Saturday, July 3, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Obama's Abysmal Stance on Illegal Immigration & Border Enforcement
It is beyond pathetic ...
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWFlN2I4OTJmMWMxYzQwNzg5MDFiZmQxNmVkZTI2MWQ=
Obama Fails to Square the Illegal-Immigration Circle [Victor Davis Hanson]
There was very little new in the president’s speech — certainly not his tired hope-and-change trope of blending legal and illegal immigration (“The scientific breakthroughs of Albert Einstein, the inventions of Nikola Tesla, the great ventures of Andrew Carnegie’s U.S. Steel and Sergey Brin’s Google — all this was possible because of immigrants”). There is broad public support for the former but not the latter — so he had to imply that those who oppose massive illegal immigration are unappreciative of the great contribution of legal immigrants. (And note his use of euphemism in “11 million undocumented immigrants”— as if immigrants simply forgot their documents upon entry.)
Confusion was thematic, and evident in, e.g., the idea that “being an American is not a matter of blood or birth. It’s a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear.” If so, anyone in the world with the requisite beliefs and virtues would be an American. Actually being one of course requires either birth in the United States or lawful naturalization.
It is disturbing to hear a president confess that he cannot enforce the law or secure the border. (“But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.”) I hope the Taliban are not listening to that admission.
For most of our history, illegal immigration was not a problem of the present magnitude, and the country had confidence that it could enforce its borders when it wished to. What has changed is not the terrain, or the reality that many wish to enter illegally, but our attitudes about such fundamental issues as the rule of law, national sovereignty, and assimilation. Indeed, the president ordered a halt to the building of the border fence, suggesting an absence of will rather than a hopeless task.
I agree with the president that employers bear a great deal of the responsibility for illegal immigration. But one cannot admire the plucky illegal alien for wanting to work and at the same time demonize the employer who fulfills his dream (“Businesses must be held accountable if they break the law by deliberately hiring and exploiting undocumented workers”). Parse the logic: If it is understandable that well-intended persons break the law to find work, then it must be equally understandable that other well-intended persons wish to help them do it. In truth, employer and employee alike put their economic interests above adherence to the law. They alike worry less about the social costs of illegal immigration than about their own welfare. That one is a wealthier American and the other a poorer Latin American alien does not change this.
The president likes the passive voice and the use of abstraction, which suggest that illegal aliens are guided not by their own choices but by impersonal forces: “Crimes go unreported as victims and witnesses fear coming forward. And this makes it harder for the police to catch violent criminals and keep neighborhoods safe. And billions in tax revenue are lost each year because many undocumented workers are paid under the table.” Note the absence of any reference to thousands of illegal aliens who commit crimes or the mounting cost of incarcerating them, which in California, for example, is nearing $1 billion a year.
Of course, tens of billions are also lost in the remittances that illegal aliens send south of the border. This lost income not only hurts our economy, but induces the states and the federal government to make up for the remitted cash by providing its senders with entitlements to housing, nutrition, education, and legal advocacy.
There was not a word about the responsibility of the Mexican government, or the need for market reforms to open Mexico’s economy to create jobs and capital. In a long speech about a problem that increasingly involves Mexico and Mexican nationals, Obama mentioned Mexico just once, and only in conjunction with the story of a former Mexican national who became a citizen. Yet Mexican president Felipe Calderón, speaking from the White House lawn, has recently blasted one of our states as acting in prejudicial fashion. (No wonder he opposes a policy that would curtail the remittances that subsidize his government’s social-welfare responsibilities.)
The subtext of the speech was politics of the very sort the text often deplored. Obama has to square a circle: He and his base, as we saw in the campaign of 2008, want veritable open borders that will result in more Democratic constituents, who in turn will change the politics of the Southwest; more recipients of federal largess; and more government workers to dispense it. This is in line with a postmodern sense that sovereignty is passé and commitment to principle is as mundane as obedience to the law. On the other hand, a vast majority of the American people, of all races, oppose illegal immigration for reasons that have nothing to do with race or class, and simply want the borders enforced.
So, presto: You confuse illegal and legal immigration, deplore politicking, blame the opportunistic employer more than the opportunistic illegal-alien employee, and pretend to lecture all sides while in fact demanding amnesty (something doable) as a condition of closing the border (something impossible). That’s pretty much where we are, and it will not work.
He's Worried about Unreported Crimes? [Andy McCarthy]
Included in President Obama's litany of immigration enforcement's purported demerits is the claim that crimes will go unreported. That is, fearing deportation if they come forward as witnesses, illegal immigrants will not cooperate with the police.
But as Dan reported here several weeks ago, the Obama administration has indicated that its immigration agents will not process the illegal aliens referred to them by the state of Arizona. Meantime, the Obama Justice Department dismisses a voter intimidation case that it had already won, and the president himself tells Muslims he wants to loosen restrictions on Islamic "charitable giving" (translation: stop arresting people for providing material support to terrorism through donations to charitable fronts).
What could possibly cause more crime to go unreported — what, indeed, encourages more commission of crime — than government signals that law-enforcement agencies will not enforce the law?
Dr. K: President Obama’s speech on immigration:
He says ... we don't want the Arizona law because we don't want a patchwork of laws, we need a national standard.
We have a national standard! It's the existing law, which he isn't enforcing.
And what he’s doing is exactly what [Jon] Kyl had said Obama had said to him. Whether or not he said it isn't important. The fact is that Democrats are holding enforcement hostage in order to get a bargain on amnesty — [contrary to] their constitutional duties. They should enforce the border.
Obama said a fence is not going solve the whole problem. Nobody pretends it will. It won't solve the problem of the 11 million [illegal immigrants] already here. But it will solve the problem of new [illegal] immigrants from the south. And if you solve that, you’d get a national consensus on a humane offer of amnesty and legalization.
OBAMA'S IMMIGRATION PANDERING
10:53 AM, July 2, 2010 ι Abby Wisse Schachter
President Obama made another speech about immigration and once again he used false arguments and shibboleths to bolster his case.
Take his formulation about border security: “There are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders," Obama claimed. "Our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won't work.”
But of course, the President didn’t elaborate on who “those” folks are who “argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders.” Does he mean to criticize Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer whose immigration reform proposal is based on reaching border security benchmarks before any amnesty process can begin?
Presumably not. Meanwhile, what many Republicans argue regarding immigration reform is that border security should come first, before dealing with the millions of US residents who are here without documentation. Most immigration reform advocates from the right would certainly disagree with Obama about the possibility of sealing the border, but they stress that it is most important to at least change the status quo whereby almost anyone who wants to come in can.
The speech means nothing concrete as far as moving immigration reform forward. As everyone who is paying attention understands, Obama is facing a more and more hostile Hispanic audience who argue he isn’t keeping his campaign promises regarding immigration reform. Democrats are facing a tough election season and Obama is just trying to shore up support for one constituency that his party can’t afford to lose.
The speech was a political pander of the first order and a meager one at that.
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/obama_immigration_pandering_YhwOYlTQOvtct9yRU9M7OM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWFlN2I4OTJmMWMxYzQwNzg5MDFiZmQxNmVkZTI2MWQ=
Obama Fails to Square the Illegal-Immigration Circle [Victor Davis Hanson]
There was very little new in the president’s speech — certainly not his tired hope-and-change trope of blending legal and illegal immigration (“The scientific breakthroughs of Albert Einstein, the inventions of Nikola Tesla, the great ventures of Andrew Carnegie’s U.S. Steel and Sergey Brin’s Google — all this was possible because of immigrants”). There is broad public support for the former but not the latter — so he had to imply that those who oppose massive illegal immigration are unappreciative of the great contribution of legal immigrants. (And note his use of euphemism in “11 million undocumented immigrants”— as if immigrants simply forgot their documents upon entry.)
Confusion was thematic, and evident in, e.g., the idea that “being an American is not a matter of blood or birth. It’s a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear.” If so, anyone in the world with the requisite beliefs and virtues would be an American. Actually being one of course requires either birth in the United States or lawful naturalization.
It is disturbing to hear a president confess that he cannot enforce the law or secure the border. (“But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.”) I hope the Taliban are not listening to that admission.
For most of our history, illegal immigration was not a problem of the present magnitude, and the country had confidence that it could enforce its borders when it wished to. What has changed is not the terrain, or the reality that many wish to enter illegally, but our attitudes about such fundamental issues as the rule of law, national sovereignty, and assimilation. Indeed, the president ordered a halt to the building of the border fence, suggesting an absence of will rather than a hopeless task.
I agree with the president that employers bear a great deal of the responsibility for illegal immigration. But one cannot admire the plucky illegal alien for wanting to work and at the same time demonize the employer who fulfills his dream (“Businesses must be held accountable if they break the law by deliberately hiring and exploiting undocumented workers”). Parse the logic: If it is understandable that well-intended persons break the law to find work, then it must be equally understandable that other well-intended persons wish to help them do it. In truth, employer and employee alike put their economic interests above adherence to the law. They alike worry less about the social costs of illegal immigration than about their own welfare. That one is a wealthier American and the other a poorer Latin American alien does not change this.
