By

Ferris Bueller was detained, yesterday, as a likely high-school shooter.

Well, not really. But in the current hysteria over school shootings, the FBI and school administrators think Bueller — the campy main character of the popular ’80s movie — would be an excellent candidate for detainment and questioning by teachers and principals. So would most high-school students. Especially nerds and geeks. As if high school weren’t bad enough for them already.

Freedom lovers and civil libertarians beware. In response to school shooting incidents, like last week’s episode at Santana High School in Santee, Calif., or in 1999, at Columbine High School in Littleton, Co., government and school officials are engaging in dangerous profiling and zero-tolerance policies that won’t stop school violence. But they will take away our freedoms.

Read the rest of this entry »

By

The pardons hit the fan fast and furious in the waning hours of the Clinton presidency.

“You’re not saying these people didn’t commit an offense,” Bill explained about his pardons in the Jan. 22 New York Times. “You’re saying they paid, they paid in full, and they’ve been out long enough after their sentence to show they are good citizens.”

Trouble is, these “good citizens” who “paid in full” keep getting worse:

Everybody knows about Marc Rich, the billionaire fugitive, who never served a day in jail and currently lives “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” in Switzerland. On the FBI’s most wanted list, he was the largest tax evader in U.S. history and sold out America by selling oil to the Iranians, while they held our hostages captive. Why the pardon? Could it be because ex-wife Denise gave millions in contributions to the Democratic National Committee, Hillary’s Senate campaign, Bill’s Presidential Library and the Clintons’ furniture spree?

Then there was — ex-congressman and child molester extraordinaire. Likening a prospective threesome with an underage Catholic schoolgirl to hitting the Lotto, he now works for Jesse Jackson’s Operation PUSH advising kids. Why did Clinton pardon Reynolds? Because the Rev. Jesse asked him to.

Carlos Vignali — a drug kingpin and one of the largest cocaine dealers in U.S. history — is the latest newsworthy Clinton pardonee. Yesterday’s Los Angeles Times detailed Vignali’s career as “the central player in a cocaine ring that stretched from California to Minnesota,” delivering more than 800 pounds of cocaine. Why did Clinton pardon Vignali, who served only six years of a 15-year sentence for convictions on three counts of federal narcotics violations? Maybe because his father, rich Los Angeles entrepreneur Horacio Vignali, a la Denise Rich, donated over $160,000 to mostly Democrat politicians who wrote to Clinton and then-Attorney General Janet Reno, asking for clemency for Vignali.

And since it’s Black History Month, here’s some black history about the white, Hispanic Vignali. In the game of “Clinton Monopoly,” this kingpin drew a “get out of jail free” card, while his 30 co-defendants — many of them poor blacks — are rotting away in the federal penal system. One of them, Todd Hopson, was described as “an uneducated Black kid with a noticeable stutter” whose mid-level role in a Minneapolis drug ring “was nothing compared to Vignali.” But don’t expect to hear the NAACP and other civil-rights businesses attack their hero Clinton over his racially-profiled pardons. They’re too busy attacking new President Bush.

The only one missing from Clinton’s pardon list is O.J. Simpson. Oh yeah, he wasn’t convicted.

And darn, Clinton just missed the chance at posthumously pardoning Billy the Kid. Descendants of BtK, among the most notorious outlaws and killers in the Old West, are asking New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson to pardon “the Kid.” Sentenced to hang for murdering then-Lincoln County Sheriff William Brady by shooting him in the back 16 times, BtK escaped from jail by murdering two deputies.

Why should BtK, a.k.a. Henry McCarty, a.k.a. William H. Bonney, be pardoned? Well, why not, with the types Bill Clinton has pardoned.

“The Kid’s” great-grandson, Elbert Garcia, and other family “just want to see if Billy could be pardoned,” said New Mexico State Rep. Ben Rios, who is helping BtK’s family in their bid for the pardon. With drug kingpins, child molesters, and billionaire tax-evaders who sold out U.S. hostages to terrorist nations on Clinton’s pardon list, BtK would make it a royal flush. President James Garfield, who occupied the White House at the time of the Kid’s crime and execution in 1881, had the good sense, unlike Clinton, never to grant such an outrageous pardon.

