Feeling sympathetic towards Anthony Weiner? You shouldn’t.


Just in case you were feeling the eensienst, weensiest amount of sympathy for embattled House Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY-9), Salon news editor Steve Kornacki has a write-up about how Weiner got himself elected to office in the first place (via Ed Morrissey):

Weiner’s opening came in 1991, when the City Council was radically expanded, from 35 to 51 seats. One of the new districts, the 48th, would be in Southern Brooklyn. It was a neat match for Weiner. The new seat was in the heart of Schumer’s district, there was no incumbent, and the population was heavily Jewish. He jumped in the race.

He was not the favorite. Two other candidates with more name recognition, deeper ties to the community, stronger organizational support, and bigger bankrolls seemed to have the inside track: Michael Garson (the candidate of the Brooklyn Democratic organization) and Adele Cohen (the favorite of a progressive/labor coalition that backed candidates across the city in ’91). It was a low-profile race, but Weiner attracted positive reviews, aggressively campaigning and using his performer’s flair to steal the show at debates and candidate forums. But as the all-important Sept. 10 Democratic primary approached, the consensus was that he’d come up short and that, as Newsday put it in an editorial endorsing one of his opponents, he should “try again next time.”

It was at this point that Weiner’s campaign decided to blanket the district with leaflets attacking his opponents. But these were no ordinary campaign attacks: They played the race card, and at a very sensitive time. They were also anonymous.

Just weeks earlier, the Crown Heights riot — a deadly, days-long affair that brought to the surface long-standing tension between the area’s black and Jewish populations — had played out a few miles away from the 48th District. The episode had gripped all of New York and had been national news. It was just days after order had been restored that Weiner’s campaign distributed its anonymous leaflets, which linked Cohen — whose voters he was targeting in particular — to Jesse Jackson and David Dinkins, who was then New York’s mayor. It is hard to imagine two more-hated political figures in the 48th District at that moment. Jackson just a few years earlier had called New York “Hymie town,” and it was an article of faith among white voters in Weiner’s part of Brooklyn that Dinkins had protected the black rioters in Crown Heights — and thus endangered the white population — by refusing to order a harsh police crackdown. (Two years later, Dinkins would lose to Rudy Giuliani by an 80-20 percent margin in the 48th District.) The leaflets urged voters to “just say no” to the “Jackson-Dinkins agenda” that Cohen supposedly represented. At City Hall, Dinkins held up the flier and branded it “hateful.”


It’s something worth keeping in mind now, as Weiner’s career hangs in the balance. Is it unfair if he loses his political future because of a scandal as dumb as this one? Sure. But it’s also not exactly fair that he ever made it this far.

By that standard, about 75% of the Democrat party would be disqualified from office, considering that race card playing is in the unofficial Democrat handbook for how to effectively shut down discussion, and defeat and/or silence your Republican opposition in a New York minute. Bring it!

Anyway, not only is there the news that Weiner was a shameless race card player when it suited his political ambitions, but there’s this development just coming over the wires (via):

Their marriage has become the subject of intense speculation and scrutiny amid an embarrassing online sex scandal.

Now, Representative Anthony D. Weiner and Huma Abedin are about to make news of a different kind: they are expecting their first child.

Ms. Abedin, 35, is in the early stages of pregnancy, according to three people with knowledge of the situation.

The pregnancy, which the couple has disclosed to close friends and family, adds a new dimension to questions about the future of their marriage.

If Weiner wasn’t feeling like a low-life wiener before now after all that he’s confessed to, he really should now.

On a humorous note, James Taranto notices how liberal “feminists” are spinning the post-Weinergate commentary by condemning Weiner’s actions but adding that he’s not a hypocrite like a Republican would be because he supposedly never included family values in his various electoral campaigns or Congressional agenda:

One suspects this is merely an attempt to rationalize away the bad behavior of their political allies while reserving the right to condemn similar misbehavior in their foes. Hey, [Joan] Walsh and [Amanda] Marcotte are only human. But what a rationalization it is! What they are claiming is that their side has no moral standards, and therefore there is no basis on which they may be held to account.

Not only that, but some “feminists” are treating him just like they did serial adulterer Bill Clinton during his various affairs scandals while in the Oval Office: Tepid condemnations mixed with unwavering continued support. After all Weiner, like Clinton, is a staunch defender of “women’s rights” which is code for “abortion rights.” Don’t wanna bite the hand that feeds … or something like that. Exception to the rule being Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA-13) of the DCCC, a co-founder of a Philly abortion clinic who is now demanding that Weiner resign.

As that Politico article notes, other Democrats are bailing on Weiner, too:

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who served as DNC chairman during the Clinton administration, echoed her during an interview on “Hardball with Chris Matthews.”

“He should resign and he should get treatment, real treatment,” the blunt-spoken Philadelphian said.

On Tuesday, another former DNC chairman, Virginia Senate candidate Tim Kaine, said that Weiner’s public lies are reason enough to pack it in. Several other Democratic officials, including Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Indiana Rep. Joe Donnelly, who is running for the Senate and Rep. Michael Michaud (D-Maine) have made clear their preference that Weiner step aside. The Associated Press reported that Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), as well as Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) have also called on Weiner to resign.

As they say, stay tuned.

Related Reading: Kirsten Powers (an ex of Rep. Weiner) – He Lied to Me

Iranian official: “Retaliation and punishment are beautiful”


**Posted by Phineas

Call it the Shiite bookend to the earlier post about a Sunni cleric who argued that mutilating prisoners is an act of compassion. In this case, as PJM’s Reza Kahlili reports, there’s an extra-special Orwellian touch, as the “gentleman” in question is Mohammad-Javad Larijani, head of the Iranian judiciary’s Human Rights Council.