The president likes the passive voice and the use of abstraction, which suggest that illegal aliens are guided not by their own choices but by impersonal forces: “Crimes go unreported as victims and witnesses fear coming forward. And this makes it harder for the police to catch violent criminals and keep neighborhoods safe. And billions in tax revenue are lost each year because many undocumented workers are paid under the table.” Note the absence of any reference to thousands of illegal aliens who commit crimes or the mounting cost of incarcerating them, which in California, for example, is nearing $1 billion a year.
Of course, tens of billions are also lost in the remittances that illegal aliens send south of the border. This lost income not only hurts our economy, but induces the states and the federal government to make up for the remitted cash by providing its senders with entitlements to housing, nutrition, education, and legal advocacy.
There was not a word about the responsibility of the Mexican government, or the need for market reforms to open Mexico’s economy to create jobs and capital. In a long speech about a problem that increasingly involves Mexico and Mexican nationals, Obama mentioned Mexico just once, and only in conjunction with the story of a former Mexican national who became a citizen. Yet Mexican president Felipe Calderón, speaking from the White House lawn, has recently blasted one of our states as acting in prejudicial fashion. (No wonder he opposes a policy that would curtail the remittances that subsidize his government’s social-welfare responsibilities.)
The subtext of the speech was politics of the very sort the text often deplored. Obama has to square a circle: He and his base, as we saw in the campaign of 2008, want veritable open borders that will result in more Democratic constituents, who in turn will change the politics of the Southwest; more recipients of federal largess; and more government workers to dispense it. This is in line with a postmodern sense that sovereignty is passé and commitment to principle is as mundane as obedience to the law. On the other hand, a vast majority of the American people, of all races, oppose illegal immigration for reasons that have nothing to do with race or class, and simply want the borders enforced.
So, presto: You confuse illegal and legal immigration, deplore politicking, blame the opportunistic employer more than the opportunistic illegal-alien employee, and pretend to lecture all sides while in fact demanding amnesty (something doable) as a condition of closing the border (something impossible). That’s pretty much where we are, and it will not work.
He's Worried about Unreported Crimes? [Andy McCarthy]
Included in President Obama's litany of immigration enforcement's purported demerits is the claim that crimes will go unreported. That is, fearing deportation if they come forward as witnesses, illegal immigrants will not cooperate with the police.
But as Dan reported here several weeks ago, the Obama administration has indicated that its immigration agents will not process the illegal aliens referred to them by the state of Arizona. Meantime, the Obama Justice Department dismisses a voter intimidation case that it had already won, and the president himself tells Muslims he wants to loosen restrictions on Islamic "charitable giving" (translation: stop arresting people for providing material support to terrorism through donations to charitable fronts).
What could possibly cause more crime to go unreported — what, indeed, encourages more commission of crime — than government signals that law-enforcement agencies will not enforce the law?
Dr. K: President Obama’s speech on immigration:
He says ... we don't want the Arizona law because we don't want a patchwork of laws, we need a national standard.
We have a national standard! It's the existing law, which he isn't enforcing.
And what he’s doing is exactly what [Jon] Kyl had said Obama had said to him. Whether or not he said it isn't important. The fact is that Democrats are holding enforcement hostage in order to get a bargain on amnesty — [contrary to] their constitutional duties. They should enforce the border.
Obama said a fence is not going solve the whole problem. Nobody pretends it will. It won't solve the problem of the 11 million [illegal immigrants] already here. But it will solve the problem of new [illegal] immigrants from the south. And if you solve that, you’d get a national consensus on a humane offer of amnesty and legalization.
OBAMA'S IMMIGRATION PANDERING
10:53 AM, July 2, 2010 ι Abby Wisse Schachter
President Obama made another speech about immigration and once again he used false arguments and shibboleths to bolster his case.
Take his formulation about border security: “There are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders," Obama claimed. "Our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won't work.”
But of course, the President didn’t elaborate on who “those” folks are who “argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders.” Does he mean to criticize Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer whose immigration reform proposal is based on reaching border security benchmarks before any amnesty process can begin?
Presumably not. Meanwhile, what many Republicans argue regarding immigration reform is that border security should come first, before dealing with the millions of US residents who are here without documentation. Most immigration reform advocates from the right would certainly disagree with Obama about the possibility of sealing the border, but they stress that it is most important to at least change the status quo whereby almost anyone who wants to come in can.
The speech means nothing concrete as far as moving immigration reform forward. As everyone who is paying attention understands, Obama is facing a more and more hostile Hispanic audience who argue he isn’t keeping his campaign promises regarding immigration reform. Democrats are facing a tough election season and Obama is just trying to shore up support for one constituency that his party can’t afford to lose.
The speech was a political pander of the first order and a meager one at that.
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/obama_immigration_pandering_YhwOYlTQOvtct9yRU9M7OM
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Is Elana Kagen SCOTUS nomination in trouble ?
Republican filibuster possible ...
Sessions on Kagan [Robert Costa]
Washington, D.C. — After wrapping up the third day of Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, tells National Review Online that he has “growing concerns” with President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. “This nominee needs to address several very serious questions about the accuracy of her testimony, about whether she lets her personal agendas drive what she does,” Sessions says.
“She does not have the rigor or clarity of mind that you look for in a justice on the Supreme Court,” Sessions says. “She is personable, people-oriented, and conciliatory, yet she lacks a strict, legal approach. You want a mind on the court. She’s charming, delightful, and personable, but I don’t see that there.”
Sessions points to Kagan’s handling of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” law while solicitor general as a major problem area. He wonders why she did not take action on two cases in which “don’t ask, don’t tell” was challenged. Kagan, for her part, defended her decisions, saying she acted “consistently with the responsibility” to “vigorously defend all statutes.”
Sessions is not convinced. “I have become more troubled after today,” he says. “On really tough matters, she becomes very political and acts less in a principled, lawful manner and more in a manipulative, political manner. That’s not what you need on the Supreme Court.” (More about this exchange from Ed Whelan here.)Sessions adds that Kagan’s responses about her association with a controversial partial-birth-
abortion memo (which Shannen W. Coffin wrote about here) “are another example” of the “nominee’s troubles.”“That document seems to indicate pretty clearly that she got panic stricken when the president got ready to sign the partial-birth-abortion bill,” Sessions says. “She went into high-speed action to talk him out of it.”
Coburn Calls Kagan 'Ignorant' on Commerce Clause, Says Filibuster Possible [Daniel Foster]
After a line of questioning on the Commerce Clause in which Elena Kagan appeared to embrace near limitless Congressional authority to regulate economic activity, Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) had strong words for ABC News, calling Kagan "ignorant" of relevant constitutional principles:
“I think the thing that's very worrisome is that she has a very expansive view of the Commerce Clause, and I find that she's ignorant of the Constitution's limitation of that, especially what our Founders wrote,” Coburn, R-Okla., told us.
“And her reliance was that, ‘Well, here's the precedent that's been set, and we can't go back to original intent,’ which comes back to another thing that she said earlier in the hearing — is that precedent trumps original intent. And I think most Americans would reject that. If that was the case, then we would have never had Brown vs. the Board of Education, and Plessy-Ferguson would still be the law. And to have a Supreme Court nominee that actually says precedent trumps original intent is worrisome, in my opinion.”
Coburn also said that Kagan could be filibustered:
“I wouldn't rule out a filibuster,” he said. “Look, my two main concerns are …: We're in trouble as a nation, and one of the reasons we're in trouble is the expansion of the federal government into areas that our Founders never thought we should be in. And we have a nominee to the Supreme Court that is fully embracing that and with no limits in terms of the Commerce Clause. So to me, that's very concerning. The second point I would make, again, is that she believes precedent trumps original intent. And she defended that. And so that — both those things are very concerning — should be very concerning to the American people.”
Full story here.