But, at least, in contrast to Clinton’s unconscionable pardons, the Kid’s relatives have the guts to admit their part in their ridiculous effort. The Vignali’s claim they “have no idea who” helped them or why, even though Vignali told his Minneapolis lawyer he got out because “word around prison was that it was the right time to approach the president.” And presidents send word to federal inmates every day, right?

When news of the Rich pardon swirled, Denise Rich, through her spokesman Bobby Zarem, said she “didn’t know about the pardon. She was completely and totally taken by surprise,” he told the Wall Street Journal. “It’s not something she would have wanted.” Really? As it turns out, not only was it something she knew about and wanted, the pardon was the result solely of her aggressive campaign, including the large contributions to the Clintons. Congressman Dan Burton, who is investigating this, is trying to offer Ms. Rich immunity, in exchange for her testimony. Given her big lie from the beginning, how will he know she’s ever telling the truth?
And there are the allegations that Ms. Rich may be Monica, Part Deux. She visited the White House over 100 times last year, mostly while Hillary was out of town. Then, there’s Clinton’s description of her as one of his “closest friends” and statements of some sort of “relationship.” The New York Times wrote of Ms. Rich’s “certain direct charm,” and her friend, talk-show host Geraldo Rivera, speaks of her desire “to be a kind of Pamela Harriman,” the late Democratic Party fund-raiser, who charmed the wealthy Averill Harriman into marrying her and Clinton into naming her ambassador to France.

But how will we ever know? After all, Bill and Monica both lied and got away with it. And virtually everyone involved with Clinton’s pardons is lying. Take Hillary, please. She denies any role in the Rich pardon.

“I know nothing about that,” she told the New York Post.

“I do not believe that anyone ever approached Sen. Clinton,” Rich’s lead pardon lawyer, Jack Quinn, told House investigators, Thursday. But both Quinn and Hillary were at a fund-raiser at Ms. Rich’s New York penthouse apartment in October, raising money for Hillary. Why was Quinn there, if not for the pardon? What were they discussing — the price of tea in China?
Remember Bill Clinton’s promise, in 1992, that his would be the most ethical presidency in history. He signed executive orders in 1993, preventing former administration staffers from lobbying him. But, in December, he signed a new order revoking the 1993 ones, just in time for former staffer Quinn, a former White House counsel and Gore chief of staff, to lobby for Rich’s pardon.

On the last day of his presidency, after pardons were announced and Bush was inaugurated, Clinton went to a Chappaqua, N.Y., deli for a sandwich. The New York Times reports that Kathleen McAvoy asked her daughter, Siobhan, “Don’t you want to have a president’s signature?”

“He is not a president,” Siobhan replied firmly.

By

We already know the Democrats’ oft-rehearsed concern for female victims of sexual harassment is mere lip service. Throughout the Clinton administration, the nation was treated to a consistent river of examples that belie their claimed concern.

Whether it was Paula, Monica, Kathleen, or one of the other multiple Jane Does; whether it was Hillary Clinton’s attempt to get the U.N. Conference on Women to allow child prostitution and sex rights for girls as young as age 10; for the last eight years, all women were VOBs: Victims of Bill.

And in the tradition of Clinton’s presidency, he ended with one last bang against women and children, his pardoning of ex-Congressman Mel Reynolds.

While outrage abounds regarding Jesse Jackson’s illicit affair and lovechild and Bill Clinton’s unconscionable pardons like that of billionaire fugitive and renounced U.S. citizen Marc Rich, Reynolds’ pardon may be even more appalling.

Read the rest of this entry »

By

Last year’s Super Bowl featured 13 convicted criminals, most of whom committed very serious crimes. And while the criminal count for Sunday’s Super Bowl in Tampa has yet to be reported, the presence of one player, Ray Lewis, more than meets the NFL’s thug quota.

Lewis, a Baltimore Ravens linebacker and the NFL’s Defensive Player of Year, is likely an accessory to murder, if not worse. After last year’s Super Bowl, two people were stabbed to death, outside an Atlanta bar, and three people were arrested for their murder. One of them was Lewis, who was found guilty of obstructing the murder investigation. But Lewis and Ravens Coach Brian Billick think we should just “let it go.” Billick had the audacity to tell reporters that coverage of a likely murderer in the Super Bowl is “reprehensible.” No, the fact that Lewis is in Sunday’s game is what’s reprehensible.

