blog advertising is good for you
HELP YOUR FAVORITE BLOGRESS! BUY YOUR AMAZON STUFF HERE!
« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 »
The World Gone Mad 1933 Pat O'Brien
This fast paced crime drama features Pat O'Brien, true to form as a fast talking, wise cracking newsman. in this fast paced crime drama. The movie is over 70 years old but it's pre-production code. it bounces sharp d ialogue and adult situations that you don't expect of films from that era. Plenty of talent in this film and they almost all measure up to Christy Cabanne's direction.
Foot in Mouth Disease from the Pulpit: Father Michael Pfleger ...
BARACK OBAMA RESIGNS HIS MEMBERSHIP WITH TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN CHICAGO, WHERE JEREMIAH WRIGHT WAS FORMERLY PASTOR AND A CATHOLIC PRIEST MOCKED HILLARY CLINTON (ABC NEWS) hat tip rut
What now? This man will say anything and do anything to be President. Think he'll join a shul?
Nah, me neither. He'd sooner take the gas pipe.
UPDATE: At a press conference Saturday to explain his resignation he called statements by Reverend Moss, current leader of the church, "innocuous."
Obama called all that vile racism and bigotry "Innocuous"?
I love this guy as much now as I did then. Oh, and if I forgot to say thank you -
They are doing a"Hit" on Pastor Hagee. Shame on McCain for caving to a Jew hating, religion hating, Obamad media
Pastor John Hagee’s Writings on Israel(click on links)
UPDATE: Props to Joe Lieberman:
Senator Joe Lieberman says he'll speak at a July conference hosted by Pastor John Hagee, whose endorsement has been rejected by GOP presidential candidate John McCain.
McCain last week repudiated the months-old endorsement after an audio recording surfaced in which Hagee said God used Adolf Hitler to push Jews back to the Promised Land. (read it all)
McCain has got to grow a set. I mean, really.
If this isn't reason enough to cut the head off the Saudi snake. then what? We should have taken out the Saudis after 9/11 along with Mecca and Medina. No matter how you twist the logic, the Saudis are the enemy.This story is a jaw dropper from an al qaeda commander for Europe's new jihadist statelet.
Al Qaeda Commnader: Saudis funded Al-Qaeda mujahideen The Philadelphia Inquirer hat tiip rut
DOBOJ, Bosnia - For years, Saudi Arabia flatly denied it had provided money and logistical support for Islamist militant groups that attacked Western targets.
But that assertion is disputed by a former al-Qaeda commander who testified in a United Nations war-crimes trial that his unit was funded by the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a government charity.
Ali Ahmed Ali Hamad, the former al-Qaeda fighter, gave the same account to The Inquirer in an interview in this struggling city in the central Balkans.
"Because it was the biggest charity, [the commission] helped the mujaheddin the most," Hamad said, adding that it had provided "everything a person needed to exist."
Hamad, 37, is expected to be called as a witness in a lawsuit filed by Cozen O'Connor alleging that Saudi Arabia and affiliated charities financed al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups as they geared up for the 9/11 attacks.
[]As a convicted terrorist, Hamad is an imperfect witness.
During the Balkans war, from 1992 to 1995, jihadists from North Africa and the Middle East were accused of atrocities against indigenous Serbs and Croatians.
This is who Bush is backing in recognizing the illegally declared independent Muslim Republic of Kosovo, a radical Islamic state in th heart of Europe.
Hamad admits having done "bad things" as an al-Qaeda fighter, and he is serving a 10-year sentence in a Bosnian jail for his role in a 1997 Mostar bombing.
"Bad things"
Yet Hamad's account of his time in the Balkans went largely uncontroverted during the U.N. trial, where he was a prosecution witness.
He contends that the Saudi High Commission, an agency of the Saudi government, and other Islamic charities supported al-Qaeda-led units that committed atrocities. Mujaheddin units, he said, recruited fighters, prepared for battle, and financed their operations in the Balkans.
He said the Saudi High Commission had poured tens of millions of dollars into mujaheddin units led by al-Qaeda operatives who fought with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Money intended for humanitarian relief bought weapons and other military supplies.
The charities also provided false identification, employment papers, diplomatic plates and vehicles that permitted Islamic fighters to enter the country and pass easily through military checkpoints, Hamad said.
Several charity offices, including those of the Saudi High Commission, were led by former mujaheddin or al-Qaeda members, at least one of whom trained with Hamad in an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan, he said.
Like other al-Qaeda fighters, Hamad said, he was an employee of the Saudi High Commission for a time and traveled through the war zone in commission vehicles with diplomatic plates.
“If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that,” Imam in Canada.
Further bad news on the article I ran yesterday on the problem of Islamic polygamy and the West's dangerous cowardice in not dealing with it. Our neighbors to the north have got it going on in spades. Seems further along up there and it gives a glimpse into our future (our anti-future - seems more like a leap into seventh century). John Turley-Ewart states the obvious though little acknowledged, "By turning a blind eye to polygamy, Premier McGuinty [indeed all of the West - Atlas] is giving licence to Sharia by stealth."
And listen carefully to the imam .......... he straight up says it. It's Islam first and last. This is best illustrates their objective, their approach using our freedoms to enslave us.
Sharia by stealth — Ontario turns a blind eye to polygamy John Turley-Ewart
It’s an issue the Liberal government of Ontario, led by Premier Dalton McGuinty, doesn’t want to deal with — polygamy in the Muslim community. Last week the Toronto Star told the story of Safa Rigby, a 35-year-old mother of five children who recently learned her husband of 14 years had two other wives. Ms. Rigby’s life is in tatters. She followed her husband’s advice that she leave Toronto and live in Egypt for a year on the grounds that it would be better for their children to spend more time in a Muslim country. Now she knows it was a ruse. He used her time there to marry two other women.
Ms. Rigby does not support polygamy, which has been illegal in Canada for more than a century. But Toronto Imam Aly Hindy, who runs the Toronto Salahuddin Islamic Centre, does. He married Ms. Rigby’s husband knowing he already had a wife and counselled him to keep the marriage secret from Ms. Rigby for as long as possible. Hindy has by his own admission performed 30 ceremonies in which men were married who already had wives. When Ms. Rigby confronted Hindy his response was reportedly cold and unsympathetic: “You will have to stand beside him in these difficult times,” Hindy told her. “You should stop causing problems to (sic) him. You will not get anything by divorce except destroying your life” he went on to say.