Kagan’s Explanation [Shannen Coffin]
I was unable to watch Kagan’s explanation of her role in the ACOG policy statement live, but I understand from Ed Whelan’s excellent coverage that she essentially brushed off the issue (as I predicted here she would), explaining that she was merely helping ACOG state more clearly what the evidence before it already showed. As I explained, however, there are reasons to doubt that. First, the ACOG task force — formed specifically and solely for the purpose of studying the medical efficacy of the procedure — met for two full days in October 1996, and the result of their collective work was a statement concluding only that it could identify no particular circumstances where the partial-birth method might be the only method to save the health or life of the mother, but that the committee thought it important to leave that judgment to the individual doctors — that is, a policy statement that Congress should stay out of it. After they deliberated in October 1996, the task force forwarded its draft statement to the ACOG board. It was only then that Kagan stepped in to suggest changes.Therefore, any suggestion that her work was merely the synthesis of the task force’s deliberations doesn’t account for that time line — she had no interaction with the task force itself, only the executive board of ACOG. Second and more significant, the White House had already met with ACOG’s former president and current chief lobbyist (to whom Kagan’s revisions were addressed) in June 1996, before the special task force was even formed. At that meeting (which apparently Kagan did not attend but recounted in a memo to her bosses, dated June 22, 1996), Kagan wrote that the White House staffers were basically told that ACOG couldn’t identify any particular circumstances where the procedure was medically necessary. But, to be fair, let’s quote her memo in relevant part:
2. Melanne, Todd, Jennifer Klein, John Hart, and someone from Betsy Myers’s office met a few days ago with the former President and the current chief lobbyist for the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). For many months, the folks at ACOG had been unwilling to speak with us about the medical issues surrounding the partial birth ban, but Marilyn Yeager convinced them to do so, and this meeting was the result. It was something of a revelation.Two important points emerged from the meeting. First, there are an exceedingly small number of partial birth abortions that could meet the standard the President has articulated. In the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health; another option — whether another abortion procedure or, in the post-viability context, birth through a caesarean section, induced labor, or carrying the pregnancy to term — is equally safe .. I will spare you all the medical details here. Suffice it to say that we went through every circumstance imaginable — post- and pre-viability, assuming malformed fetuses, assuming other medical conditions, etc., etc. — and there just aren’t many where use of the partial-birth abortion is the least risky, let alone the “necessary,” approach. No one should worry about being able to drive a truck through the President’s proposed exception; the real issue is whether anything at all can get through it.
Second and relatedly, of the five women who came to the White House, only two can truly say (though they all apparently believe) that the partial birth procedure was the least risky of their alternatives. Again, I’ll spare you the details, but the other three — all of whom were carrying malformed fetuses in the third trimester — could have given birth, either through induction or through carrying the fetus to term, without serious risk to their health. (The partial birth procedure in these cases was the least risky method of abortion, but this is not a strong argument, given that all these fetuses were post-viability -when most states, and the President himself, would prohibit all abortions except for life or health reasons.)
Those present at the meeting all agreed, on the basis of the thoroughness and care of the ACOG presentation, that these two points are probably just true, rather than a matter of medical opinion. (Betsy Myers and Jeremy Ben-Ami, neither of whom attended the meeting, have expressed the view that some other doctor might say something different.)At the same time, none of us think that this information should cause us to change the standard the President has articulated or the rhetoric he has used. The letters and written materials we have used are really pretty accurate — even though the proposed amendment the President has offered would allow fewer abortions than we knew. So too for the President’s oral statements. Melanne believes that an appropriate time, prior to the debates or when the veto becomes an issue again, we should make sure the President knows that some of the women’s stories are tighter than others; otherwise, she sees no need for any further briefing. I agree, but I also would keep a close eye out for — so we can clamp down quickly on — any extension of our rhetoric, whether by the President or others.
Congressman Smith vs. Kagan [Robert Costa]
Washington — Shannen Coffin’s NRO article on Elena Kagan and abortion has Capitol Hill abuzz. Rep. Chris Smith (R., N.J.) tells us that the article shows an “outright fraud perpetuated on the American people.”
“She manipulated the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for total political purposes,” Smith says. “She’s totally pro-abortion, yes, but she’s also deceptive, and that’s a very bad combination.”The Senate GOP should “press this aggressively,” Smith says. “It’s a character issue.” Smith says he will share the Coffin piece with more of his colleagues today.
More on Kagan and Partial-Birth Abortion [Shannen Coffin]
One of the defenses of Kagan’s revisions to the ACOG statement is that they really were just editorial, that they didn’t change the thrust of the statement. Let’s look at that argument.The statement, prior to Kagan’s edits, reads in relevant part as follows: “However, a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” Kagan did not delete that sentence (and I never suggested she did). It remained in ACOG’s final statement. What she changed was the following sentence, which had read: “Notwithstanding this conclusion, ACOG strongly believes that decisions about medical treatment must be made by the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based on the woman’s particular circumstances.” That innocuous statement is little more than a statement of policy; ACOG was simply saying that, notwithstanding their inability to find any medical circumstances in which the procedure would be the only appropriate procedure, the medical association’s board concluded that the doctor should still have medical discretion to use the procedure, and a legislature shouldn’t get involved. Fair enough. What Kagan did was insert a statement of medical opinion into that sentence. Her full suggested edit was: “An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and a doctor should be allowed to make this determination.” ACOG’s final statement adopted the first half of that sentence in toto. The final sentence read: “An intact D & X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances can make this decision.” There is little question that Kagan’s edit changed the substance of the ACOG statement, not merely its policy implications. Previously, the draft had read that there were no such medical circumstances in which it was the only method to save the health or life of a woman; Kagan inserted language to water down or hedge that medical opinion, asserting — notwithstanding what her notes had shown regarding the lack of evidence regarding such circumstances — that the procedure still “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances.” That is not a statement of policy; it is a statement of medical opinion. Any attempt to downplay the significance of these revisions misses the mark. Remember that it was Kagan’s specific language the Supreme Court seized upon in striking down the Nebraska ban. As that opinion concluded, “Casey’s words ‘appropriate medical judgment’ must embody the judicial need to tolerate responsible differences of medical opinion — differences of a sort that the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ statements together indicate are present here.” The Court relied on ACOG’s policy statement (which ACOG expanded on in its amicus brief) to find a division of medical opinion:
For another thing, the division of medical opinion about the matter at most means uncertainty, a factor that signals the presence of risk, not its absence. That division here involves highly qualified knowledgeable experts on both sides of the issue. Where a significant body of medical opinion believes a procedure may bring with it greater safety for some patients and explains the medical reasons supporting that view, we cannot say that the presence of a different view by itself proves the contrary. Rather, the uncertainty means a significant likelihood that those who believe that D&X is a safer abortion method in certain circumstances may turn out to be right. If so, then the absence of a health exception will place women at an unnecessary risk of tragic health consequences. If they are wrong, the exception will simply turn out to have been unnecessary.
Again, in Gonzales v. Carhart (the later case upholding the federal ban), Justice Ginsburg’s dissent cited ACOG more than half a dozen times. The first citation, in the introduction to her opinion, decried the majority for disregarding ACOG’s opinion: “Today’s decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).”There is little question that ACOG was going to say whatever it took to get the ban struck down. Its amicus brief did its best to identify circumstances where the method was the best or most appropriate — although those allegations were never tested in the Stenberg litigation, which raises serious questions about the creation of “evidence” in amicus briefs. But there is also little question that the involvement of a White House policy staffer in the process tainted the reliability of ACOG’s supposedly nonpartisan medical opinion. Kagan’s edits were designed to assert a medical opinion that was completely at odds with the draft she had been given. She recognized that the draft statement would be a “disaster” — so, in her own view, her edits were necessary to avert that disaster.
Sessions on Kagan [Robert Costa]
Washington, D.C. — After wrapping up the third day of Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, tells National Review Online that he has “growing concerns” with President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. “This nominee needs to address several very serious questions about the accuracy of her testimony, about whether she lets her personal agendas drive what she does,” Sessions says.
“She does not have the rigor or clarity of mind that you look for in a justice on the Supreme Court,” Sessions says. “She is personable, people-oriented, and conciliatory, yet she lacks a strict, legal approach. You want a mind on the court. She’s charming, delightful, and personable, but I don’t see that there.”
Sessions points to Kagan’s handling of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” law while solicitor general as a major problem area. He wonders why she did not take action on two cases in which “don’t ask, don’t tell” was challenged. Kagan, for her part, defended her decisions, saying she acted “consistently with the responsibility” to “vigorously defend all statutes.”
Sessions is not convinced. “I have become more troubled after today,” he says. “On really tough matters, she becomes very political and acts less in a principled, lawful manner and more in a manipulative, political manner. That’s not what you need on the Supreme Court.” (More about this exchange from Ed Whelan here.)Sessions adds that Kagan’s responses about her association with a controversial partial-birth-
abortion memo (which Shannen W. Coffin wrote about here) “are another example” of the “nominee’s troubles.”“That document seems to indicate pretty clearly that she got panic stricken when the president got ready to sign the partial-birth-abortion bill,” Sessions says. “She went into high-speed action to talk him out of it.”
Coburn Calls Kagan 'Ignorant' on Commerce Clause, Says Filibuster Possible [Daniel Foster]
After a line of questioning on the Commerce Clause in which Elena Kagan appeared to embrace near limitless Congressional authority to regulate economic activity, Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) had strong words for ABC News, calling Kagan "ignorant" of relevant constitutional principles:
“I think the thing that's very worrisome is that she has a very expansive view of the Commerce Clause, and I find that she's ignorant of the Constitution's limitation of that, especially what our Founders wrote,” Coburn, R-Okla., told us.