Read the rest of this entry »

By

With Democrats girding for John Ashcroft’s confirmation hearings, you have to wonder: Are they the real racists?
The Sunday political shows were brimming with “enlightened” Senate Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy and Paul Wellstone, each ready to skewer their former Senate colleague in his nomination as President-elect George W. Bush’s choice for attorney general. Each stopping just short of using the “R” word — as in racism.

What were Ashcroft’s alleged crimes? Well, he opposed confirming to the federal bench a judge who was lenient towards, and opposed the death penalty for, cop killers. But since the judge happened to be black, then, of course, Ashcroft must be a racist. No questions, though, about whether the black judge was racist against the dead, white cop victims and their families.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Debbie Schlussel

THE POLITICAL PUNDITS and prognosticators can pontificate all they want. But I’m the one of a few who really knows what it’s like to be an Orthodox Jewish candidate. And I won’t be voting for Joe Lieberman.

Yes, I’m an Orthodox Jew. And in 1990, at the age of 21, I ran for the Michigan House of Representatives . . . and lost by just ONE vote — the closest race in Michigan history. I ran again in 1998 and came close again. Sure, I was never U.S. Senator or a vice presidential candidate. But still, I know what it’s like to be an Orthodox Jew running for public office.

And I also know that Joe Lieberman does not represent me or most of my “branch” of Judaism.

Sure, I identify with Lieberman. I know what it’s like to be criticized for not campaigning on Saturday.When I was running for the House, my handlers and advisors were apoplectic about this prohibition. Couldn’t I get a dispensation of some sort — just for during the campaign — they asked? Because Saturday is not only the Sabbath; it’s unfortunately also the best day to go door-to-door getting votes.

Lieberman and I were both at a disadvantage here. But the fact that we had a day of rest — just like the Creator did — gave us the renewal and rejuvenation to outcampaign anyone and more than make up for it the rest of the week.

I’m sure Joe and I have a lot in common at political gatherings and dinners. We’re no “regular Joes” there, because the food’s not kosher, and we can’t eat it. I’m sure — until now, at least — that, like me, Lieberman always had to explain why he wasn’t eating. (At one point, I started saying I was vegetarian, just to get away from going into the “strange” rules of keeping kosher) which was usually the follow-up question.

I like being different, but . . . .

Lieberman never went to conventions that fell on Saturdays, but I went to Michigan Republican conventions as early as high school, so that I could become a Jack Kemp delegate to the 1988 Republican National Convention. Since Orthodox Jews do not drive or turn electricity on or off on the Sabbath, I can remember hiking three miles or more on frozen, icy sidewalks just to get to the convention venue. I remember taping over the computerized lock on my hotel room door, to disable it, because on the Sabbath we are prohibited from even activating the green light that signals it’s okay to get in the room.

I remember when, in high school, I was a candidate for Michigan Youth Governor, my Dad and I stayed at a seedy, infested motel so we could be close enough to walk to the election venue in third-world-esque Pontiac, Michigan, on the Sabbath.

So, it makes me laugh when people question Lieberman’s ability to work on Saturdays as a VP. After all, what did Bill Clinton do on Sunday’s — his Sabbath? He usually posed with Hillary and his Bible on the way out of church. And then, it was straight to the Oval Office for a session with Monica.

Yup, it’s a real loss that Joe can’t work on Saturdays.

I can also identify with Lieberman’s family. Like Lieberman’s, my Dad’s parents were immigrants. His wife, like my Mom, is an immigrant daughter of Holocaust survivors, and they are about the same age. Hadassah Lieberman was born to Czechoslavakian Jews in a refugee camp and lived there ’til she was three. My Mom was born in Bergen Belsen camp in Germany and lived there ’til she was six. She and my Mom both grew up here, went to college (and for two years the same college —Yeshiva University in Manhattan), and married professionals (my Dad’s a doctor). But unlike Lieberman — and Cheney — my Dad got no deferments, serving proudly in the Army during Korea and Vietnam.