For Hindy this is not about Ms. Rigby or her husband’s desire to marry another woman — but making a broader political point.
Hindy is using polygamy as a proxy for his fundamentalist version of Islam, something he wants to see legitimized in Canadian society as a whole. It is part of an attempt at empire building, a bid that if successful will enhance his influence within the Muslim community and demonstrate that Ontario and Canada is too ignorant and too afraid of Islam to uphold its own laws. He has admitted as much, challenging Ontario’s government to dare stop him. “If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that,” he told the Star. Interviewed after the Star story appeared on the John Oakley Show on AM 640Toronto, Hindy was not apologetic and argued that freedom of religion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms trumped prohibitions against polygamous marriages.
When he and another Imam from Toronto, Steve Rockwell, were challenged on the appropriateness of polygamy by a Muslim caller to the Oakley Show, the caller was immediately attacked and his identity as a true Muslim questioned because he did not follow Hindy’s view that polygamy is a foundational pillar of Islam that grows out of Sharia Law. This speaks to a troubling absolutist interpretation of Islamic law, which runs against the reality that Sharia law is much more flexible that Hindy allows for, a fact well documented by Anver Emon, a specialist in Islamic law at the University of Toronto. Moreover, as noted in the Star article on Ms. Rigby, there is grave doubt that the Charter protects Islamic polygamy, as Hindy believes. Nik Bala, who teaches family law at Queen’s University, points out that “Islam permits polygamy, but doesn’t require it to be a practising Muslim.” This is key, and may mean Hindy’s attempt to find shelter behind the Charter will fail. Moreover, the impact polygamy has on women's equality and children could also sway the courts to uphold Canada's ban on polygamy.
[...]
By turning a blind eye to polygamy, Premier McGuinty is giving licence to Sharia by stealth.
In 2005 Ontario’s premier rightly ruled out Sharia family courts, conceding that Muslim women may well fair poorly if such a system was allowed to be established. The same concern exists today, yet Ontario’s Liberals sit on their hands.
UPDATE: Listen to the audio of Imam Hindy here (parts 1 and 2) from May 28th. hat tip S
Obama digs deeper. One has to wonder - with all the concern over Obama's anti-semitic foreign policy advisers and anti- Jewish rhetoric in his policy speeches (and on his team), his vile Pastors, his willingness to meet with annihilationists.........why this ma?n And how can any Jew, in his right mind, vote for this guy?
Obama A Threat To Israel, Mideast Expert Charges
Tel Aviv -- Judging from the views of Israeli academics at a panel Thursday afternoon, Israel has much to worry about if Barack Obama is elected president this fall.
Barry Rubin, a well-known and respected Mideast expert and academic, told an audience today at a conference at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA) at Bar-Ilan University here that an Obama victory would precipitate "the most dangerous crisis facing the world."
After citing his own credentials as a former Washingtonian who worked for the campaigns of numerous Democratic presidential candidates, going back to John Kennedy in 1960, Rubin described Obama as "not the candidate of the [moderate] Arab states, but the candidate of the Islamists, whether he knows it or not.
"If elected, he will be the most anti-Israel president in American history," asserted Rubin, who is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center at IDC, the Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya, and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.
He said that while Obama speaks of his willingness to meet with autocratic leaders of countries like Iran and Syria, he only uses the carrot half of the carrot/stick equation.
"He never mentions what he would do if the talks fail, and he doesn't talk about the need for the U.S. to show its strength."
Rubin predicted that Obama would choose Robert Malley, a former State Department official who criticized Israel for its role in the failure of the Camp David peace talks in 2000, to be director of policy planning, if elected. And Rubin said it was no accident that Obama's recent reference to the Israel-Palestinian conflict as "a constant sore" was the same phrase Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University, has used in an article in The Nation.
Obama's latest Jew hating hire:
Anti-Israel Campaign Official Washington, D.C. (May 30, 2008) - The Republican Jewish Coalition today responded to the announcement that former Rep. David Bonior will be representing the Obama campaign at the Democratic National Committee meeting this weekend in Washington, D.C. As a Congressman, David Bonior was known for his strong opposition to pro-Israel policies, being called by some "the biggest supporter of the anti-Israel Arab lobby in Congress."[1] The RJC cited Bonior as the latest in a string of advisors and campaign officials to Barack Obama that harbor anti-Israel views.
"Barack Obama's path to strengthening ties with the Jewish community is severely blocked when appointing an anti-Israel figure like David Bonior. While in Congress, Bonior refused to stand by Israel after repeated terrorist attacks, was known as a stalwart opponent to Israel, and is now a representative for Barack Obama. Bonior's appointment is the latest in a series that raises serious questions and doubts about Barack Obama's positions and judgments on the Middle East."
During his Congressional career, David Bonior repeatedly opposed pro-Israel legislation. In 1997, David Bonior was one of 15 Congressmen who signed a letter asking then-President Clinton to pressure Israelis into making concessions to the Palestinians. In 2002, David Bonior was one of only 21 Congressmen who opposed H.R. 392, which publicly affirmed Congress's support of Israel's right to self-defense and called for the dismantling of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure.[2] In 1990, David Bonior was one of only 34 Congressman to vote against a measure naming Jerusalem as the united capital of Israel.[3] In 1989, Bonior was one of six House members to vote against a bill that prevented US funds from going to UN entities that granted the PLO membership.[4] Throughout his career, Bonior repeatedly opposed US aid to Israel and supported arms sales to Arab states opposed to Israel's existence.
"The appointment of yet another anti-Israel advisor like David Bonior to represent Barack Obama speaks volumes to the Jewish community. The pattern including Tony McPeak, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Robert Malley continues with this appointment. It's no wonder the Jewish community remains deeply skeptical and troubled by Barack Obama."
