May 2006

Newsmax reported today that Hillary Clinton wowed a Buffalo, NY audience at a pre-nomination breakfast with a story about how, during her 2000 Senate run, she befriended the maid at the downtown Buffalo hotel where she stayed.

“According to the West New York Media Network, while Clinton recounted her friendship with the unnamed cleaning lady, the assembled Democrats became so quiet ‘you could hear a pin drop.’”

This must have been the product of the epiphany that Peggy Noonan described in her 2000 book The Case Against Hillary Clinton: “I’m going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building that I work in. I want to start seeing her as a human being.”

There was no mention about whether she left a tip this time.*

* In February, 2000, the Senate hopeful had breakfast at the Village House restaurant in Albion, NY. After the restaurant picked up her tab, neither Hillary nor anyone in her entourage bothered to leave a tip for the single mom who waited on them.

In her current “Confessions” concert tour, Madonna crucifies herself, juxtaposes photos of Bush and Blair with those of bin Laden, Hitler and Mugabe, and makes a “crude reference to Bush and oral sex,” according to Reuters.

Ooooh. How risque. If it ever occurs to Madonna to be edgy or controversial again, she could try showing some images of Mohammed instead. Of course, if she does that, she might find herself…crucified.

Meanwhile, Madonna’s likewise orally obsessed actress counterpart, Sharon Stone, gave opening remarks at AmFar’s annual Cinema Against AIDS dinner in Cannes. She delivered a “thunderbolt against President Bush,” as Fox 411 reports: “Our president has spent $167 million on abstinence programs, and zero dollars on sex education. Zero dollars on teaching about safe sex.”

Aside from the fact that she’s lying, if Sharon Stone wants to teach kids about safe sex, she can educate them herself by giving demonstrations of her preferred form of safe sex: “If you’re in a situation where you cannot get out of sex, offer a blow job,” which is “a hundred times safer than vaginal or anal sex.”

In a video being circulated of a British Channel 4 interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Muslim-born Dutch MP and author whom fellow Muslims are trying to kill, Ali describes the biggest threat facing us, or rather its favored path to reaching us:

“What worries me is the huge lobby that is being set up, with money, to influence Western governments and Western media to avoid the subjects I deal with because they are ‘offensive.’ The forces that have silenced Theo Van Gogh will stop at nothing and they will not only use violence, they will use every possible means that they have. They will use money, they will use influence, they will use emotional blackmail, to silence me and other individual Muslims who are critical of Islam.”

NOW are we getting some clue as to how it came to be that in 1999 we committed the might of the United States Air Force and NATO to fight an Islamo-nationalist jihad against a multi-ethnic Christian nation on behalf of Muslims in the Balkans? And how it will come to be that this year we’ll hand Kosovo over to the terrorists who have spent the seven years since purchasing Kosovo’s never-promised independence from our Congress with their blood-stained money?

Just one example of the kind of threat Ms. Ali is talking about was French journalist Jacques Merlino’s 1993 interview with James Harff, president of Ruder Finn Global Public Affairs:

HARFF: For eighteen months we have been working for the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as for the opposition in Kosovo. Throughout this period, we had many successes, giving us a formidable international image. We intend to take advantage of this and develop commercial agreements with these countries. Speed is vital, because items favorable to us must be settled in public opinion. The first statement counts. The retractions have no effect. …

MERLINO: What achievement were you most proud of?

HARFF: To have managed to move the Jewish opinion to our side. This was extremely delicate, as the dossier involved a major danger. [Croatian] President Tudjman was too imprudent in his book, “Wastelands: Historical Truth.” A reading of his text could find him guilty of anti-Semitism. In Bosnia, the situation was no better: President Izetbegovic, in his book, “The Islamic Declaration,” strongly supported the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state [in Bosnia]. Moreover, the Croatian and Bosnian past was marked by a real and cruel anti-Semitism. Tens of thousands of Jews perished in Croatian camps. So there was every reason for intellectuals and Jewish organizations to be hostile towards the Croats and Bosnians. Our challenge was to reverse this attitude. And we succeeded masterfully.

At beginning of August 1992, the New York Newsday came out with the affair of (Serb) concentration camps. We jumped at the opportunity immediately. We outwitted three big Jewish organizations. B’Nai Brith Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Committee, and the American Jewish Congress. We suggested to them to publish an advertisement in the New York Times and to organize demonstrations outside the U.N.