Like Lieberman, I was one of a few Jewish students at a public high school, and like him, I was elected the head of my class. And while, with all of the similarities, there’s some pride in the Lieberman choice, it’s not enough to get my parents and me to vote for his ticket.

It’s not really a breakthrough for us that he’s running for Veep . . . that he’s so welcome in the Democratic Party. Because we know he’s not really welcome there. And if it weren’t for Bill Clinton’s pro-gravity zipper and a stained blue dress, Lieberman would never be the Dems’ pick for any national office.

There are a lot of things, that for us, as Orthodox Jews, but — even more importantly, as proud Americans — that would truly be breakthroughs in the Democratic Party. But this is not one of them.

It would be a breakthrough, if — once and for all — the Democrats had the guts to really stand up against bigotry. Their claims to be against hate are belied by the Democrats’ absolute refusal to ever denounce Jesse Jackson’s various comments about Jews. “Hymietown” was the tamest and only publicized of his many such comments. As early as the Nixon Administration, he made other similar anti-Jewish comments against Erlichman and Haldeman, who weren’t even Jewish. It would really be a breakthrough if the Democrats would renounce Louis Farrakhan and his ilk, but they will not. Lieberman has apparently forgotten that his is the party that refused to denounce anti-Semitism in its platform in the late 80s and early 90s, lest Jackson and Farrakhan be insulted. This is an outrage.

It would really be a breakthrough if a candidate who calls people “F—— Jew B——-s” in front of three witnesses is disassociated. It would really be a breakthrough if the same candidate, who also stood by silently while Suha Arafat says Jews poisoned air and water to give Palestinians cancer, were kicked out of the Party. (That candidate’s friend, Suha, sounds like she’s vying with Farrakhan for the biggest Jewish conspiracy tale.) It would really be a breakthrough if the party permanently shunned guys like Al Sharpton, who in 1991, incited riots, terrorism, and murder against Jews in Crown Heights, New York, and who, in 1995, incited the burning down of Jewish-owned “Freddie’s Fashion Mart” (which Sharpton called a “White interloper”) that employed Blacks (one of which was killed in the fire, along with a Hispanic), while the rioters he lead yelled, “bloodsucking Jews”).

Instead, these two candidates — Weird Al and Weirder Hillary — are the darling leaders of this Party. Lieberman’s Party. And Lieberman has been and will continue to be campaigning for Hillary to Jewish organizations. This man is no breakthrough. He’s a shill.

It would really be a breakthrough if the Democrats would renounce Arab terrorists and terrorist groups that have cold-bloodedly and brutally killed American servicemen and diplomats. Guys like Yasser Arafat, who instructed the brutal murder of our Ambassador to Sudan, Cleo Noel, who was so badly beaten one couldn’t tell if he was Black or White. But they will not. Instead, the Democrats’ Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, is having this guy for tea at her farm. It would really be a breakthrough if the Democrats would stop surrounding themselves with Larry Flynt, Playboy, Hollywood, and lots of other institutions that disrespect our Judeo-Christian American values (and women). But they won’t.

There are many breakthroughs for us Jews that will apparently never happen in the Democratic Party.

But actually, Mr. Lieberman is even less of a breakthrough because his views couldn’t differ more from the views of most Orthodox Jews in America.

Orthodox Judaism is conservative. But — reality check — Lieber(al)man isn’t. He voted 89% of the time with Bill Clinton, 87% with his party on partisan issues.

He’s so pro-abortion that he’s for the bloody partial-birth kind. Jewish law forbids abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger. Most Orthodox rabbis and Jews are strongly pro-life, and certainly, partial-birth abortion is viewed as almost murder by virtually all.

Lieberman used to be for vouchers, but now he’s running away from them faster than Olympic sprinters Michael Johnson and Maurice Greene. Most Orthodox Jews support vouchers because, like Lieberman does with his daughter Chana, they send their kids to private Jewish day schools, where tuition costs are prohibitive. But he can’t upset the Democrats’ NEA constituency. So now he’s just like the Clintons — sending Chelsea to a good private school, while the rest of America’s kids can rot their minds in public schools.