From Jews against Obama
Furthermore, Obama has ties with Rashid Khalidi, who currently serves as the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. Khalidi, who once served as a flak for Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization, is an active proponent of the view that U.S. policy is too biased in favor of Israel. Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama spoke at a going away party in honor of Khalidi in Chicago in 2003:
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases… It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”
Two people carry a photograph made by Helmut Newton into the museum. Photo: EFE / Ing
“Bullshit! I love the girls; that’s nothing but a feminist misunderstanding.” This was how Helmut Newton several years ago countered the reproach from Alice
Schwarzer, the editor-in-chief of Emma, who claimed that he and his nude
photographs were sexist, even racist.
Ah the leftists and the feminists ......doing the world's really important work. /sarc tag off
Newton was the bomb. The best.
If your're in the neighborhood photographs by Helmut Newton will be on on view at Weserburg Museum fur Moderne Kunst.
Much has been written about Obama's "mythical intelligence" by a media completely in the tank for the boy blunder. His intelligence is , in fact, a myth. Atlas reader Carolyn wrote an excellent piece peeling back the layers of the mendacious narrative to uncover what a lightweight the Soros stooge really is. She describes the unmeritorious means Obama used to achieve his goals - particularly President of the Law Review. When I was in Washington yesterday we were discussing this little mentioned truth - Obama's year as President produced little worthwhile or significant. Obama's year is the least cited review. He produced nothing of import.
The smoke of Obama's 'intelligence' Carolyn
Obama's much vaunted intelligence is in reality nothing but smoke and mirrors.
As nearly everyone has noted lately, Obama's grasp on facts is being revealed as tenuous at best and embarrassing at worst, as evidenced by his recent gaffe about his uncle having 'liberated' Auschwitz when in fact NO American soldier did anything of the kind (in fact - as the quickest glance at a history book will tell you, no American soldier ever set foot in Poland where Auschwitz is located). Now, this kind of lapse could be excused as a typical political mistake, etc. - but in Obama's case, that excuse can't be used. It's not just because this type of typical 'political' mistake is what Obama has sworn he's not - i.e., a typical politician - more to the point, this silly mistake reveals Obama's ignorance of the bare minimum of historical fact. And such ignorance shakes the very foundation of Obama's chief qualification for being President - i.e., Obama's vaunted intelligence. Since everyone acknowledges he lacks experience for the job, the only reason left to support Obama's claim to the position is because of his intelligence.
Constant references have been given as to Obama's near-mythical intelligence - and over and over again, every one claims that the 'proof' of that intelligence is the fact that Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review. And that is a staggering achievement. Only the best and the brightest achieve that - only a student at the top of the grade scale, only a student of outstanding writing skills and superb legal acumen is accorded that honor. It is such a high honor that this accomplishment follows that student through to the rest of his life - it is mentioned in his vitae, his honors, indeed in his very obituary as the incontestable proof of his intelligence. Therefore, it is understandable that all doubts of Obama's intelligence are instantly assuaged by revealing he was President of the Harvard Law Review.
Assuaged, that is, until one looks a bit closer.
To begin with, the NY Times 1990 article on Obama being elected President of the Harvard Law Review casts the first troubling clues that all is not what it appears to be.
"Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.
That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review."
There is the Achilles heel. The former high standards which all previous Presidents of the Harvard Law Review had been forced to meet - grades, papers, etc.- no longer existed by the time Obama was elected. Instead, the post was selected on something different than grades, papers, etc. It was selected on race. Obama was the 'right' race. He was black. Now of course, that doesn't mean Obama did NOT have intelligence - but what it makes clear is that by the time he was elected, Presidency of the Review no longer proved he DID. Indeed, at the very moment of his election, the proof of his intelligence was so missing that his predecessor at the job refused to confirm it. Of course, the predecessor trode very cautiously and carefully in his statement issued after Obama had just been elected - but the meaning was clear.:
"Mr. Obama succeeds Peter Yu, a first-generation Chinese-American, as president of The Law Review. After graduation, Mr. Yu plans to serve as a clerk for Chief Judge Patricia Wald on the of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Mr. Yu said Mr. Obama's election ''was a choice on the merits, but others may read something into it.''
Mr. Yu's words are ominous - 'others may read something into it." Clearly, Mr. Yu clearly can't say he's one of those 'others' recognizing 'merits' to instead mean 'race'. After all, Yu sees which way the PC winds are blowing and he certainly doesn't want them howling in his face by saying Obama got his post for something other than his intelligence. At the same time, however, Yu's unease at the choice of Obama is telling for what Yu does not say, as for what he does. For instance, Yu does not cite Obama's grades nor does Yu cite Obama's legal writings. Yu says nothing about them at all - and the silence is deafening.
Reading the NY Times further reveals other telltale signs that Obama did not possess the intelligence for that position. As with Mr. Yu's painfully parsed statement, the signs are noticeable more for what they do not say, than for what they do.
We begin with a brief explanation of the legal world Obama claims to belong to by reason of his intelligence. That world is defined by 3 inescapable proofs of such intelligence. They are: (1) high grades, (2) prestigious organizations (i.e, the Law Review) and (3) clerkship with a judge.
We will begin with the first and most obvious sign of intelligence - grades.
Obama doesn't have them. Oh, he's given the aura of possessing them - but when one looks closely at that aura, it disappears like smoke before your eyes. For instance, not once has anyone, ever, at any time, produced those grades. In no publication, either Obama's or anyone else's, has any cite been made of that average - was it a 4.0? (Straight A's?) Was it even higher - 4.3? (A+) (And today's high school seniors are graduating with 5.0.) Okay, how about a 3.9 or 3.8? No. The answer is none. Never. At no time have Obama's grades ever been cited. And that is damning. Because as any person who's ever graduated from elementary, high school or college will tell you, their grade point average is so close to their identity as to be the identity itself. Therefore - for that 'identity' to be invisible as is the case with Obama, is quite revealing. In plain words, if someone doesn't mention a high grade point average, it's for only one reason - there isn't a high grade point average.
(2) prestigious organizations
Yes, Obama was elected President of the law review. But, as I've already cited, this election came when the qualifications of high grades had been eliminated. Therefore one has to look at the other reasons for that election - which necessitates looking at how Obama was elected.
