7 November 2011 >>
Recently, I brought a camera and a few multiple-choice questions to Zuccotti Park, where I conducted a quiz game with some of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. As a reward for getting the answers right, contestants were able to choose among several options for prizes. Unfortunately, one gentleman in the audience apparently did not appreciate the prize selections made by his fellow protesters, so he disrupted the game, bear-hugged me, grabbed the question cards out of my hand and attempted to run off with them before I stopped him.
You can watch the video embedded below, or visit YouTube:
Click through to the video page to see footnotes for the questions in the quiz.
Video >>
12 February 2008 >>
A Clinton-related conspiracy theory:
It isn’t all that hard to believe that a guy who’s alpha [male] enough to risk his entire political career and presidential legacy for a few hummers from a pudgy intern might subconsciously sabotage his wife’s ascent to power, is it?
6 February 2008 >>
If Senator Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination and goes on to lose the general election, there will undoubtedly be those who argue that his loss is a sign of racism among American voters.
So, after a primary fight in which Senator Hillary Clinton’s husband repeatedly and clumsily steered attention to Obama’s race, if Democrats subsequently reject Obama, is that a sign of racism among Democrats?
The race among Democrats is still very close, and Obama racked up some important wins last night. But it seems that Obama tends to do better in polls than he has in actual elections. He could have pulled into a commanding lead yesterday, but instead he finds himself nearly tied with Hillary in the delegate count.
Late polls had him winning last month’s New Hampshire primary and yesterday’s California contest by what, 8-13 points? Then he loses, and not by razor-thin margins. Are some Democrats lying to pollsters about their choice? And if so, why would that be?
Throughout the night, reporters on both CNN and Fox News cited exit polling data showing that Obama does much better among white male voters than he does among women, Asians or Hispanics, who support Hillary overwhelmingly.
If Hillary is nominated, it may be that identity politics prevented a black man from moving into the White House.
Who would have guessed that the one group that couldn’t be blamed for such a scenario would be white male Republicans?
Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton because her husband was good to us. That’s not true. He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.Rev. Jeremiah Wright Trinity United Church of Christ
Now, in the interest of fairness, I should balance that critique of America’s First Black President with a few words in support of his wife:
21 January 2007 >>
When President Bush talks about the very real threat that radical Jihadists pose around the world, Democrats accuse him of “fear mongering.” But when a much-hyped rival poses a threat to Democratic presidential hopefuls, suddenly fear mongering is in fashion:
Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.
An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.
“He was a Muslim, but he concealed it,” the source said. “His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign.”
Update: Barack Obama denies that he was educated in a madrassa, and the Clinton camp denies that they were the source for the story. The story was reportedly based on a single unnamed source and has not been substantiated by a second source. (Hat tip: Ed Morrissey.)
Two U.S. Democratic senators said on Friday they would introduce legislation aimed at blocking Dubai Ports World from buying a company that operates several U.S. shipping ports because of security concerns.
Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York said they would offer a measure to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.
“We wouldn’t turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can’t afford to turn our ports over to one either,” Menendez said in a statement. The Senate Banking Committee also plans to hold a hearing on the issue later this month.
P&O, the company Dubai Ports World plans to buy for $6.8 billion, is already foreign-owned, by the British, but the concern is that the purchaser is backed by the United Arab Emirates government.
The UAE company would gain control over the management of major U.S. ports in New York and New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami and that has sparked national security concerns among lawmakers.
26 September 2005 >>
The International Freedom Center, the controversial Ground Zero memorial, has a powerful new foe: Senator Hillary Clinton. The New York Postreported this weekend:
“I cannot support the IFC,” Clinton declared last night in a strongly worded statement in response to an inquiry from The Post.
Her tough comments are Clinton’s first significant remarks about the controversy raging at Ground Zero over the Freedom Center, which 9/11 families and other critics fear will become a center of anti-Americanism.
“While I want to ensure that development and rebuilding in lower Manhattan move forward expeditiously, I am troubled by the serious concerns family members and first responders have expressed to me,” Clinton said.
“The LMDC [Lower Manhattan Development Corp.] has authority over the site and I do not believe we can move forward until it heeds and addresses their concerns.”
In the face of obscene political correctness, Senator Clinton is demonstrating a levelheadedness that is all too rare from Democrats these days. If more Democratic politicians took regular stands like this, they’d probably enjoy much more success at the ballot box. Of course, the triangulating Clintons understand this too, which may or may not be the sole reason Hillary adopted this position. Either way, she deserves credit if her opposition helps prevent the International Freedom Center from defiling the graveyards of so many people.
Update: Governor George Pataki finally pulls the plug. The IFC is dead. Finished. It won’t be disgracing Ground Zero. Special thanks should go to Debra Burlingame, whose tireless efforts pushed this issue onto the radar screen of New York’s politicians.
24 June 2005 @ 5:52PM >>
A press release from World Ahead Publishing—a publisher of conservative and libertarian books—charges that Google banned an ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton:
Popular search engine Google reversed course late last week and banned a previously approved online ad campaign for a new book that documents abuses of power by Bill and Hillary Clinton. The surprise move prompted the book’s author and publishing house to publicly question if the politics of Google’s CEO - a financial backer of Hillary Clinton - played a role in this change of course.