Lieberman verbally attacks affirmative action preferences for minorities, and Orthodox (and most) Jews are overwhelmingly against those, too, because they keep Jews out of positions they earned through merit. But the NAACP, which strongly supports preferences, gave Lieberman a 90% score, and there’s no record of Lieberman ever voting against preferences or for their elimination.

He’s for gay rights, another thing with which his co-religionists disagree. Under the gay rights and hate crimes bills for which he voted, private Jewish schools like the one his daughter attends could be forced to hire gay teachers, even gay Rabbis. The Episcopal church is currently being sued, under similar laws, for firing a Lesbian teacher.

The Torah teaches us that G-d helps those who help themselves. But Lieberman doesn’t want me to help myself. He’s for strong gun control. As a Jewish candidate for veep, he gets Secret Servicemen with guns for protection. His favored laws say I shouldn’t have guns for protection.

He voted against confirmation of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. Most Orthodox Jews supported Thomas and didn’t believe Hill, and they like Thomas’ decisions, which are friendly to morality, religion, limited government, and eliminating racial preferences.

And you know the bad sex and violence stuff in Hollywood that Lieberman’s been attacking? Well, then, why did he vote against eliminating funding for the National Endowment for the Arts? The “art” it funds is equally, if not more, offensive and reprehensible. And why is Hollywood rushing to support and defend Lieberman, unlike the conservatives it trashes? Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, and Jeffrey Katzenberg couldn’t havegushed over the guy more, in an August 7 Army Archerd column. Ditto for “Gangsta Rap” chief defender, Hillary Rosen, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America. “[W]e share the common goal of doing what is right for America’s youth,” she said of Lieberman. Yeah, right! Motion Picture Academy Association of America chief, Jack Valenti, now says, of Lieberman, “In the world of politics . . . there’s room for disagreement.” Except, not with Republicans. And Lieberman’s Chief of Staff, Dan Gerstein, is quick to tell Reuters, “Lieberman has not attacked Hollywood. He has raised some concerns. . . .”

And most Orthodox Jews were outraged by Clinton’s sex-scandal behavior. My entire synagogue wanted him removed from office. But speech aside, that’s not what Lieberman wanted.

It’s against Jewish law (as per the “Mishnah” and “Shulchan Aruch,” two of many multi-volume treatises of Jewish law) to go to a store and try on a dress that you have no intention of buying. But it doesn’t just mean a dress (Blue dresses with stains excluded). It’s a parable for behavior.

By strongly criticizing Clinton’s behavior in his famous Senate speech and then voting against Impeachment, Lieberman tried on the dress he had no intention of buying. The same goes for his rapidly changing positions on vouchers, affirmative action, and virtually everything else. He talks the talk. He doesn’t walk the walk.

While some Jews think Lieberman will be great for the Jewish people — and while some Arabs are worried about this — the facts are otherwise and may be cause for concern.

In 1992, Washington Post columnist David Broder wrote that Lieberman helped the Arab-American Institute (AAI) and its president, Jim Zogby, get in touch with Bill Clinton and George Stephanopolous, when Zogby couldn’t do so on his own. By doing this, Lieberman gave Zogby and AAI considerable clout and a strong relationship with Clinton they never would’ve had, so much so that this year, Clinton was the first U.S. President to attend AAI’s banquet.

Neither Zogby nor many Arabs live in Lieberman’s Connecticut, but Zogby and his organization have a long, strong record of supporting terrorists and terrorist countries that advocate the destruction of America, Israel and the Jews, and that have a long record of torturing, bombing and murdering innocent Americans and Jews.

This week, Sen. Lieber(al)man also reversed course on his long-held position that the American embassy should be in Israel’s capitol, Jerusalem. In fact, he was a co-sponsor of legislation that required America to move the embassy by May 1999.

“Right now I think it would not be a good idea because there is still the flame of hope burning at Camp David,” Lieberman told CNN’s Larry King.

Everyone from the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan to JWR’s Suzanne Fields to The Washington Post’s Hannah Rosin has compared Lieberman to Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax, Major League Baseball players who wouldn’t play on Yom Kippur in the 30s and 60s, respectively. Sorry, but Lieberman’s no Greenberg or Koufax. Not even close. They were proud men who stood up for themselves and their beliefs. You can’t say that for Lieberman, his conduct, and his association with the Democratic Party.