This was a tremendous coup. When the Jewish organizations entered the game on the side of the (Muslim) Bosnians, we could promptly equate the Serbs with the Nazis in the public mind.

The dossier was a complex one. Nobody understood what was going on in (former) Yugoslavia. The great majority of Americans were probably asking themselves in which African country Bosnia was situated. But, by a single move, we were able to present a simple story of good guys and bad guys which would hereafter play itself.

We won by targeting Jewish audience, the right target. Almost immediately there was a clear change of language in the press, with the use of words with high emotional content, such as ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, etc. which evoked inmates of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. The emotional change was so powerful that nobody could go against it…

MERLINO: But when you did all this, between 2 and 5 of August 1992, you had no proof that what you said was true. You only had the two articles in Newsday.

HARFF: Our work is not to verify information. We are not equipped for that. Our work is to accelerate the circulation of information favorable to us, to aim them at carefully chosen targets. We did not claim that there were death camps in Bosnia, we just made it known that Newsday claimed it.

MERLINO: Are you aware that you took on a grave responsibility?

HARFF: We are professionals. We had a job to do and we did it. We are not paid to moralize. And when the time comes to start a debate on all of this, we have a clear conscience. For, if you wish to prove that Serbs are in fact poor victims, go ahead, but you will be quite alone.

This huge PR campaign was taking place while Balkan Muslim and Croat interests here were purchasing a bipartisan slate of lawmakers including John McCain, Bob Dole, Eliot Engel, Tom Lantos, Joe Lieberman and others.

There is finally a movement to turn back this tide–a tide that means to form a “Greater Albania” as part of the overall objective to establish Caliphate rule of the globe. The movement’s name is the American Council for Kosovo, and its site is

The Albanian lobby, founded by former Congressman Joe DioGuardi, is actively attempting to foil this effort. They are calling themselves by the same name (American Council for Kosovo), they have set up a copycat website with their misspelled version of ‘Kosovo’ at an almost identical URL, and have already tried to crash our site.

The man whom Hillary Clinton claims to be named after–Mount Everest pioneer Sir Edmund Hillary– “said Wednesday he was shocked that dozens of climbers left a British mountaineer to die during their own attempts on the world’s tallest peak,” according to this AP report.

“David Sharp, 34, died apparently of oxygen deficiency while descending from the summit during a solo climb last week. More than 40 climbers are thought to have seen him as he lay dying, and almost all continued to the summit without offering assistance….Several parties reported seeing Sharp in varying states of health and working on his oxygen equipment on the day of his death.”

“There have been a number of occasions when people have been neglected and left to die and I don’t regard this as a correct philosophy,” Sir Edmund told the New Zealand paper Otago Daily Times, adding later that he would have abandoned his own, pioneering climb to save a life rather than just plugging on toward the summit. “I think the whole attitude toward climbing Mount Everest has become rather horrifying. The people just want to get to the top.”

Hillary Clinton was caught in one of countless lies a few years ago when she claimed to have been named after Sir Edmund, who became famous six years after she was born. His remarks today confirm that she couldn’t have been named after him, as his character appears to be the diametric opposite of hers, and her character is precisely the type he finds so appalling. For a brief refresher on Hillary Clinton’s character, see my article today in the New York Observer.

“Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country’s Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims,” Canada’s National Post reported last week.

Are badges really necessary? There are much easier ways of identifying non-Muslims: Those would be the people who aren’t blowing shit up. They would be the people missing body parts such as a head.

Actually, I’m not being fair. Iranian Muslims, particularly in the villages, are equal-opportunity sadists, as this video of two Muslims being stoned to death attests. And of course we’ve by now lost count of the Muslim teenagers sentenced to hang every other day either for getting raped, or for not getting raped, as was the case with this girl.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the National Post article continues, “has repeatedly described the Holocaust as a myth and earlier this year announced Iran would host a conference to re-examine the history of the Nazis’ ‘Final Solution.’” And yet the color of the badge that the Jews will be wearing is…yellow.

Surprisingly, there are 25,000 Jews still living in Iran. One would have thought that they were exterminated along with the dogs.

The Hindustan Times earlier this year reported that France is moving to pay for mosque construction—to curb terrorism. The article reads, “Terrorism has made France consider changing one of its fundamental principles of keeping state and religion separate and accept the proposal for the state to fund the building of mosques in the country….Chirac recently welcomed leaders of the new nationally elected Muslim Council to reportedly put the suggestion of state funding.