As the NY Times article cites, "Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review's 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said." In other words, 80 people got together and in a wearying all night session in which fists were banged on the tables and the air was loud with 'we have to get a BLACK in this position, it's 1990, for crissakes and we haven't got one" - the weary people in the early morning hours, exhausted, worn out and unable, unwilling to fight any longer simply chose the only candidate they could think of to be President of the Review. Obama.
And if you think I'm laboring too much on the PC reasons for Obama's election, the NY Times itself describes the vicious political background against which Obama was elected.
"...Mr. Obama was the most prominent minority student on a campus shaken by racial politics. A group agitating for greater faculty diversity occupied the dean’s office and sued the school for discrimination; Derrick Bell, a black law professor, resigned over the issue.
The law review struggled to decide whether affirmative action should factor into the selection of editors, and how much voice to give to critical race theorists, who argued that the legal system was inherently biased against minorities."
Well, it is clear the committee choosing the President of the Review did 'factor in' affirmative action. And it is just as clear they didn't factor in his grades. Nor did they cite his papers written. In fact, there was not a mention of either. Instead, the committee abandoned them altogether and went to something completely unrelated - politics. In citing Obama's qualifications, they pointed out that he had worked the political wards in Chicago before he came to Harvard. You may well ask - what does this have to do with grades or legal acumen? The answer is - nothing. And the answer gets even more troubling when one then realizes that after Obama was elected to President of the Law Review, he wrote no papers. That's totally unheard of. Writing no papers for the Law Review is like taking a class in gymnastics without even putting on your leotards to work out. The whole reason for existence of the Review is to write a paper. And yet the very President of it writes none.
(3) clerkship with a judge
This is a shocking failure of Obama's that he did not clerk with a judge after graduation. The fact that it is a shocking failure is evidenced by the embarrassed committee admitting it up front so as to beat others to it.:
"The president of the law review usually goes on to serve as a clerk for a judge on the Federal Court of Appeals for a year, and then as a clerk for an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Mr. Obama said he planned to spend two or three years in private law practice and then return to Chicago to re-enter community work, either in politics or in local organizing."
"..usually goes on to serve as a clerk". This polite sentence means ALL Harvard Law Review presidents serve for judges after graduation. Even Obama's predecessor, Mr. Yu, did that. Indeed, Yu cited his clerkship with a judge so fast you almost thought it was part of his name. And in a sense, it is. There's a reason why ALL graduates who clerk with a judge trumpet their clerkships instantly in your face. Clerking with a judge is the sign of a law graduate's intelligence. Bar none. That's why it's on their resumes, why it's the first thing they talk about in conversation "ah, yes, when I clerked with Judge so and so," etc. It is so prestigious it's the first thing other attorneys cite when they discuss that particular person - 'Ah yes, HE clerked with Judge so and so", etc. In short, clerkship is the shining golden symbol that this attorney is smart. Why? Because judges do not pick stupid people. Why not? Because the clerks oversee the papers for the judge, help write them, do the bulk of research for them, etc. The judge then stands on that work in reaching his decisions, rendering his judgment. Thus, if the work produced by that clerk is faulty - which it will be if the clerk is stupid - than the judge pays for it with his own career, his own reputation. And of course, no judge will do that. Which is why no judge will hire a stupid clerk.
Which thus brings us to the unstated but painfully obvious sign of Obama's lack of intelligence. Despite holding the staggering position of the Harvard Law Review - NO judge, not one, not a single one, offered a clerkship to Obama. It wasn't because Obama wasn't free for the asking. As he made clear in his statement upon accepting the position of President of the Review, Obama eagerly made his availability known by declaring that he would be practicing law for 'two or three' years after leaving Harvard. I.e., he was open for the clerk's position. Except - no judge gave it to him. None.
And Obama painfully admitted he knew this would happen. While other graduates went on to clerkships with judges, the Court of Appeals, even the Supreme Court, etc. or even to prestigious top flight law firms which take only the best of the best, Obama admitted he was not in line for any of that. He would be going for something else. The same 'something' which had landed him the title of President of the Harvard Law Review - but not the benefits of such. Once the glitter and glisten of that title had worn off, the bare reality beneath was that Obama was nothing a politically glib individual able to talk well in abstract - but not produce in concrete. And the judges had recognized that fact by refusing to give him a clerkship. The brutally competitive law firms had also recognized that by not giving him a position at their firms. Therefore, there was only one venue open to him - politics. As the NY Times put it, Obama would be returning to Chicago to "re-enter community work, either in politics or in local organizing."
Such then is the smoke and mirrors of Obama's vaunted 'intelligence'. To this day, he has blown that smoke skillfully in the faces of the liberals to lull them into not asking questions - much the same way the ancient Kings of France blew smoke into the faces of their hunting birds to quieten and lull them into inaction. The terrible problem is that modern bloody birds of prey like Ahmadinijad, Chavez and the Taliban, etc. are not lulled by smoke. To the contrary, these terrorists have mastered the art of blowing their own smoke into the world's face to lull it into submission and inaction. Such years of mastery means these terrorists will make short shrift of the untested Junior senator from Illinois's huffing and puffing. Obama's smoke will be blown back instantly into his face by the hot breath of their hate and insane contempt for human life.
Which will leave Obama with only his intelligence to defend him - and us. Unfortunately, as the above arguments sadly prove, Obama's intelligence itself appears to be smoke. Thus leaving us with a potential Commander in Chief able to defend this country with --- what?
For this country's safety, we must pierce the smoke of Obama's 'intelligence' at the earliest possible moment. If Obama's smoke of obfuscation obscures long enough to gain him the White House, that fatal smoke could be blown away only to reveal a greater smoke rising from the ruins of America - a deadly smoke which next time will surely dwarf the ghostly clouds which broiled up from the burning buildings and planes on 9/11.