“And her reliance was that, ‘Well, here's the precedent that's been set, and we can't go back to original intent,’ which comes back to another thing that she said earlier in the hearing — is that precedent trumps original intent. And I think most Americans would reject that. If that was the case, then we would have never had Brown vs. the Board of Education, and Plessy-Ferguson would still be the law. And to have a Supreme Court nominee that actually says precedent trumps original intent is worrisome, in my opinion.”
Coburn also said that Kagan could be filibustered:
“I wouldn't rule out a filibuster,” he said. “Look, my two main concerns are …: We're in trouble as a nation, and one of the reasons we're in trouble is the expansion of the federal government into areas that our Founders never thought we should be in. And we have a nominee to the Supreme Court that is fully embracing that and with no limits in terms of the Commerce Clause. So to me, that's very concerning. The second point I would make, again, is that she believes precedent trumps original intent. And she defended that. And so that — both those things are very concerning — should be very concerning to the American people.”
Full story here.
Kagan’s Explanation [Shannen Coffin]
I was unable to watch Kagan’s explanation of her role in the ACOG policy statement live, but I understand from Ed Whelan’s excellent coverage that she essentially brushed off the issue (as I predicted here she would), explaining that she was merely helping ACOG state more clearly what the evidence before it already showed. As I explained, however, there are reasons to doubt that. First, the ACOG task force — formed specifically and solely for the purpose of studying the medical efficacy of the procedure — met for two full days in October 1996, and the result of their collective work was a statement concluding only that it could identify no particular circumstances where the partial-birth method might be the only method to save the health or life of the mother, but that the committee thought it important to leave that judgment to the individual doctors — that is, a policy statement that Congress should stay out of it. After they deliberated in October 1996, the task force forwarded its draft statement to the ACOG board. It was only then that Kagan stepped in to suggest changes.Therefore, any suggestion that her work was merely the synthesis of the task force’s deliberations doesn’t account for that time line — she had no interaction with the task force itself, only the executive board of ACOG. Second and more significant, the White House had already met with ACOG’s former president and current chief lobbyist (to whom Kagan’s revisions were addressed) in June 1996, before the special task force was even formed. At that meeting (which apparently Kagan did not attend but recounted in a memo to her bosses, dated June 22, 1996), Kagan wrote that the White House staffers were basically told that ACOG couldn’t identify any particular circumstances where the procedure was medically necessary. But, to be fair, let’s quote her memo in relevant part:
2. Melanne, Todd, Jennifer Klein, John Hart, and someone from Betsy Myers’s office met a few days ago with the former President and the current chief lobbyist for the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). For many months, the folks at ACOG had been unwilling to speak with us about the medical issues surrounding the partial birth ban, but Marilyn Yeager convinced them to do so, and this meeting was the result. It was something of a revelation.Two important points emerged from the meeting. First, there are an exceedingly small number of partial birth abortions that could meet the standard the President has articulated. In the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health; another option — whether another abortion procedure or, in the post-viability context, birth through a caesarean section, induced labor, or carrying the pregnancy to term — is equally safe .. I will spare you all the medical details here. Suffice it to say that we went through every circumstance imaginable — post- and pre-viability, assuming malformed fetuses, assuming other medical conditions, etc., etc. — and there just aren’t many where use of the partial-birth abortion is the least risky, let alone the “necessary,” approach. No one should worry about being able to drive a truck through the President’s proposed exception; the real issue is whether anything at all can get through it.
Second and relatedly, of the five women who came to the White House, only two can truly say (though they all apparently believe) that the partial birth procedure was the least risky of their alternatives. Again, I’ll spare you the details, but the other three — all of whom were carrying malformed fetuses in the third trimester — could have given birth, either through induction or through carrying the fetus to term, without serious risk to their health. (The partial birth procedure in these cases was the least risky method of abortion, but this is not a strong argument, given that all these fetuses were post-viability -when most states, and the President himself, would prohibit all abortions except for life or health reasons.)
Those present at the meeting all agreed, on the basis of the thoroughness and care of the ACOG presentation, that these two points are probably just true, rather than a matter of medical opinion. (Betsy Myers and Jeremy Ben-Ami, neither of whom attended the meeting, have expressed the view that some other doctor might say something different.)At the same time, none of us think that this information should cause us to change the standard the President has articulated or the rhetoric he has used. The letters and written materials we have used are really pretty accurate — even though the proposed amendment the President has offered would allow fewer abortions than we knew. So too for the President’s oral statements. Melanne believes that an appropriate time, prior to the debates or when the veto becomes an issue again, we should make sure the President knows that some of the women’s stories are tighter than others; otherwise, she sees no need for any further briefing. I agree, but I also would keep a close eye out for — so we can clamp down quickly on — any extension of our rhetoric, whether by the President or others.
Congressman Smith vs. Kagan [Robert Costa]
Washington — Shannen Coffin’s NRO article on Elena Kagan and abortion has Capitol Hill abuzz. Rep. Chris Smith (R., N.J.) tells us that the article shows an “outright fraud perpetuated on the American people.”
“She manipulated the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for total political purposes,” Smith says. “She’s totally pro-abortion, yes, but she’s also deceptive, and that’s a very bad combination.”The Senate GOP should “press this aggressively,” Smith says. “It’s a character issue.” Smith says he will share the Coffin piece with more of his colleagues today.
More on Kagan and Partial-Birth Abortion [Shannen Coffin]
One of the defenses of Kagan’s revisions to the ACOG statement is that they really were just editorial, that they didn’t change the thrust of the statement. Let’s look at that argument.The statement, prior to Kagan’s edits, reads in relevant part as follows: “However, a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” Kagan did not delete that sentence (and I never suggested she did). It remained in ACOG’s final statement. What she changed was the following sentence, which had read: “Notwithstanding this conclusion, ACOG strongly believes that decisions about medical treatment must be made by the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based on the woman’s particular circumstances.” That innocuous statement is little more than a statement of policy; ACOG was simply saying that, notwithstanding their inability to find any medical circumstances in which the procedure would be the only appropriate procedure, the medical association’s board concluded that the doctor should still have medical discretion to use the procedure, and a legislature shouldn’t get involved. Fair enough. What Kagan did was insert a statement of medical opinion into that sentence. Her full suggested edit was: “An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and a doctor should be allowed to make this determination.” ACOG’s final statement adopted the first half of that sentence in toto. The final sentence read: “An intact D & X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances can make this decision.” There is little question that Kagan’s edit changed the substance of the ACOG statement, not merely its policy implications. Previously, the draft had read that there were no such medical circumstances in which it was the only method to save the health or life of a woman; Kagan inserted language to water down or hedge that medical opinion, asserting — notwithstanding what her notes had shown regarding the lack of evidence regarding such circumstances — that the procedure still “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances.” That is not a statement of policy; it is a statement of medical opinion. Any attempt to downplay the significance of these revisions misses the mark. Remember that it was Kagan’s specific language the Supreme Court seized upon in striking down the Nebraska ban. As that opinion concluded, “Casey’s words ‘appropriate medical judgment’ must embody the judicial need to tolerate responsible differences of medical opinion — differences of a sort that the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ statements together indicate are present here.” The Court relied on ACOG’s policy statement (which ACOG expanded on in its amicus brief) to find a division of medical opinion:
For another thing, the division of medical opinion about the matter at most means uncertainty, a factor that signals the presence of risk, not its absence. That division here involves highly qualified knowledgeable experts on both sides of the issue. Where a significant body of medical opinion believes a procedure may bring with it greater safety for some patients and explains the medical reasons supporting that view, we cannot say that the presence of a different view by itself proves the contrary. Rather, the uncertainty means a significant likelihood that those who believe that D&X is a safer abortion method in certain circumstances may turn out to be right. If so, then the absence of a health exception will place women at an unnecessary risk of tragic health consequences. If they are wrong, the exception will simply turn out to have been unnecessary.
Again, in Gonzales v. Carhart (the later case upholding the federal ban), Justice Ginsburg’s dissent cited ACOG more than half a dozen times. The first citation, in the introduction to her opinion, decried the majority for disregarding ACOG’s opinion: “Today’s decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).”There is little question that ACOG was going to say whatever it took to get the ban struck down. Its amicus brief did its best to identify circumstances where the method was the best or most appropriate — although those allegations were never tested in the Stenberg litigation, which raises serious questions about the creation of “evidence” in amicus briefs. But there is also little question that the involvement of a White House policy staffer in the process tainted the reliability of ACOG’s supposedly nonpartisan medical opinion. Kagan’s edits were designed to assert a medical opinion that was completely at odds with the draft she had been given. She recognized that the draft statement would be a “disaster” — so, in her own view, her edits were necessary to avert that disaster.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Kagan - SCOTUS hearings, issues
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Kagan-is-no-Justice-Tabula-Rasa-97337839.html
Kagan's Manipulation [Shannen Coffin]
I generally don't comment on Supreme Court nominees by Democratic presidents, since it's not good business to be trashing judges who may be the deciding vote in some future case I have before the Court. (Yeah, a portrait of courage, I know).