“Mr. Chirac told them that in the past he regretted there was no organized dialogue between Muslim representatives and French authorities….This move is viewed as a bold scheme to create a French version of Islam so as to prevent the country’s second biggest religion from falling into the sway of foreign powers, notably Saudi Arabia.”

1. Uh, didn’t Bosnia have a ‘European’ version of Islam that wasn’t supposed to fall into Saudi hands? So much for that.

2. Somehow, I don’t think that a lack of mosques is the problem.

3. Bold? Is that the new word for caving?

4. This is the religion that inspires France to reevaluate its sacred anti-religionism? This is the religion that inspires them to bridge the gap between church and state? Or does the rule not apply to “mosque and state”?

Nonetheless, the idea is catching on: CNS News reported that at a meeting of European imams in Vienna last month, the head of the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, Beate Winkler, “said E.U. governments should provide time for religious programs on public broadcasters and support mosque construction.”

At the same time, the U.S. and Europe will give in and continue funding the Palestinians despite their electing Hamas in their first-ever free elections. The thinking, as outlined in this Reuters article, is that “Europe and the United States do not want to push the Palestinian Authority to collapse or to seek alternative funding from states such as Iran.” Indeed, if we leave them no choice but to have closer ties to Iran, they might become…violent.

Question: Isn’t it better that Iran fund their destruction of us than we fund their destruction of us? Better Iran’s money than ours, no?

If we’d like a crystal ball into how our efforts will work out, for a precedent we can look to the recent but always and avidly ignored example of the Balkans. We helped the Bosnians and “Kosovars,” and they moved even closer to al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia. Bosnia and Kosovo are today more Islamicized and radicalized than ever, and serve as a base of operations for attacks against the West, so far including New York, Madrid, Netanya, and London.

A UK Guardian article that appeared days after the attacks in London read, “Why did the Madrid cell that staged last March’s train bombings continue to plan attacks, even after Spain’s new government had begun withdrawing from Iraq?….al-Qaida has a programme that seeks to end all western presence in those lands it deems Islamic….This is the ideology that defines al-Qaida and which explains why it was in business from 1993 and not just 2001 and after. Tellingly, those who monitor Islamism in Britain say the big surge in growth of extremist groups came not after 9/11 or Iraq but in the mid-1990s - with Bosnia serving as the recruiting sergeant [confirmed by 9/11 Commission testimony]. In the same period Chechnya, Kosovo and Israel-Palestine all came into play.”

The moral of the story: the enemy’s strength and determination grow most not when you work against it, but when you work with or for it. As with the Oslo accords that catapulted the terrorists to the next level of their long-term plan, once they hit a brick wall with the infidels, they reverted back to the usual means, now from a position of greater strength. The same approach was used by Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, who sought advice from an imam before making a deal with Carter and Israel, asking how he could justify and gain the people’s support in making a deal with the infidels. The imam explained that deals can be made with the infidel as a means of buying time, when one is in a position of weakness, until he regains his strength so he can win the next round.

Today, after having leased Muslims the United States Air Force free of charge for their jihad in Kosovo, we are now being “asked” to detach the province from Serbia altogether and give it to them (explicitly not part of the deal)–or else.

As former foreign policy analyst for the Senate Republican Policy Committee James Jatras said in a recent interview, “The key Albanian position is, ‘Give us what we want, or there will be chaos!’ But there will be a lot more chaos if we do give them what they want.”

That is the lesson that the West apparently has yet to learn.

Jatras again: “Look at all the jihadist movements in the world–Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechenya, Palestine, Kashmir, the Philipines etc.–and ask yourself when was giving in to terrorists and pleasing them effective? Ask the Russians, Israelis or Indians. Giving in to the jihadists in Kosovo would only boost their appetites for something bigger.”

Helping our enemies buys us only more of their contempt. France and everyone else thinking about mosque construction, continued funding, etc. must learn that the enemy doesn’t appreciate it when you do for them (only liberals get a kick out of it); the enemy merely uses it against us.

I’ve done a joke on stage for a while now, about my cousin from Russia, who just moved to America and was very excited about the developments in Massachussetts with gay marriage. So he’s heading straight to Massachussetts. He’s not gay or anything; he just really, really wants a Green Card. And Massachussetts has opened another door. (Even if it is the back door.)

The joke recently got some corroboration. I just found out that the Green Card is no longer green, but pink.

I assumed they were talking about sex. Or saxophone. Surely they couldn’t have been talking about anything presidential. But apparently, Americans really are dumb:

“In a new poll comparing President Bush’s job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.”