UPDATE: Alosio responded with this:
It looks like the Obama/Axelrod Committee for Reframing the Narrative has been busy for quite some time wallpapering the issue of whether or not BO was asked to clerk: In a profile of "The Candidate" (The New Yorker, May 31, 2004), Axelrod tells William Finegan, writing for The Political Scene: "Abner Mikva, a five-term congressman from Illinois who was at that time Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, tried to recruit Obama as a clerk, a position considered a stepping stone to clerking on the Supreme Court, but Obama turned him down. “He could have gone to the most opulent of law firms,” David Axelrod, a longtime friend who is now Obama’s media adviser, said. “After Harvard, Obama could have done anything he wanted.” What he wanted was to practice civil-rights law in Chicago, and he did, representing victims of housing and employment discrimination and working on voting-rights legislation for a small public-interest firm. He also began teaching at the University of Chicago Law School, although he declined to pursue a tenure-track post, hoping to save time for politics." Mikva, a Carter appointee, was of course a Democratic Congressman from Chicago who once represented Hyde Park, graduated UofC School of Law and once taught at Northwestern -- no connections to Chicago political machine there, whatsoever, of course. Here's the New Yorker link
The overwhelming desirability of Obama as clerk is further reinforced in 2007 in "The Man That Got Away" from the Legal Reader, Wed., Dec. 12, 2007 (halfway down the page):
This links to an article by Tony Mauro of Legal Times, but it's a subscription site and I'm not buying.
The uniform suspension of disbelief, or even the most basic common sense, by the media has been wondrous to behold.
By the way, AFAIK, no transcripts of Obama's college years -- from Occidental, Columbia or Harvard -- have been released to date, and the media, after endless scrutiny of Bush's college years in '2000, complaineth not. It would suggest that not even affirmative action could sufficiently compensate for Obama's intellectual shortcomings.
But Carolyn knows better. She replies:
Pamela, Mikva's claim that he 'tried to offer' a clerkship to Obama is bull. There was no offer, no clerkship.
Obama proves it. And so does the Committee which elected him as President of the Harvard Law Review. So does Obama's predecessor at the post, Mr. Yu. And so does every single one of the publications at that time.
NONE of them cite a clerkship. If there had been, they would have. But they didn't. And the reason they didn't was because the offer didn't exist. Ever. And it was humiliating beyond words. Indeed, the embarrassing spectacle of the President of the Review not receiving a single offer of clerkship (a deprivation which has never happened in the history of Harvard) was so humiliating that the committee had to instantly try to explain it away. Obama didn't want it, they blathered, he was 'instead' going to be returning to Chicago to do something else. That's how embarrassing it was - that they had to explain it away.
So, tell me - how on earth can a committee be embarrassed by Obama having no clerkship and yet simultaneously refuse to mention a clerkship? Answer - there was no clerkship.
Secondly - we now have the claim that Obama "could have gone to the most opulent of law firms". Oh, really? Name them. Name a single firm that made him an offer. If you were able to name the judge who made this mythical offer of a clerkship, you can certainly mention the law firm. In fact, the law firm that did make that 'offer' would insist. After all, law firms exist on their connections - and nothing, nothing is more prized than one's connection to the future President of the United States. "Ah, yes, we offered the President a position. We were that smart." But do I hear a name of a firm, any name of a firm? No? Didn't think so. Again, as with the 'clerkship', it's nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Finally - there's something else that about Obama's failure to get an offer from a prestigious law firm upon graduation. What few people outside the legal world realize is that graduation is not the time when those offers are made - they're made years earlier. Yes, a law school student receives his/her offer to join a prestigious law firm the FIRST year of graduate school. Indeed, the offers begin by the middle of the first year when prestigious law firms descend on top law schools like locusts on succulent wheat to carry off the finest crop for themselves. Tables are set up in the Commons, cards are handed out, letters are given, phone calls are made, etc. The students are taken to dinners, to lunches, etc. where representatives of the law firm lean across the sparkling linen and the chilled glass of wine to tell the bright young student 'you'd really like our firm'. Before Christmas is tolled, the student has already received countless offers - and made his/her choice.
My own law firm, for instance, has just received its first crop of Summer Associates. They come from all over, Harvard, Yale, etc. to walk into our firm bright-eyed and eager to show their smarts. They're given a generous monthly stipend, an office, a secretarial staff and then the student gets to work. They turn out memos, they research, they stalk the library, they pull files, etc. In short, they prove their mettle. And, just as importantly, the law firm proves its. There are banquets, cruises through the wine country, dinners with senior partners, lunches, etc. - all aimed at one goal - to persuade the bright young summer associate that he/she really really wants to choose this firm to work at after graduation. Thus, when the summer is over and the student returns to their school to begin their second year, the law firm then waits with bated breath to see if the associate will agree to return the next year. Of course, it is not unusual for a summer associate to pick a different law firm the following summer - but at the end of that time, everyone knows which firm they will pick.
One other point that must be made - all major law firms choose a specific kind of student to make offers to. The firms do not choose on the basis of the student's major (i.e., whether he's criminal or civil or contract law, etc.) The firm chooses on the basis of the student's intelligence. And they do that by the student's grades. Come on, this blather about 'no grades' given in law school is simply that - blather. There IS a grade given on those students - and the firms know precisely what it is. They know it so precisely that this is repeated ad nauseum when a firm brags about the high quality of their interns. "We recruit in the top 10%." Okay, so if the myth about 'no grades' is true, than how could there exist a 'top 10% of grades' to recruit from? Answer - there are grades given - and the law firms know it. They know your standing down to the littlest percentile. And they know more than that - they know the quality of that standing. As a matter of rule, lawyers pick students from schools which the lawyers themselves have already attended. Thus, the lawyers know the profs - i.e., which are good profs, which are bad, and more importantly, which courses are harder and thus taken only by the brightest, the best students. Trust me, the lawyers know the caliber of those students practically down to the socks they wear and the party they vote for.
Standing in that top 10% is so important, so necessary (in fact, high powered firms aim for the top 5%) then it isn't worth it for you to waste your time submitting your resume to any of the firms if you're not in that percentile. If you're not in that upper percentile, the only thing you pick is whether you want fries with your burger.
The point I'm trying to make is that the refusal of major law firms to make Obama an offer was not a refusal made at his graduation - it was made years earlier. In his first summer and his second. And in those summers NO law firm picked Obama as a summer associate. None. Zip. Nada. Even by then, those firms (every single one of them crowded with Harvard law graduates) knew precisely the mettle of Obama, knew his courses, knew his work, his grades. And as a result they all knew Obama wasn't smart enough to join them.