But I make an exception this morning to highlight Elena Kagan's role, while a White House policy staffer, in writing what was sold to the Courts as a statement by a non-partisan medical association (the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) on the medical necessity of "so-called" (the media's favorite qualifier) partial-birth abortion. Kagan played a central role in drafting language that was used by proponents of the abortion method to convince the Courts that the method was necessary and should not be banned.
Her role was never disclosed to the Courts, which relied on the very language she drafted in striking down partial-birth bans. It is an important story, and raises numerous questions about Kagan, about the abortion lobby, and the manipulation of science and the law.
Hatch on Blanche [Daniel Foster]
Cut-and-pasted from the live blog:
10:56 A.M.: Kagan won't answer whether she personally believes aspects of the Citizens United decision, especially whether restrictions on free speech based on the identity of one party (corporations, and unions) are often designed to restrict the content of that speech.
Kagan says campaign finance laws were "selfless" act of Congress, because all empirical evidence suggests union and corporate money protects incumbents.
"Tell that to Blanche Lincoln," Hatch says. "Lincoln is one of the nicest people around here who had ten million spent against her by the unions, just because they disagreed with her."
The War on Science [Yuval Levin]
If you haven’t read Shannen Coffin’s piece on Elena Kagan and the partial-birth-abortion debate today, you really should. What he describes, based on newly released Clinton White House memos, is absolutely astonishing.
It seems that the most important statement in the famous position paper of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—a 1996 document that was central to the case of partial-birth-abortion defenders for the subsequent decade and played a major role in a number of court cases and political battles—was drafted not by an impartial committee of physicians, as both ACOG and the pro-abortion lobby claimed for years, but by Elena Kagan, who was then the deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy.
Kagan saw ACOG’s original paper, which did not include the claim that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman,” but, on the contrary, said that ACOG “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” She wrote a memo to two White House colleagues noting that this language would be “a disaster” for the cause of partial-birth abortion, and she then set out to do something about it. In notes released by the White House it now looks as though Kagan herself—a senior Clinton White House staffer with no medical background—proposed the “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman” language, and sent it to ACOG, which then included that language in its final statement.
What’s described in these memos is easily the most serious and flagrant violation of the boundary between scientific expertise and politics I have ever encountered. A White House official formulating a substantive policy position for a supposedly impartial physicians’ group, and a position at odds with what that group’s own policy committee had actually concluded? You have to wonder where all the defenders of science—those intrepid guardians of the freedom of inquiry who throughout the Bush years wailed about the supposed politicization of scientific research and expertise—are now. If the Bush White House (in which I served as a domestic policy staffer) had ever done anything even close to this it would have been declared a monumental scandal, and rightly so.
Apparently scientific integrity only matters as long as it doesn’t somehow infringe on abortion. That, of course, was always the lesson of the stem-cell debate in the Bush years anyhow. But clearly it started earlier. It’s good to know where Kagan’s priorities are. Let’s hope senators are paying attention.
Some A-B-C on Justice-to-Be Kagan [Jay Nordlinger]
Would just like to say a quick word about the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
As we all know, elections, like ideas, have consequences. And the American people elected Barack Obama to the presidency. Therefore, we will get Supreme Court nominees like Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. We’re maybe lucky we didn’t get worse (in the case of Kagan; I regard Sotomayor as pretty much bottom-of-the-barrel, a paragon of left-wing legal-political correctness). With a big Democratic majority in the Senate, there’s essentially nothing we can do about these nominees. Obama has nominated the type of people you would nominate, if you were Obama. They reflect an Obama attitude toward law and society. And these ladies will be on the Court for a long, long time — longer than the Maine ladies (I love that phrase, for some reason) will be in the Senate.
Conservatives can consider themselves lucky that Sotomayor and Kagan have replaced liberal jurists, not conservative ones.
If the public doesn’t like the Obama sort of Supreme Court nominee, it has two options: elect a conservative majority to the Senate; vote Obama out of office. Both would be fine!
You can always count on me for the elementary or obvious stuff. One more word, concerning what conservative senators should do — do now. They should make all the points they can, as the hearings unfold — get their points of view across. Speak to the public. And then, when it comes time to vote . . . what?
Should conservatives observe the Obama principle? Or should they abide by some other standard? This is the Obama principle, as I see it: When he was in the Senate, he voted against both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He said, in essence, “They are perfectly well qualified, in the traditional ways. But I’m not a traditional guy. They are conservative. Therefore, in my estimation, they are unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.”
Should conservative senators do that? Should they say, “Sure, so-and-so may be conventionally qualified — she doesn’t drool — but she’s a liberal”? Is tit-for-tat justified?
Or should conservatives rise above the Obama standard and say, “No, a president is entitled to his picks, and as long as they’re within some general, American pale — as long as they’re plausible — they’re okay”?
I haven’t totally settled that one, for myself. If I were in the Senate — why is no one urging me to run, why is no one raising funds? — I would.
Kagan's Manipulation [Shannen Coffin]
I generally don't comment on Supreme Court nominees by Democratic presidents, since it's not good business to be trashing judges who may be the deciding vote in some future case I have before the Court. (Yeah, a portrait of courage, I know).
But I make an exception this morning to highlight Elena Kagan's role, while a White House policy staffer, in writing what was sold to the Courts as a statement by a non-partisan medical association (the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) on the medical necessity of "so-called" (the media's favorite qualifier) partial-birth abortion. Kagan played a central role in drafting language that was used by proponents of the abortion method to convince the Courts that the method was necessary and should not be banned.
Her role was never disclosed to the Courts, which relied on the very language she drafted in striking down partial-birth bans. It is an important story, and raises numerous questions about Kagan, about the abortion lobby, and the manipulation of science and the law.
Hatch on Blanche [Daniel Foster]
Cut-and-pasted from the live blog:
10:56 A.M.: Kagan won't answer whether she personally believes aspects of the Citizens United decision, especially whether restrictions on free speech based on the identity of one party (corporations, and unions) are often designed to restrict the content of that speech.
Kagan says campaign finance laws were "selfless" act of Congress, because all empirical evidence suggests union and corporate money protects incumbents.
"Tell that to Blanche Lincoln," Hatch says. "Lincoln is one of the nicest people around here who had ten million spent against her by the unions, just because they disagreed with her."
The War on Science [Yuval Levin]
If you haven’t read Shannen Coffin’s piece on Elena Kagan and the partial-birth-abortion debate today, you really should. What he describes, based on newly released Clinton White House memos, is absolutely astonishing.
It seems that the most important statement in the famous position paper of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—a 1996 document that was central to the case of partial-birth-abortion defenders for the subsequent decade and played a major role in a number of court cases and political battles—was drafted not by an impartial committee of physicians, as both ACOG and the pro-abortion lobby claimed for years, but by Elena Kagan, who was then the deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy.
Kagan saw ACOG’s original paper, which did not include the claim that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman,” but, on the contrary, said that ACOG “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” She wrote a memo to two White House colleagues noting that this language would be “a disaster” for the cause of partial-birth abortion, and she then set out to do something about it. In notes released by the White House it now looks as though Kagan herself—a senior Clinton White House staffer with no medical background—proposed the “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman” language, and sent it to ACOG, which then included that language in its final statement.
What’s described in these memos is easily the most serious and flagrant violation of the boundary between scientific expertise and politics I have ever encountered. A White House official formulating a substantive policy position for a supposedly impartial physicians’ group, and a position at odds with what that group’s own policy committee had actually concluded? You have to wonder where all the defenders of science—those intrepid guardians of the freedom of inquiry who throughout the Bush years wailed about the supposed politicization of scientific research and expertise—are now. If the Bush White House (in which I served as a domestic policy staffer) had ever done anything even close to this it would have been declared a monumental scandal, and rightly so.
Apparently scientific integrity only matters as long as it doesn’t somehow infringe on abortion. That, of course, was always the lesson of the stem-cell debate in the Bush years anyhow. But clearly it started earlier. It’s good to know where Kagan’s priorities are. Let’s hope senators are paying attention.
Some A-B-C on Justice-to-Be Kagan [Jay Nordlinger]
Would just like to say a quick word about the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
As we all know, elections, like ideas, have consequences. And the American people elected Barack Obama to the presidency. Therefore, we will get Supreme Court nominees like Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. We’re maybe lucky we didn’t get worse (in the case of Kagan; I regard Sotomayor as pretty much bottom-of-the-barrel, a paragon of left-wing legal-political correctness). With a big Democratic majority in the Senate, there’s essentially nothing we can do about these nominees. Obama has nominated the type of people you would nominate, if you were Obama. They reflect an Obama attitude toward law and society. And these ladies will be on the Court for a long, long time — longer than the Maine ladies (I love that phrase, for some reason) will be in the Senate.
Conservatives can consider themselves lucky that Sotomayor and Kagan have replaced liberal jurists, not conservative ones.