The article goes on to name some of those issues, and then refers readers to a video link for a report on whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era–something that’s been in the air since at least 2002. Plenty of people do say they’re nostalgic for the Clinton era, in which case the Democratic party should nominate Gary Condit in ‘08. Because he totally outperformed Clinton. Remember how kinky that guy was? There were reports of wild, violent sex. His last name even sounds like ‘condom.’ Plus he was juggling six bitches at the same time, each one with a cell phone he provided and, unlike Clinton, his Jewish ho’ ended up dead. (Clinton snoozed, and the Feds got to Monica first, which is the only reason she’s still breathing.)

“On foreign affairs,” the poll found, “the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton’s favor.” True, things were more peaceful under Clinton; the terrorists could do all their planning without being disrupted. But I really have to object to the next one: “Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.”

I don’t think Bush was the race-war monger who in 2000 spoke to a black audience and brought up the acquittal of the police officers who mistakenly shot Amadou Diallo, saying, “I respect the jury’s decision, but you and I both know that if it had been a white man in a white neighborhood, this never would have happened.” (Non-divisively playing up the country’s racial tensions was a staple of the Clinton presidency.)

This poll’s respondents have about as good a grasp on recent history as the movie “American Dreamz,” which USA Today says, “makes light of a president who has a reputation for ignoring security briefing memos, tangles his words while making speeches, has sinking job-approval numbers and is locked in a Middle Eastern war.”

The most reprehensible part of that summary is Bush’s supposed ignoring of security briefing memos. As The Washington Post reported in February, 2001, “Early each morning when other Washingtonians are soaking up the sports pages or stuck in traffic, President Bush digs into the ‘President’s Daily Brief,’ a 10-page guide to the world prepared by the CIA for an eager student with much to learn. Bush’s reading is followed by a briefing by a CIA senior analyst, a six-times-a-week session that President Bill Clinton DECLINED because he felt he DID NOT NEED it.” (Emphasis added.)

But of course he didn’t need it. Under Clinton, we had no enemies, so intelligence-gathering was irrelevant. Besides, advice from the Pentagon or CIA was the obstacle, because national security was not a goal.

Interestingly, a month earlier–after the good-bye parade Clinton threw himself–a piece appeared in the same newspaper, called “President Do-Nothing.” It read in part: “As for the economic boom, it was largely self-propelled. Clinton’s main contribution was to stand clear. The story is the same for the surprising budget surpluses. Two events beyond Clinton’s making (or Congress’s) proved decisive: the end of the Cold War, which justified deep defense cuts; and the boom, which produced an unexpected tax windfall.

“…The reason impeachment and Lewinsky loom so large in the Clinton era is that there was so little else. He engaged, entertained and enraged. He was full of himself and full of talk. He had an amazing ability to outmaneuver his adversaries and gain short-term political advantage. But all the noise and action merely highlight the larger contradiction. He was always on the move but rarely going anywhere. He was mostly a do-nothing president.”

Personally, I call him the “Un-President.” I mean, at least when you look at Bush you see something that looks like a president. In contrast, when I first laid eyes on Bill Clinton, I didn’t know whether to laugh or take my clothes off.

A few days after last month’s genocide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed nine Israelis and maimed 50, a Queens-based group called the Islamic Thinkers Society (an oxymoron, obviously) held a rally outside the Israeli Consulate–in response to the genocide bombing.

The Muslims were protesting Israelis after killing Israelis. Recall that in the wake of the London bombings, the angriest people were Britain’s Muslims. One headline after another reported the rage of British Muslims and their “understanding” of the bombers. Similarly, when Albanian Muslims organized pogroms against Serbs in Kosovo in 2004, resulting in 19 dead, scores of churches destroyed, and another 4,000 Serbs cleansed from the province, Muslims in Serbia protested the torching of two mosques and warned that an “anti-Islamic campaign” was spreading through the region.

Indeed, every time Muslims bomb something else or massacre another score of people or chop off another head, the more pissed off they get. (Maybe if they stopped killing people, they wouldn’t be so angry?) Seriously, though, these people are friggin’ geniuses. They figured out how to not get in trouble for stuff: when people come at you pissed off, you be MORE pissed off! It’s actually an old children’s ploy, which can be described as preemptive pissed-offness.