Obama and his handlers can blow all the smoke they want on law firms refusing to make him an offer. But that smoke doesn't obscure the truth. The truth that law firms didn't want Obama. They didn't want him because he wasn't a sharp lawyer, he wasn't a smart lawyer. Obama was only a glib, facile, political animal who used his race and not his brains to get him where he is.
Andrea Bocelli Christina Aguilera Somos Novios (It's Impossible)
I just love it........... tears at me, My father adored this song when I would play it on the piano
Glick in our interview," The Mossad in Israel has come out and said that "Iran will likely have a nuclear bomb by 2009", and by the way, in my view, there is no reason to doubt that Iran will conduct its nuclear test, not in the Persian Gulf, but in Tel Aviv.
So here it is by next year they'll have a nuclear bomb, the IAEA's latest report seems to agree with that. And we can assume that the United States has taken itself out of the game."
IAEA "alarmed" by Iranian nuclear weaponization document Jihadwatch
"There was no reason why a country would need to possess such a document unless they wanted to produce uranium hemispheres for a nuclear weapon."
Alarming, yes. Surprising, no. "US: Strong reasons to suspect Iran was working covertly to build atomic bomb," from Agence France-Presse, May 29:
Inspectors from the UN atomic watchdog are "alarmed" that Iran has in its possession a document describing the process for making what could be the core of a nuclear weapon, a western diplomat said Thursday.
And at a closed-door meeting with diplomats, the International Atomic Energy Agency's chief for inspections, Olli Heinonen, revealed that the agency had gathered intelligence from around 10 countries suggesting Iran was engaged in weaponization studies in the past, the diplomat said.
Tehran has repeatedly dismissed the intelligence as "fabricated," and the allegations that it was seeking to build a bomb as "baseless".
At a briefing to prepare IAEA board members for a meeting of the full board next week, Heinonen talked about the so-called uranium metal document, the diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
The 15-page document describes the process of machining uranium metal into two hemispheres of the kind used in nuclear warheads.
"And the term he used for this document was 'alarming'. He essentially said there was no reason why a country would need to possess such a document unless they wanted to produce uranium hemispheres for a nuclear weapon," the diplomat said.
And the band plays on.
John Jay over Winter Solider analyzes the Iranian nuke and its target Tel Aviv here
In the ABC News piece on the Dunkin Donuts brouhaha story I broke, they refer to me as a"pro-Jewish blogger - as oppsoed to what, an anti-Jewish blogger. Anti-Jewish? WTF? Is that ok now?
The controversial ad, which appeared earlier this month on the doughnut chain's Web site to promote its iced coffee, came under fire nearly two weeks ago when pro-Jewish blogger Pam [sic] Geller posted it under the headline "Rachel [sic] Ray: Dunkin Donuts Jihad Tool."
Caroline Glick nalied it when she said, " the Jew is
emblematic of human freedom, of competition, of rights and when they
want to strike them down because of their ideological preferences for
different forms of totalitarianism their first target is always the
Jews."
Yeajh, so I am staunchly pro-Jewish, pro- American, pro- freedom, anti-jihad. You can take that to the bank.
Only in New York guys
Lovely studio dream apartment, pre-war, open, airy, city views, view of bridge, gorgeous stone work
Homeowner not available for comment. Pursing the dream, perhaps.
It's a studly month at Atlas on the Air.
Next week we got the man, Ambassador John Bolton - fresh from his escape from the fluffy moobat Moonbiat at the Hay Festival in Britain.
June 11th- Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of the just released blockbuster , The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History,"
June 18th - James Woolsey, former head of the CIA.
June in bustin' in the Atlasphere. Hot baby hot.
Greta Van Sustern asks Julia Allison over at Star Magazine (!) about the Islamic symbolism of Rachael Ray wearing a keffiyeh in a Dunkin Donuts advertisement (reported here first on May 18th). Clearly leading terror experts and the finest minds on Islamic jihad can be found at Star magazine. I guess Steve Emerson was unavailable.
Weighing in with careful consideration, Allison declares, "it's a scarf for Christ's sake!" So informed..... doesn't she mean Allah's sake? Allison further exposes her ignorance, exclaiming - its political correctness gone wild. The fact is wearing the keffiyeh is political correctness gone wild. Moral inversion, the inability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil is the sickness in our society.
The swastika had been around long before the Nazis - archaeological evidence of swastika-shaped ornaments dates from the Neolithic period. Would Americans have worn a Nazi armband during World War II (or even now)?
Speaking of conservative bloggers, Greta bellows this priceless addition, "these people have too much time on their hands". I wish, Greta. I don't have time to hit the ladies room.
Bottom line, just because you don't recognize the uniform does not mean it is not a
uniform. The
keffiyeh was the signature of Yaser Arafatbastard and is the signature of Hamas and Hezbollah and
the homicide bomber. Pretending it's just a scarf is like pretending the klan white robe is a toga. Symbols mean something. Attempting to mainstream it, in effect softening its barbaric message, is an affront to every victim of Islamic jihad and the war we are engaged it. We are fighting for our way of life and our very lives, we should not be wearing the icon of the enemy. Dunkin Donuts was right. It does not belong in an advertisement.
There is a quiet jihad as powerful and as effective as violent jihad (if not more so) being waged on our culture, our economy, our schools, our freedoms.
Greta. Shame on you for such shallow reportage. Stick to missing blond girls.
Nicholas Berg (moments before his beheading)
Hamas leader Khalad Maashal
Sheik Hassan Nasrallah (Hezb'Allah)
mujahideen screen shot (off video)
UPDATE: Yidwithlid is lovin it: Atlas Shrugs Took on Dunkin Donuts and WON. BTW, I love Dunkin Donuts.
I understand the leftards (ANSWER, the socialists, commies etc.) are attempting a boycott. BUY DOUBLE! Munchkins for everyone! The leftist/islamic alliance
|
|||||
| |||||
|
A.N.S.W.E.R.