“Google’s decision to reverse its prior approval and shut down this banner ad campaign reeks of political bias,” charges [author] Candice E. Jackson. [...]
The controversy comes at a time when the search engine giant is facing increasing scrutiny for claims of editorial unfairness by conservative organizations. Last month RightMarch.com, a conservative activist group, went public with claims that Google was rejecting its ads targeting House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi while at the same time running identical ads attacking Republican Leader Tom DeLay.
Representatives for Google - whose corporate motto is “don’t be evil” - attempted to defend the surprise ban on the book’s ads by claiming their policies prohibit ads that are against an individual. But while the ads for the book - which featured images of the book’s cover and pictures of the former First Couple - were suddenly deemed too offensive, Google happily accepts advertisements with headlines such as “Hate Bush? So Do We,” “Bush Belongs Behind Bars,” and “George W. Bush Fart Doll.”
Early last month, a similar controversy erupted when Google accepted ads targeting Republican Congressman Tom DeLay while rejecting similar ads targeting Democratic Congressman Nancy Pelosi. On May 9th, WorldNetDaily reported:
Google, the Internet’s No. 1 search engine, is still running attack ads against besieged House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, despite assurances by the company’s spokesman they were all pulled last week.
The issue of the anti-DeLay ads came to light when a conservative activist group discovered the ads and designed a similar campaign, using the same verbiage, targeting House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
When the anti-Pelosi ads were rejected by Google, RightMarch.com protested what it saw as political bias in Google’s content.
When questioned about the apparent double-standard by WND, Mike Mayzel, spokesman for Google, said both the anti-Pelosi ad and the anti-DeLay ad were pulled.
“Both ads were taken down,” he told WND. “Any assertion to the contrary is false. As soon as an ad is reviewed and found to be in violation of our policies, we take it down as soon as possible. Any suggestion we would leave some ads up longer than others for reasons of political bias is false.”
However, a search of Google’s site yesterday shows at least three more anti-DeLay ads still running[.]
As of this writing nearly two months later, anti-Tom DeLay ads are still running, despite Google’s assurances that they wouldn’t be. However, one anti-Nancy Pelosi ad is also running, which makes me wonder whether the problem is one of corporate political bias or simply one of bias—or incompetence—on the part of individual staffers who administer the ad approval process. Google may have dozens of employees who approve these ads, which could explain the inconsistent application of its policy.
Whatever the explanation, this kind of information doesn’t exactly help Google’s case:
As a private company, Google is fully within its rights to accept or reject any ad it sees fit. However, if these charges are true, then the public should at least be aware of the fact that Google is making political calculations in the selective application of its ad policy. Google would also be wise to tighten up the application of this policy; the appearance of bias for a company that aspires to be the world’s gateway to the Internet would be devastating.
14 December 2004 @ 7:49PM >>
The New York Post is reporting that Marc Rich, the billionaire financier who was awarded a “midnight pardon” in one of President Clinton’s last acts in office, is “a central figure” in the U.N. Oil-for-Food corruption scandal:
Billionaire Marc Rich has emerged as a central figure in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal and is under investigation for brokering deals in which scores of international politicians and businessmen cashed in on sweetheart oil deals with Saddam Hussein, The Post has learned.
Rich, the fugitive Swiss-based commodities trader who received a controversial pardon from President Bill Clinton in January 2001, is a primary target of criminal probes under way in the U.S. attorney’s office in New York and by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, sources said.
“We think he was a major player in this — a central figure,” a senior law-enforcement official told The Post.
[...]
Investigators say they have received information that Rich and Ben Pollner, a New York-based oil trader who heads Taurus Oil, set up a series of companies in Liechtenstein and other countries that they used to put together deals between Saddam and his international supporters in the controversial oil-voucher scheme — which the dictator designed to win international support against U.S. sanctions at the United Nations.
Under the scam, hundreds of international political and financial figures from France, Russia and other countries were awarded middleman vouchers allowing them to purchase set quantities of Iraqi oil at discount rates.
[...]
Investigators now believe Rich and Pollner brokered many of the deals by finding buyers for the oil allocated to people who were bribed by Saddam. The discount Iraqi oil would be resold to major oil companies at higher prices and Rich and Pollner would pocket percentages of the profits, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, sources said.
[...]
In January 2001, in the final hours his presidency, Clinton bypassed law-enforcement and intelligence agencies to wipe the books clean for Rich after being subjected to intense lobbying from former Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Rich’s jet-setting ex-wife, Denise, who donated more than $1 million to Democratic campaigns — including Sen. Hillary Rodham’s first Senate race — along with an additional $450,000 to Clinton’s library fund.
30 June 2004 @ 5:11PM >>
I owe a bit of thanks to Hillary Clinton for summing up liberalism in a single sentence:
We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.
For years, I’ve tried (and failed) to come up with a description of liberal economic policy that’s as concise and accurate as the statement above. Thanks, Hillary, for doing my work for me.
21 May 2002 >>
“We must try to understand how we mishandled intelligence prior to September 11th, but let’s do it in a calm, rational way, far away from professional politicians. Our goal should be fixing the problem, not affixing the blame. Forgive my skepticism, but judging from the hotheaded handwringing that has taken place already, holding hearings in some Congressional kangaroo court will do little more than provide a podium for people whose primary concern is their next election.”
More >>