No wonder every time there’s another attack, everyone rushes to defend Muslims and admonish us, “They’re not all like that!” (Meanwhile, if a group of Jews pulled something like that, the same people would say, “Do you see? You see what they’re capable of?!”)

Remember how angry the Muslim world was right after 9/11? The Bush administration took a little over a month to figure out what the response would be, but before we even decided on a plan, hate rallies against America sprang up across the globe. We hadn’t even done anything yet except get attacked–we were only thinking about what to do — but they were protesting in anticipation of what we were only thinking about doing. In fact, revenge was already being threatened for the retaliation that we hadn’t even decided on yet. I got worried that the revenge would come before we could even answer the first attack. Which would have given us two things to retaliate for. Can you imagine how mad THAT would have gotten them? Can you picture the protests over our having two things to get back at them for? Boy, would we have been in for it! Maybe we should consider that it was in anticipation of how we might respond to an attack that incited it in the first place!

Muslims even figured out that they should get mad at Israel when a Muslim’s bomb goes off prematurely and kills him. Look at this from “Two Palestinians were killed and another three injured in an explosion north of Gaza….The Israeli occupation army denied any links to the explosion…which is likely to have taken place while preparing a missile for launching it against Israeli targets.”

It’s possible that Muslims are taking their cues from our own media. There’s this from a New York Times article last month, in which Middle East correspondent John Kifner calls Palestinian terrorists “victims” of Israeli attacks: “The latest victims were two gunmen from Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade who were killed on Thursday as they tried to get through a fence.”

Muslims are offended even by Israelis mourning their dead. How many funeral shootings are we up to by now? (i.e. When Israeli settlers try to bury those who are killed either in genocide bombings or drive-by shootings, it’s not unusual for there to be another drive-by shooting targeting the mourners.) This tactic is also familiar to Serbs, who were attacked by Albanian Muslims last year while visiting a cemetery. And in 2000, peacekeepers banned Serbs in one Kosovo village from visiting a cemetery on All Souls Day after an Albanian blew off the right side of his body planting an explosive there.

Holocaust Memorial Day is also a persecution of Muslims. After the bombings in England, one of several committees charged by the Blair government with finding ways to combat Islamic extremism came up with a plan to nix Holocaust Memorial Day because it’s offensive to Muslims.

On May 15th, 1948, seven Arab nations invaded Israel. That war “plays a key part in the Arab National Liberation tale,” Jared Israel wrote last September, upon publication by The Nation of 60-year-old British intelligence memos that expose the lie that the Israeli victory was “the defining event, the ‘nakba’ or catastrophe. In order to claim that the PLO and Fatah are fighting for National Liberation in 2005, their promoters argue that British imperialism, using Jewish proxies, crushed Palestinian Liberation in 1948.”

A partial paraphrase of the British memos on JihadWatch reads:

“The Nation shows that during the half year prior to the all-out Arab invasion on May 15, when Britain was responsible for security in its Palestine Mandate territory, it incited, micro-managed and did public relations work for a campaign of Arab troop infiltration and terror.

“The intelligence documents…show that before the Arab invasion, British intelligence knew that the Arabs terrorizing the future Israel were being led in part by Nazi advisers. These included Bosnian Muslims from the infamous Handzar Division of the Waffen SS. According to a French intelligence document published by The Nation seven months later, the British sent thousands of Nazi prisoners of war, including top war criminals, to assist the Arab attack. This was after the Arab invasion.”

It wouldn’t be the last time the Brits would be in league with Nazi-inspired terrorists.

Last August, Ottowa University professor Michel Chossudovsky wrote for the Centre for Research on Globalization: “[London bombing suspect] Haroon Rachid Aswat belonged to Al-Muhajiroun [the recruiting arm of Al-Qaeda in London], which was involved in the recruitment of Mujahideen in Britain. The latter were also sent to Kosovo to fight in the KLA [Kosovo Liberation Army] in support of the NATO-US led war.”

Chossudovsky went on to cite a Fox News interview from last July, in which intelligence expert John Loftus revealed the following:

“But the US was used by Al-Muhajiroun for training of people to send to Kosovo. What ties all these cells together was, back in the late 1990s, the leaders all worked for British intelligence in Kosovo. Believe it or not, British intelligence actually hired some Al-Qaeda guys to help defend the Muslim rights in Albania and in Kosovo. That’s when Al-Muhajiroun got started….The CIA was funding the operation to defend the Muslims, British intelligence was doing the hiring and recruiting….So that’s how we get all these guys connected. It started in Kosovo.”

Next Page »