Coalition
http://www.answercoalition.org/ info@internationalanswer.org National Office in Washington DC: 202-544-3389 New York City: 212-694-8720 Los Angeles: 213-251-1025 San Francisco: 415-821-6545 Chicago: 773-463-0311 Click here to unsubscribe from the ANSWER e-mail
list. If this message was forwared to you and you'd like to receive future ANSWER updates, Click here to subscribe. | |||||
UPDATE: Nidra Poller weighs in:
"I took another look at the Rachael Ray Dunkin' Donuts ad: if it isn't a keffieh it is worn as if it were a keffieh. If it isn"t a keffieh, how in the world could she justify wearing a rag like that? It is totally incongruous. No one ever ever ever wears an item like that for an ad, a TV show or any other public appearance . It's all stringy and downright ugly.
Wearing a scarf like that is akin to the graphics of the al Dura scene: no news report is ever filmed that way, framed that way. The al Dura image was filmed as a poster, used as a poster.
This scarf is unlike any scarf worn by any woman wanting to look good to promote a product. If it isn't a keffieh it is made to look like one. It's either a frank handshake or a wink of complicity. The scarf detracts from the advertised product, messes with the lady's outfit, sticks out like a sore thumb.
I should know. I live in France. We are famous for knowing how to wear scarves. And you can't take two steps in Paris these days without seeing an idiot with a keffieh wrapped around his or her neck.
The joke is, the jihadis they are honoring have an eye on those silly necks! The cutrate jihad fans claim to think the scarf means peace. Are you kidding? Have they spent the last 10 years in some back to nature colony with no TV, newspapers, or internet? Of course they know what it stands for...half way. They think it stands for destroy Israel, and maybe the Jews too and, stretch it a bit, get Bush/Cheney and anyone who agre>es with them.
No, you idiots, it means CUT ON THE DOTTED LINE."
UPDATE: Pamela provided these gems. Brutal murderer Che wearing (pretty pro-jihad these days too):
Debbie Schlussel says Dunkin Donuts "oughtt to be applauded for that". Hear, hear!
And Razor Sharp Claws agrees: And the swastika was just a swastika!
UPDATE 1:39pm: Joe over at Neocon express says you gotta know the history: The kaffiyah - Not Just a Scarf
To understand the Dunkin-Donut-Racheal Ray-Kaffiah controversy one must have a minimal understanding of the history, otherwise, the entire matter can easily be portrayed as "it's just a scarf," as many on the left have been doing...knowing full well that most American have no clue what the fuss is all about. Political advantage is always on the side of those who appeal to ignorance, so to counter that let's do a tiny history lesson: (the rest here)
UPDATE: ANOTHER HOLLYWEIRD USEFUL IDIOTS: DENSE WENTZ
This tool chooses to advertise that he is a moron. Fine. That is his prerogative. Using the icon for Islamic jihad in an advertisement is a whole other matter.
I don't suspect wearing the keffiyeh will hurt this maroon's career as he doesn't have one - apart from celebrity sister's inseminater.
"Sometimes he doesn't know who's who, and he forget[s] the name" of his children and wives, she said.
"He calls them No. 1 and No. 2"
Seems to me law enforcement pursues various polygamy sects except Islamic multiple marriage . A hands off policy is permission to continue. A hands off policy is submission.
NPR won't reveal the last names of those interviewed. Why is NPR protecting these bigamists and more to the point, if NPR can find them, why can't law enforcement?
This from NPR (of all places): Some Muslims in U.S. Quietly Engage in Polygamy hat tip Michael
Listen Now [7 min 53 sec]
All Things Considered, May 27, 2008 · Although polygamy is illegal in the U.S. and most mosques try to discourage plural marriages, [that's NPR's opinion - they do not substantiate it in any way. We do know that 3 out of 4 mosques in America preach hate -Atlas] some Muslim men in America have quietly married multiple wives.
No one knows how many Muslims in the U.S. live in polygamous families. But according to academics researching the issue, estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 people.
If 100k is what leftists academics are approximating, image what the actual number is.
[...]
Polygamy is freely practiced in parts of Africa, and almost every one of the women in the group has experienced polygamy firsthand – either as a wife in a plural marriage or having been raised in families with one father who has two or more wives.Group member Sarah says that in her native Guinea, the husband springs it on his wife that he's going to marry someone else. Sarah, like the others interviewed for this story, would give only her first name.
"Sometimes he say, 'OK, I am going to be married tomorrow,' or 'I'm going to be married today.' He's going ask you like that. It happened to me," she says.
Sarah begins to cry. Others nod in sympathy. These women are all Muslim. The Koran states that men may marry up to four women. The Prophet Mohammad had multiple wives.
[...]
Invisible Lives
Still, Muslims practice polygamy in the U.S., despite state laws prohibiting it.
Here's how a man gets around the laws: He marries one woman under civil law, and then marries one, two or three others in religious ceremonies that are not recognized by the state. In other cases, men marry women in both America and abroad.
Many women keep quiet for fear of retribution or deportation.
For example, Sally's husband moved to the United States from the Ivory Coast before she did. When Sally joined him, she found he had married someone else in America. But without legal immigration papers, she didn't dare come forward and report him to the authorities.
She said when she arrived in the U.S., her husband and his new wife put her in the basement.
"They told me to cook, clean, do everything. I didn't speak English. And he told me, 'Don't say nothing. You say something, she's going make you deported. And me, I'm going to be in jail.'"
Eventually, Sally left the house with her children, and now works at a hair braiding salon. But that fear of deportation prevents many from leaving their polygamous relationships.
"Legally, they're invisible," says Julie Dinnerstein, a senior attorney for Sanctuary for Families. "If you are the second or third or fourth wife, that marital relationship is not going to be recognized for immigration purposes. It means if your husband is a citizen or green card holder, he can't sponsor you. It means if your husband gets asylum, you don't get asylum at the same time. The man is always going to be in a position of greater power."
For Others, a Blessing
Abed Awad, a family law attorney in New Jersey, says for many Muslim men, multiple wives means many children — which is considered a blessing in Islam. And since Islam allows for sexual relations only in marriage, polygamy legitimizes the relationship in God's eyes. [NPR sugarcoating]
Awad says conservative Muslims argue that in polygamy, "You're actually responsible for that person as your spouse. And the sexual relationship becomes a relationship of love and companionship as opposed to just a sexual fling."