If the public doesn’t like the Obama sort of Supreme Court nominee, it has two options: elect a conservative majority to the Senate; vote Obama out of office. Both would be fine!
You can always count on me for the elementary or obvious stuff. One more word, concerning what conservative senators should do — do now. They should make all the points they can, as the hearings unfold — get their points of view across. Speak to the public. And then, when it comes time to vote . . . what?
Should conservatives observe the Obama principle? Or should they abide by some other standard? This is the Obama principle, as I see it: When he was in the Senate, he voted against both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He said, in essence, “They are perfectly well qualified, in the traditional ways. But I’m not a traditional guy. They are conservative. Therefore, in my estimation, they are unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.”
Should conservative senators do that? Should they say, “Sure, so-and-so may be conventionally qualified — she doesn’t drool — but she’s a liberal”? Is tit-for-tat justified?
Or should conservatives rise above the Obama standard and say, “No, a president is entitled to his picks, and as long as they’re within some general, American pale — as long as they’re plausible — they’re okay”?
I haven’t totally settled that one, for myself. If I were in the Senate — why is no one urging me to run, why is no one raising funds? — I would.
Al Gore - The Complaint
What can you say ... Clinton, Edwards, Gore ... and liberal women want the gals to take one for the team !
Byron York article: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Sex-complaint-against-Gore-is-detailed_-credible-97329474.html
The allegation that Al Gore sexually assaulted a woman in a Portland, Ore., hotel room nearly four years ago has dealt a serious blow to the former vice president's story that he and wife Tipper simply "grew apart" after 40 years of marriage.
The police report of the masseuse's complaint is 73 pages long and extremely detailed. According to the document, she got a call from the front desk of the trendy Hotel Lucia on the night of Oct. 24, 2006. The hotel had a special guest. Could she come at 10:30 p.m.?
She went to Gore's room carrying a folding massage table and other equipment. Gore, whom she had never met, greeted her with a warm embrace. "The hug went on a bit long, and I was taken just a bit aback by it," the masseuse told police. But she went along because Gore "was a VIP and a powerful individual and the Hotel Lucia had made it clear to me by inference that they were giving him 'the royal treatment.'"
Gore said he was tired from travel and described in detail the massage he wanted. It included work on the adductor muscles, which are on the inside of the thighs. "I mentally noted that a request for adductor work is a bit unusual," the masseuse told police, because it can be "a precursor to inappropriate behavior by a male client."
Gore also requested work on his abdomen. When that began, "He became somewhat vocal with muffled moans, etc.," the masseuse recounted. Gore then "demand[ed] that I go lower." When she remained focused on a "safe, nonsexual" area, Gore grew "angry, becoming verbally sharp and loud."
The masseuse asked Gore what he wanted. "He grabbed my right hand, shoved it down under the sheet to his pubic hair area, my fingers brushing against his penis," she recalled, "and said to me, 'There!' in a very sharp, loud, angry-sounding tone." When she pulled back, Gore "angrily raged" and "bellowed" at her.
Then, abruptly, the former vice president changed tone. It was "as though he had very suddenly switched personalities," she recalled, "and began in a pleading tone, pleading for release of his second chakra there."
"Chakra," in Gore's new-agey jargon, refers to the body's "energy centers," which the masseuse interpreted as having a specific meaning. "This was yet another euphemism for sexual activity he was requesting," she told police, "put cleverly as though it were a spiritual request or something."
She wanted to end the session, but Gore "wrapped me in an inescapable embrace" and "caressed my back and buttocks and breasts." She tried to get away -- in the process calling Gore a "crazed sex poodle" -- but the former vice president was too strong for her.
A little later, she said, Gore produced a bottle of brandy and mentioned there were condoms in the "treat box" provided by the hotel. "He then forced an open mouth kiss on me," she said.
At that moment, the masseuse brought up Gore's long marriage. "How do you rectify this with your wife?" she asked. That brought on another "quick shift" in Gore's mood. "I never saw anybody's moods just go like this," the masseuse told police, snapping her fingers.
The accuser said Gore maneuvered her into the bedroom. His iPod docking station was there, he told her, and he wanted her to listen to "Dear Mr. President," a lachrymose attack on George W. Bush by the singer Pink.
"As soon as he had it playing, he turned to me and immediately flipped me flat on my back and threw his whole body face down over atop of me," she said. "I was just shocked at his craziness."
"He pleaded, grabbed me, engulfed me in embrace, tongue kissed me, massaged me, groped by breasts and painfully squeezed my nipples through my clothing, pressed his pelvis against mine, rubbed my buttocks with his hands and fingers and rubbed himself against my crotch, saying, 'You know you want to do it.'"
Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her "to just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming."
She got a lawyer and made an appointment to talk with authorities. She canceled and did not tell police until January 2009 and even then did not press charges.
In 2007, a Portland paper learned what had happened. Gore's lawyers called the story "absolutely false," and it wasn't published.
Now the National Enquirer has made the police report public. And Gore's family-man image will never be the same.
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com.
Take One for the Team [Mark Krikorian]
Of all the terrible details in Byron York's column on the 73-page police complaint by the masseuse assaulted by Al Gore, the most interesting, politically, was this:
Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her "to just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming."
Annals of American Greatness [Jay Nordlinger]
In Byron’s piece on the Gore stuff, we read this: “Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her ‘to just suck it up; otherwise, the world’s going to be destroyed from global warming.’”
That reminded me of a great hit from the Lewinsky era. Time magazine’s Nina Burleigh said, “I would be happy to give him” — Bill Clinton — “[oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
And let me also remember Gus Savage, the Chicago congressman who set himself on a Peace Corps volunteer — black, like the congressman himself — in Zaire. He said, “Oh, come on, baby, when you help the shepherd, you help the whole flock.” He also said, if she submitted to him, she would be helping “the movement.” Later, when the young woman reported the congressman’s actions, he called her “a traitor to the black movement.”
Savage was voted out of office — in favor of Mel Reynolds, who was later arrested for preying on underage girls. Oh, well. America the Beautiful. America the Screwed Up.
ADDENDUM: I see that Mark Krikorian beat me to the Gore-masseuse punch. Byron did indeed report a “terrible detail” — but, as I’ve said, one with kindred details in recent history. What a crazy nexus, the one between ideology and sex.
Byron York article: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Sex-complaint-against-Gore-is-detailed_-credible-97329474.html
The allegation that Al Gore sexually assaulted a woman in a Portland, Ore., hotel room nearly four years ago has dealt a serious blow to the former vice president's story that he and wife Tipper simply "grew apart" after 40 years of marriage.
The police report of the masseuse's complaint is 73 pages long and extremely detailed. According to the document, she got a call from the front desk of the trendy Hotel Lucia on the night of Oct. 24, 2006. The hotel had a special guest. Could she come at 10:30 p.m.?
She went to Gore's room carrying a folding massage table and other equipment. Gore, whom she had never met, greeted her with a warm embrace. "The hug went on a bit long, and I was taken just a bit aback by it," the masseuse told police. But she went along because Gore "was a VIP and a powerful individual and the Hotel Lucia had made it clear to me by inference that they were giving him 'the royal treatment.'"
Gore said he was tired from travel and described in detail the massage he wanted. It included work on the adductor muscles, which are on the inside of the thighs. "I mentally noted that a request for adductor work is a bit unusual," the masseuse told police, because it can be "a precursor to inappropriate behavior by a male client."
Gore also requested work on his abdomen. When that began, "He became somewhat vocal with muffled moans, etc.," the masseuse recounted. Gore then "demand[ed] that I go lower." When she remained focused on a "safe, nonsexual" area, Gore grew "angry, becoming verbally sharp and loud."
The masseuse asked Gore what he wanted. "He grabbed my right hand, shoved it down under the sheet to his pubic hair area, my fingers brushing against his penis," she recalled, "and said to me, 'There!' in a very sharp, loud, angry-sounding tone." When she pulled back, Gore "angrily raged" and "bellowed" at her.
Then, abruptly, the former vice president changed tone. It was "as though he had very suddenly switched personalities," she recalled, "and began in a pleading tone, pleading for release of his second chakra there."
"Chakra," in Gore's new-agey jargon, refers to the body's "energy centers," which the masseuse interpreted as having a specific meaning. "This was yet another euphemism for sexual activity he was requesting," she told police, "put cleverly as though it were a spiritual request or something."
She wanted to end the session, but Gore "wrapped me in an inescapable embrace" and "caressed my back and buttocks and breasts." She tried to get away -- in the process calling Gore a "crazed sex poodle" -- but the former vice president was too strong for her.
A little later, she said, Gore produced a bottle of brandy and mentioned there were condoms in the "treat box" provided by the hotel. "He then forced an open mouth kiss on me," she said.
At that moment, the masseuse brought up Gore's long marriage. "How do you rectify this with your wife?" she asked. That brought on another "quick shift" in Gore's mood. "I never saw anybody's moods just go like this," the masseuse told police, snapping her fingers.
