala Watergate, they will get the Attorney General removed, extract a promise of a Special Prosecutor from the new AG nominee and, under the Santa Clause to the Constitution, impeach both Cheney and Bush simultaneously, thus installing Nancy Pelosi as president. ‘Tis the stuff of Common Dreams.
But there is one way to avoid this: we declare Scooter Libby an illegal alien!
Yes, after all, doesn’t compassion demand it? And wasn’t Libby doing the job that a lot of Americans don’t want to do anymore; that is, defending America?
Instead of denying him bail, the judge should treat Scooter like thousands and thousands of his fellow foreign nationals facing deportation and release him on his personal recognizance.
And the president could then grant him amnesty–all the while claiming it wasn’t really amnesty at all!
Do what’s right for America, Mr. President; Amnesty For Scooter Now!
As they say down at the Communist-organized government-by-mob street-riots...I mean, peaceful reform rallies: “Yes–yes, we can.”
I Hear George Tenet Has One He Isn’t Really Using.
While rogue intelligence officer Valerie Plame was running her own foreign policy out of her Langley office, Scooter Libby was up in his office working night and day to prevent another terrorist attack on America.
While Plame was busily trying to have her husband installed as the new Secretary of State in a Kerry Administration by covering for Saddam, Scooter Libby was trying to keep me, my family and my neighbors alive.
“Mr. Libby worked himself to exhaustion day after day reviewing national intelligence estimates,” said the White House physician. Meanwhile, Valerie and Joe Plame were testifying falsely before the 9/11 Commission and Congress.
Evidently, there is no “(D.)” in “dperjury”.
Libby didn’t recieve a fair trial–but he did get a fair election. And he lost that election because the voters, i.e., the jury, were all liberal Democrats from D.C..
I’m not saying that Scooter was railroaded--but the Justice Dept. suddenly changed its name to “Union-Pacific”, the judge was wearing a Casey Jones engineer’s cap, the prosecutor was a brakeman, the bailiff was named “John Henry”, the jury consisted of Pullman porters, the witnesses were Chinese coolies and the reporters were all whistling “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad”.
Dianne Sawyer, won’t you blow your horn?
It seems to me that fairness would dictate that Mr. Libby spend the same amount of time in jail as other troubled testifiers, such the Plames, the Clintons or Sandy Berger. That is to say, none.
Berger simply had his National Archive library card temporarily suspended and paid a large overdue book fine. (And if you think Berger acted without orders from above, your faith in the Clinton Crime Family is, well, naive and sweetly touching. p.s: you’re doomed.)
One hopes that the president will pardon Libby. But this is the administration that apologized for the “Sixteen Words”–even though they’re true, as true today as the day the president first uttered them.
And there is some danger; Democrats hope to use any pardon, along with the totally trumped-up US Attorney-firings non-scandal-Scandal, to impeach President Bush.
When Democrats allow themselves to go to their Secret Place–by which I mean their fondest and most secret reveries, not just the Adult Book Store–they hope Bush pardons Libby. Then, ala Watergate, they will get the Attorney General removed, extract a promise of a Special Prosecutor from the new AG nominee and, under the Santa Clause to the Constitution, impeach both Cheney and Bush simultaneously, thus installing Nancy Pelosi as president. ‘Tis the stuff of Common Dreams.
But there is one way to avoid this: we declare Scooter Libby an illegal alien!
Yes, after all, doesn’t compassion demand it? And wasn’t Libby doing the job that a lot of Americans don’t want to do anymore; that is, defending America?
Instead of denying him bail, the judge should treat Scooter like thousands and thousands of his fellow foreign nationals facing deportation and release him on his personal recognizance.
And the president could then grant him amnesty–all the while claiming it wasn’t really amnesty at all!
Do what’s right for America, Mr. President; Amnesty For Scooter Now!
As they say down at the Communist-organized government-by-mob street-riots...I mean, peaceful reform rallies: “Yes–yes, we can.”