Have these guys got a sense of humor, or what?

Larijani, who had previously claimed that the sentence of stoning is much lighter than actual execution because the “defendant can actually survive,” also said:

  • “Retaliation and punishment are beautiful and necessary things. It’s a form of protection for the individual and civil rights of the people in a society. The executioner or the person carrying out the sentence is in fact very much a defender of human rights. One can say that there is humanity in the act of retaliation.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei also criticized the West last week for demeaning the value of women in their societies. He claimed that the Islamic regime of Iran has upheld the status of women, and that under Islam much attention is given to the role of women in society.

Call me crazy, but I get the sneaky feeling that most Iranian women would be grateful for less “attention:”

These two Iranian officials failed to mention that women in Iran are constantly attacked for not adhering to the Islamic hijab, or that thousands are in prison suffering torture, rape, and execution for seeking their rights. Just days ago, Iranian humanitarian and democracy activist Haleh Sahabi died after being severely beaten by Iranian security forces during her father’s funeral. Her body was immediately seized by Iranian authorities and her family forced to watch as they buried her that same night. No autopsy was allowed. Her father, also an activist, had been arrested several times in the past.

In spite of these atrocities, Iran was recently allowed to join the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Like I said, they’re regular jokers. But keep in mind, per Mr. Larijani, it’s all in defense of human rights.

Whether it’s Sunni or Shiite, these examples from Iran and Egypt are just the latest illustrations of Islam as a totalitarian religious-political system that subordinates the individual to the group as a fate-bound slave. It demands absolute control over the lives of its followers down to the minutest detail and ordains punishment for all deviation. Not just for those things we would regard as real crimes –robbery, murder, rape, etc.– but for all aspects of behavior, even for daring to drive a car when it is forbidden. Especially victimized are women, who are regarded as inferior beings, less intelligent (1), and therefore in need of control and, yes, punishment.

But remember, these are beautiful acts of compassion.

It’s for their own good.

(1) Muhammad said so. So there.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Did the Obama administration deliberately wreck an Israeli intel operation?


**Posted by Phineas

Israeli journalist Caroline Glick thinks they did:

Since last week’s announcement by the State Department that it was sanctioning the Israeli firm Ofer Brothers’ Shipping for reportedly violating US law by trading with Iran, there has been a deluge of news reports alleging that the Ofer Brother’s ships were used by the Mossad and perhaps the IDF to infiltrate and exfiltrate agents into and out of Iran.

There are number of troubling aspects to the story. First, it strikes me as odd that the announcement about the sanctions was made by the State Department. If I am not mistaken, these decisions and announcements are usually made by the Treasury Department. Why would the State Department have taken the unusual step of announcing the sanctions and take the step against an Israeli shipping company?

Second, it strikes me as odd that former Mossad chief Meir Dagan felt compelled to issue an impassioned defense of the Ofer Brothers Shipping company. Dagan is in the midst of an unprecedented, arguably illegal and certainly unseemly campaign to delegitimize Prime Minister Binyamin Netayahu. It seems strange that, in the midst of this offensive, Dagan would divert his attention to the Ofer Brothers Shipping woes. He must have been deeply shocked by the US move to do so.


The third reason this is so shocking is that the timing of the announcement cannot be viewed as coincidental. The rare State Department announcement came just after Netanyahu wiped the floor with Obama in the Congress and as the Republicans are wisely using Obama’s hatred of Israel and his love for anti-American political forces in the region as a campaign issue for 2012. It is hard not to reach the conclusion that the announcement was deliberately released at this juncture to weaken US public support for Israel.

In other words, in a fit of pique because Netanyahu dared to stand up for his country’s interests (1), Obama (2) burned an important Israeli intelligence asset, one valuable to our security, too, given our interests in foiling the mullah’s plans to develop and deploy nuclear weapons.

If Glick is right, this is an absolutely appalling exercise in self-defeating pettiness on the part of the Obama administration. There is no greater nor more urgent issue facing American national security than keeping a bunch of religious fanatics who want to bring about the Shiite apocalypse from getting their hands on nukes. This matter is so serious that, in my opinion, Tehran’s imminent possession of nuclear weapons justifies war.

But, instead, we pimp-slap our closest allies in the region, the people who probably planted the Stuxnet virus that slowed down Iran’s program and who likely have assets in place we would need in a showdown. As Glick asks, how on Earth are the Israelis supposed to trust us after something like this?

All because Obama made a fool of himself and Netanyahu wouldn’t back down.

I really hope Glick is wrong about this, because it otherwise says some dark and scary things about the maturity and seriousness of the people running our foreign policy in a very dangerous world.

And I sure hope 2013 sees the adults back in charge.

(1) Evidently an alien concept to certain presidents.

(2) Because you know he either originated this or approved the idea. This wouldn’t happen without him.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Chopping off hands is true compassion!


**Posted by Phineas

I don’t know what we benighted kuffar are afraid of. You see, under the enlightened rule of Sharia law, cutting off the hand of a thief or whipping a fornicator 100 times is an act of mercy; you’re both protecting society from the sinner and protecting the sinner form himself! Trust me, he or she will thank you for it.

But don’t take my word for it. Just ask respected Egyptian Islamic scholar Mas’oud Anwar. As a bonus, he even demonstrates the proper Islamic way to whip someone (1):

Of course, what the honored cleric (2) failed to mention was that “fornicators” subject to whipping apparently also includes women who are the victims of gang-rapes. “Compassion” must have a different meaning under Sharia than it does in English.

But that’s just details. It’s the thought that counts.

(1) Anthony Weiner should be very grateful he lives in New York…

(2) Did you notice how enthusiastic and happy he was during his demonstration? Creepy…

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)