The accuser said Gore maneuvered her into the bedroom. His iPod docking station was there, he told her, and he wanted her to listen to "Dear Mr. President," a lachrymose attack on George W. Bush by the singer Pink.
"As soon as he had it playing, he turned to me and immediately flipped me flat on my back and threw his whole body face down over atop of me," she said. "I was just shocked at his craziness."
"He pleaded, grabbed me, engulfed me in embrace, tongue kissed me, massaged me, groped by breasts and painfully squeezed my nipples through my clothing, pressed his pelvis against mine, rubbed my buttocks with his hands and fingers and rubbed himself against my crotch, saying, 'You know you want to do it.'"
Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her "to just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming."
She got a lawyer and made an appointment to talk with authorities. She canceled and did not tell police until January 2009 and even then did not press charges.
In 2007, a Portland paper learned what had happened. Gore's lawyers called the story "absolutely false," and it wasn't published.
Now the National Enquirer has made the police report public. And Gore's family-man image will never be the same.
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com.
Take One for the Team [Mark Krikorian]
Of all the terrible details in Byron York's column on the 73-page police complaint by the masseuse assaulted by Al Gore, the most interesting, politically, was this:
Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her "to just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming."
Annals of American Greatness [Jay Nordlinger]
In Byron’s piece on the Gore stuff, we read this: “Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her ‘to just suck it up; otherwise, the world’s going to be destroyed from global warming.’”
That reminded me of a great hit from the Lewinsky era. Time magazine’s Nina Burleigh said, “I would be happy to give him” — Bill Clinton — “[oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
And let me also remember Gus Savage, the Chicago congressman who set himself on a Peace Corps volunteer — black, like the congressman himself — in Zaire. He said, “Oh, come on, baby, when you help the shepherd, you help the whole flock.” He also said, if she submitted to him, she would be helping “the movement.” Later, when the young woman reported the congressman’s actions, he called her “a traitor to the black movement.”
Savage was voted out of office — in favor of Mel Reynolds, who was later arrested for preying on underage girls. Oh, well. America the Beautiful. America the Screwed Up.
ADDENDUM: I see that Mark Krikorian beat me to the Gore-masseuse punch. Byron did indeed report a “terrible detail” — but, as I’ve said, one with kindred details in recent history. What a crazy nexus, the one between ideology and sex.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Obama Screws Up Russia Policy (Stalin, now he had Good Hair !)
Charles K. On the Obama administration’s resetting of relations with Russia:
The president speaks about the new relationship and how low the relationship was when he came into office — as if George Bush had some kind of genetic aversion to Russians. The reason our relations with Russia were low is because Russia invaded Georgia — a friend of ours, an ally, a small country — and detached two of its provinces against international law, which Obama, incidentally, says he believes in.
Now, the reason relations were cold is we wanted the Russians to pay a price. Now, we weren't going to send soldiers, but we froze our relations and denied them certain advantages.
Obama has no conception of making anybody pay a price. As you heard in that little address [yesterday with Medvedev], he said we disagree on Georgia as if it's some incidental issue, dismisses it.
Elsewhere what does he do? He gives the Russians a victory in Eastern Europe when he cancels the missile defense system — again no price, a freebie [to Russia].
The Russians are delighted with the relationship. It's all take, no give. And Obama thinks this is a great advance for the United States. . . .
When I heard [in the press conference, Obama use] the phrase "The Great Patriotic War," I was stunned. The tone of this relationship if you watch the press conference — it was Obama, the United States as the supplicant, as if the Russians were the superpower.
“The Great Patriotic War” is the word that Stalin invented for the Second World War after Hitler betrayed him on the Hitler-Stalin pact, which had been an agreement between Russia — the Soviet Union — and Nazi Germany to divide Europe between them.
It's like calling the leader of Iran the Supreme Leader or referring to [Iran] as the Islamic Republic [of Iran]. Obama does that as a way to ingratiate himself. You have to ask yourself, why?
President Obama’s Failed ‘Reset’ with Russia [Jamie M. Fly]
On the occasion of Russian president Medvedev’s visit to the White House yesterday, President Obama tried to argue that his “reset” of relations with Moscow has moved the U.S.-Russian relationship into a new post–Cold War era.
President Medvedev’s trip to the United States was rife with talk of technology cooperation and modernization of the Russian economy that overshadowed real questions about the success of the administration’s “reset.” As my organization, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), pointed out in an FPI Analysis released on Tuesday, “The supposed successes of the ‘reset’ related to arms control, Iran, and Afghanistan have been limited and the United States has paid the heavy price of alienating key allies in Central and Eastern Europe and those fighting for human rights and enhanced freedoms on the streets of Russian cities.”
Instead of engaging in an honest debate about its Russia policy, the administration and its allies are intent on depicting critics of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and of the broader “reset” as out of touch Cold warriors. In a piece by Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin, administration officials mocked Sen. DeMint’s recent criticism of the administration’s new arms-control agreement with Russia, which faces an uncertain fate in the U.S. Senate.
At the FPI event where those remarks were made, Sen. DeMint rightly pointed out that Russia and the United States have different obligations — Russia being “a threat to many but a protector of none” and the United States being “a protector of many and a threat to none.” DeMint also emphasized that he wants “a good relationship with Russia, but understanding their political environment right now, the only way we can work with them is to demonstrate that we have the resolve, the commitment, and the strength to back up what we say.”
This is a concept that the Obama administration has shown itself unable or unwilling to grasp as it has rushed to grant every possible concession to Moscow in an effort to obtain a new arms-control agreement. Despite the visit to a burger joint, talk about Russian economic modernization, and supposed civil-society cooperation, President Obama’s relationship with President Medvedev has been defined by one thing: arms control.
If Russia were truly ready for a “reset,” President Obama would be able to express concerns about political repression, the rule of law, and Russia’s policies towards its neighbors without risking the collapse of the relationship. President Obama has shown no willingness to broaden his engagement with Moscow to include such issues. Unlike President Reagan’s engagement with Moscow on arms control, which was coupled with criticism of the Soviet Union’s repression of its citizens, this administration has stood by while the situation in Russia deteriorates.
They, not critics like Senator DeMint, are the real Cold Warriors.
— Jamie M. Fly is executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative.
The president speaks about the new relationship and how low the relationship was when he came into office — as if George Bush had some kind of genetic aversion to Russians. The reason our relations with Russia were low is because Russia invaded Georgia — a friend of ours, an ally, a small country — and detached two of its provinces against international law, which Obama, incidentally, says he believes in.
Now, the reason relations were cold is we wanted the Russians to pay a price. Now, we weren't going to send soldiers, but we froze our relations and denied them certain advantages.
Obama has no conception of making anybody pay a price. As you heard in that little address [yesterday with Medvedev], he said we disagree on Georgia as if it's some incidental issue, dismisses it.
Elsewhere what does he do? He gives the Russians a victory in Eastern Europe when he cancels the missile defense system — again no price, a freebie [to Russia].
The Russians are delighted with the relationship. It's all take, no give. And Obama thinks this is a great advance for the United States. . . .
When I heard [in the press conference, Obama use] the phrase "The Great Patriotic War," I was stunned. The tone of this relationship if you watch the press conference — it was Obama, the United States as the supplicant, as if the Russians were the superpower.
“The Great Patriotic War” is the word that Stalin invented for the Second World War after Hitler betrayed him on the Hitler-Stalin pact, which had been an agreement between Russia — the Soviet Union — and Nazi Germany to divide Europe between them.
It's like calling the leader of Iran the Supreme Leader or referring to [Iran] as the Islamic Republic [of Iran]. Obama does that as a way to ingratiate himself. You have to ask yourself, why?
President Obama’s Failed ‘Reset’ with Russia [Jamie M. Fly]
On the occasion of Russian president Medvedev’s visit to the White House yesterday, President Obama tried to argue that his “reset” of relations with Moscow has moved the U.S.-Russian relationship into a new post–Cold War era.
President Medvedev’s trip to the United States was rife with talk of technology cooperation and modernization of the Russian economy that overshadowed real questions about the success of the administration’s “reset.” As my organization, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), pointed out in an FPI Analysis released on Tuesday, “The supposed successes of the ‘reset’ related to arms control, Iran, and Afghanistan have been limited and the United States has paid the heavy price of alienating key allies in Central and Eastern Europe and those fighting for human rights and enhanced freedoms on the streets of Russian cities.”
Instead of engaging in an honest debate about its Russia policy, the administration and its allies are intent on depicting critics of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and of the broader “reset” as out of touch Cold warriors. In a piece by Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin, administration officials mocked Sen. DeMint’s recent criticism of the administration’s new arms-control agreement with Russia, which faces an uncertain fate in the U.S. Senate.