Notice how the left loves to use the word "conservative" when referring to the worst aspects of Islam?
'One Is Enough'
At Mam African Hair Braiding salon in Queens, N.Y., husbands are often the topic of conversation.
As the Senegalese owner, Miriam Dougrou, weaves cornrows on a young woman, she says that her father married four women and she had 19 or 20 siblings. She lost count. So did her father.
"Sometimes he doesn't know who's who, and he forget the name" of his children and wives, she said.
"He calls them No. 1 and No. 2," says Dougrou's husband, Timothy.
When I spoke to Caroline Glick about the impending motion in the UK against Jews in academia she said,
"I think it’s important to
understand, that you know, these calls for boycotts of Israeli
universities and academics are seasonal propaganda initiatives that try
to demonize Israel, you know, every spring or every fall, or whatever.
But it’s important to understand that there is an academic boycott of
Israeli institutions by British universities; it’s been going on for
several years and whether it’s institutionalized in a vote or not the
fact of the matter is that, university departments and professors in
Britain and publications systematically boycott their Israeli
counterparts. And I think, you know, that it’s important to realize
that it’s already happening it’s not a “are they going to decide
boycott Israel or not?”. They are boycotting Israel; it’s just a
question of how often they want to bring it up.
[...]
Because in addition to the fact that they are already
boycotting Israeli academics and institutions, they are using it not
just quietly and saying “we prefer not to deal with Jews” but they are
doing it in a way that gives them constant propaganda initiatives and
campaigning items. Because they pretend that they are not doing it but
they are because they have embraced this anti-Semitic ideology which
they call anti-Zionism and they use it in their everyday lives that’s
how prevalent it is in British culture today and that’s why Britain is
such a problem".
Well today motion 25 passed ..... from the Normblog hat tip Mara
Yesterday I attended the University and College Union's annual congress, where a motion encouraging a boycott of Israel was debated. The union leadership were at great pains to say this wasn't a boycott motion, and it's true that the motion didn't use the word 'boycott': but it called on members to consider the moral and political implications of collaborating with Israeli academics; it asked them to discuss the occupation with those colleagues; it claimed that most Israeli academics are 'complicit' in the conflict; it mentioned that criticism of Israel isn't anti-Semitic 'as such', while ignoring the fact that the proposed measures are not a matter of criticism but of ostracism and punishment; and it raised the question of the appropriateness of continued educational links with Israeli academic institutions. Legal advice on this motion, taken by the Jewish community's Stop the Boycott campaign, has said that it amounts to a call to discuss a boycott of Israeli academics which risks violating the Race Relations Act, and the General Secretary implicitly acknowledged this when she said that the union would implement matters within the law. So it looked to me, and to all the other anti-boycotters I spoke to, exactly like a motion encouraging people to consider a boycott.
Motion 25 was passed, by a huge majority. There was a real, palpable desire in the meeting to take some action against Israel. An otherwise rather somnolent audience woke up at the first mention of Palestine, and applauded every suggestion that action should be taken against Israel. A congress which had just passed very moderate motions on Burma and Zimbabwe and Sudan, about solidarity with trade unions and asylum seekers, and putting pressure on governments, quite clearly felt that these measures weren't sufficient for Israel's crimes: that for Israeli academics, nothing but punishment would do.
At first the discussion was procedurally unexceptionable - both sides of a debate were permitted on an amendment which called, among other things, for the motion to be put to a ballot of the whole membership. This amendment was voted on and rejected - the majority of union delegates didn't want to give the membership of the union the opportunity to choose for themselves on this issue. But when Motion 25 itself was proposed and seconded, several delegates spoke in favour of it - and then it was moved that it be put to the vote. None of the people who wanted to speak directly against the motion were permitted to do so. However, the motion's proposer, Tom Hickey, was at this point allowed by the Chair to speak in favour of it again. No explanation or justification was provided for halting the debate before anyone could speak against the motion, while allowing its proposer to speak twice. I have to say, though, that in my opinion even if the debate had been conducted in an impeccably proper manner, it would have made very little difference: that audience really did want to vote against Israel.
This measure will discriminate against Israeli academics, and will impinge quite disproportionately on Jewish academics here in the UK. Most of them do not support any academic boycott against Israel, nor the de-legitimization of Jewish nationalism and of Israel's existence; and many of them want to work in collaboration with Israeli colleagues. Whether or not the procedures mandated by the motion are actually implemented is a matter on which the union executive will decide, but in some ways the damage is already done - the vote has normalized discrimination, the union leadership has made no effort to address, or to get Congress to address, the relevance and implications of anti-discrimination law in the UK, and if the policy isn't ultimately implemented the membership will be encouraged to think that some inappropriate force has pressured the union to drop it. So whatever now happens, the motion's supporters have achieved one thing: they have exacerbated the sense of isolation and alienation in the union felt by those who, even though they may strongly criticize some of Israel's policies and practices, sympathize with her often terrible problems, see the need for her existence, and wish her well. Their sense that the union is not a friendly environment, that it is ultimately a hostile place for people like them, will have materially increased as a result of today's activities by their union colleagues.
Because motion 25 was passed, I now belong to a union which is trying to discriminate against those of its Jewish members who don't think it's right to single the Jewish state out for punishment over and above far worse polities, or that it's right to hold it, and it alone, wholly responsible for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I spent yesterday afternoon sitting in a room with a large group of otherwise unobjectionable people, knowing that the great majority of them want in practice to discriminate against their Jewish colleagues. It wasn't a pleasant experience. (Eve Garrard)
It ain't Alzheimers, its the saudi monay ........... how much of FOX did the Saudis buy? 6% percent. He's just kissing the ass of his paymasters. Obama, the jihad's candidate.
Barack Obama’s Unlikely Supporter: Rupert 'Fox News' Murdoch Yahoo Finance
But they saved Rupert Murdoch -- their Wall Street Journal overlord -- for last. The highlight? Murdoch’s not-quite-but-almost endorsement of Barack Obama for president.
[...]
During the Q&
Recent Comments