At the FPI event where those remarks were made, Sen. DeMint rightly pointed out that Russia and the United States have different obligations — Russia being “a threat to many but a protector of none” and the United States being “a protector of many and a threat to none.” DeMint also emphasized that he wants “a good relationship with Russia, but understanding their political environment right now, the only way we can work with them is to demonstrate that we have the resolve, the commitment, and the strength to back up what we say.”
This is a concept that the Obama administration has shown itself unable or unwilling to grasp as it has rushed to grant every possible concession to Moscow in an effort to obtain a new arms-control agreement. Despite the visit to a burger joint, talk about Russian economic modernization, and supposed civil-society cooperation, President Obama’s relationship with President Medvedev has been defined by one thing: arms control.
If Russia were truly ready for a “reset,” President Obama would be able to express concerns about political repression, the rule of law, and Russia’s policies towards its neighbors without risking the collapse of the relationship. President Obama has shown no willingness to broaden his engagement with Moscow to include such issues. Unlike President Reagan’s engagement with Moscow on arms control, which was coupled with criticism of the Soviet Union’s repression of its citizens, this administration has stood by while the situation in Russia deteriorates.
They, not critics like Senator DeMint, are the real Cold Warriors.
— Jamie M. Fly is executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative.
O Canada ! G-20 Anarchists Trash Toronto; Police Watch
Spectators in Body Armor [Mark Steyn]
I may have to revise my old line about the British police being "the most monumentally useless in the developed world". For the G20 summit, the Toronto coppers ordered up a ton of new body armor, weaponry, gas masks, etc - and then stood around in their state-of-the-art riot gear watching as a bunch of middle-class "anarchists" trashed the city. Streetcars were left abandoned, and even police cruisers were seized, vandalized and burned. But hey, it's the taxpayers who pay for 'em, right? And I'm sure they'll have replacements ready when Constable Plod needs to drive over to Tim Hortons for his mid-morning Boston Creme.
As it happens, I wrote about the increasing indifference of the northern constabulary to the Queen's peace at the time of the Ann Coulter riot a few weeks ago:
As for Ottawa’s coppers, they certainly demonstrated that famously Canadian “restraint.” Faced with a law-abiding group engaging in legal activity and a bunch of thugs trying to prevent it, the police declined to maintain order. As George Jonas wrote, “Ottawa’s finest exemplified Canada’s definition of moral leadership by observing neutrality between lawful and lawless...”
There's a lot of that about. I referenced the bizarre incident in which the Finance Minister of Ontario was attacked during a public television taping:
As in Ottawa, law enforcement declined to enforce the law, the OPP remaining in the wings as thugs rushed the stage. “The police, I’m told, were urged not to intervene,” Paikin explained, “lest pictures of demonstrators being hauled off by the cops show up all over YouTube.”
True. You might haul off a Muslim or a lesbian and find yourself in “human rights” hell. Better just to linger nonchalantly by the side until it’s all over: O Canada, we stand around for thee. Her Majesty’s Constabulary seem to be sending the message that violence pays—at least for approved identity groups. That doesn’t seem a prudent strategy.
As we see. The Toronto PD are your go-to guys if you want a fetching police escort for the Queers Against Israeli Apartheid float in the Pride Parade, but they don't otherwise seem to perform any useful function. David Miller, the city's brain-dead mayor, can usually be relied upon for a fatuous soundbite.
In this case, he offered:
This isn't our Toronto.
Er, actually, it is. Try looking out the window. This wasn't quite as hilarious as his response to NPR's Renee Montagne after 18 Toronto Muslims were arrested for plotting to behead the Prime Minister and blow up Parliament:
"More than half of the people who live in Toronto, including myself, were not born in Canada. And I think that's why Canada works."
"Although it didn't work in this case," Ms. Montagne pointed out, somewhat maliciously.
And now it hasn't worked again. This comment seems more relevant than any of Hizzoner's:
Any city that stands aside to photograph itself burning - deserves to.
Keystone Kanuck Kops [Mark Steyn]
More fun from the G20 summit:
Having stood by watching as a mob trashed downtown businesses (and their own cruisers), the peculiarly insecure dweebs of the Toronto police are now threatening law-abiding passers-by (that would be Cop#3478) and beating up Guardian reporters:
Steve Paikin, a prominent Toronto journalist said that he was escorted away by two police officers who saw his government-issued summit media credentials. He was advised that if he stayed he would be arrested.
As he was being taken away, Mr. Paikin said he saw another journalist, Jesse Rosenfeld, a contributor to the Guardian website, showing his identification to two police officers. At that point, according to Mr. Paikin, each of them took one of Mr. Rosenfeld’s arm as a third police officer, wearing a t-shirt and shorts, punched the reporter in the stomach. After Mr. Rosenfeld fell to the ground, the third officer jabbed an elbow into his back. Mr. Paikin said.
Memo to al-Qa'eda: This would be a really great night to blow up the CN Tower. The billion-dollar security presence will be too busy clubbing the BBC correspondent and working over the gal from Le Monde to notice.
Old Canadian police motto: The Mounties always get their man.
New Canadian police motto: The Mounties always get their Guardian reporter. Frankly, it's a lot easier.
John Hinderaker asks a good question.
06/27 09:19 PM
I may have to revise my old line about the British police being "the most monumentally useless in the developed world". For the G20 summit, the Toronto coppers ordered up a ton of new body armor, weaponry, gas masks, etc - and then stood around in their state-of-the-art riot gear watching as a bunch of middle-class "anarchists" trashed the city. Streetcars were left abandoned, and even police cruisers were seized, vandalized and burned. But hey, it's the taxpayers who pay for 'em, right? And I'm sure they'll have replacements ready when Constable Plod needs to drive over to Tim Hortons for his mid-morning Boston Creme.
As it happens, I wrote about the increasing indifference of the northern constabulary to the Queen's peace at the time of the Ann Coulter riot a few weeks ago:
As for Ottawa’s coppers, they certainly demonstrated that famously Canadian “restraint.” Faced with a law-abiding group engaging in legal activity and a bunch of thugs trying to prevent it, the police declined to maintain order. As George Jonas wrote, “Ottawa’s finest exemplified Canada’s definition of moral leadership by observing neutrality between lawful and lawless...”
There's a lot of that about. I referenced the bizarre incident in which the Finance Minister of Ontario was attacked during a public television taping:
As in Ottawa, law enforcement declined to enforce the law, the OPP remaining in the wings as thugs rushed the stage. “The police, I’m told, were urged not to intervene,” Paikin explained, “lest pictures of demonstrators being hauled off by the cops show up all over YouTube.”
True. You might haul off a Muslim or a lesbian and find yourself in “human rights” hell. Better just to linger nonchalantly by the side until it’s all over: O Canada, we stand around for thee. Her Majesty’s Constabulary seem to be sending the message that violence pays—at least for approved identity groups. That doesn’t seem a prudent strategy.
As we see. The Toronto PD are your go-to guys if you want a fetching police escort for the Queers Against Israeli Apartheid float in the Pride Parade, but they don't otherwise seem to perform any useful function. David Miller, the city's brain-dead mayor, can usually be relied upon for a fatuous soundbite.
In this case, he offered:
This isn't our Toronto.
Er, actually, it is. Try looking out the window. This wasn't quite as hilarious as his response to NPR's Renee Montagne after 18 Toronto Muslims were arrested for plotting to behead the Prime Minister and blow up Parliament:
"More than half of the people who live in Toronto, including myself, were not born in Canada. And I think that's why Canada works."
"Although it didn't work in this case," Ms. Montagne pointed out, somewhat maliciously.
And now it hasn't worked again. This comment seems more relevant than any of Hizzoner's:
Any city that stands aside to photograph itself burning - deserves to.
Keystone Kanuck Kops [Mark Steyn]
More fun from the G20 summit:
Having stood by watching as a mob trashed downtown businesses (and their own cruisers), the peculiarly insecure dweebs of the Toronto police are now threatening law-abiding passers-by (that would be Cop#3478) and beating up Guardian reporters:
Steve Paikin, a prominent Toronto journalist said that he was escorted away by two police officers who saw his government-issued summit media credentials. He was advised that if he stayed he would be arrested.
As he was being taken away, Mr. Paikin said he saw another journalist, Jesse Rosenfeld, a contributor to the Guardian website, showing his identification to two police officers. At that point, according to Mr. Paikin, each of them took one of Mr. Rosenfeld’s arm as a third police officer, wearing a t-shirt and shorts, punched the reporter in the stomach. After Mr. Rosenfeld fell to the ground, the third officer jabbed an elbow into his back. Mr. Paikin said.
Memo to al-Qa'eda: This would be a really great night to blow up the CN Tower. The billion-dollar security presence will be too busy clubbing the BBC correspondent and working over the gal from Le Monde to notice.
Old Canadian police motto: The Mounties always get their man.
New Canadian police motto: The Mounties always get their Guardian reporter. Frankly, it's a lot easier.
John Hinderaker asks a good question.
06/27 09:19 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