Lieberman’s no breakthrough. He’s more like the Black guy in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” And while the food on the table might be kosher, Lieberman’s votes and Party aren’t.

By

It’s official. CBS lies to America.

First, CBS lied to America about objectivity. Any credibility the network had left was dispelled by Bryant Gumbel. On the “Early Show,” Mr. Arrogant Former Sportscaster uttered, “What a f—ing idiot!” after he hostilely interviewed conservative Robert Knight about the Boy Scouts’ exclusion of gay scoutmasters. CBS flacks claimed the network doesn’t know what Gumbel said. Yeah, right! Why don’t you look at the tape?! Duh.

And now the lie is an undisclosed Black Supremacist hatemonger and killer disguised as nice, normal people, on a staged “reality” show.

The big lie is “Big Brother” (BB), dreadfully boring with ten contestants in a house shut off (no electronic or personal contact) from the outside world. . . . Or is it? Lie #1: “No outside contact,” CBS claims this in the show’s rules and opening credits. It’s the main premise of the show. But it’s a big lie. Otherwise, how would the participants know that the ratings of the show are tanking? (They discussed this on the 24-hour live internet video.)

Lie #2: Cast member William is a Philadelphia youth counselor who helps kids. That’s what CBS wants you and his housemates to think. In reality, William Collins a/k/a Hiram Ashantee, according to the New York Daily News, is a racist hatemonger and top aide to former Louis Farrakhan sidekick Khalid Abdul Muhammad.

Read the rest of this entry »

By
Someone once said lawyers are like bread. They’re best when they’re young and new. Thereafter, they become more stale and moldy by the minute.

Exhibit A: two crusty, old lawyers in the news–Greg Craig and Attorney General Janet Reno.

Reno violated the law, with the illegal break-in that she and Craig orchestrated in Miami. But even worse, Craig severely violated the ethics rules governing attorneys, in a case involving life under freedom versus life under tyranny.
And for that, he should be disbarred.

In his conduct as the attorney of Juan Miguel Gonzalez (Elian’s father), Craig–a member of the District of Columbia Bar and a partner at the Williams & Connolly law firm– violated multiple canons in the Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys in the District.

Rules 1.7 through 1.9, governing conflicts of interest, clearly state that a lawyer may not engage in the kind of representation that Craig is engaging in, here:

A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client. . . .

Craig was Bill Clinton’s personal attorney in the Lewinsky/Impeachment matter. The same Bill Clinton who wants to open up trade to Cuba. And this little fly, called Elian, is in the ointment. Craig was also a director of policy planning to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, one of the top positions setting foreign policy at the State Department. The foreign policy at the same State Department that’s crawling with Castrophile bureaucrats who’d love to open trade with Cuba while its people suffer in tyranny. Craig also serves on the board of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The same Carnegie Endowment that wants to end the embargo with Cuba, so that its wealthy, elitist members, like Craig, might freely smoke a Cuban cigar.

So does Greg Craig have a conflict of interest in representing anyone but Castro in this whole Elian saga? Ya think! What if Juan Miguel really wants to defect? Does anyone really think Craig would do what was in his client’s best interest to make that happen? A poor Cuban guy versus the leader of the free, capitalist world and the leader of the captive cigar world. Hmmm. . . Which side do you think Craig is picking? He’s got no business representing anyone in this case.

Then, there’s the problem of payment:

A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless . . . there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship.

Well, gee, isn’t Craig’s bill being picked up by the government of Castro . . . oops, I mean the National Council of Churches(NCC)? Yup, that’s the problem. Nobody’s coming clean about who’s paying Craig’s bill. Probably because, as it’s been rumored, Castro’s been giving the money to the NCC and using the organization as his willing shill. Either way, these two despicable entities–Castro and the NCC–have an agenda. An agenda that’s anti-freedom, pro-tyranny, and 180 degrees from what’s in the best interest of Juan Miguel. And it’s clear that Craig is taking his direction from them, not his client. Clearly grounds for disbarment.
And that’s not all.

I haven’t forgotten Elian, himself. But apparently Craig has. Rules 4.1 through 4.4 deal with an attorney’s transactions with persons other than clients. Elian is not Craig’s client, and because he’s a minor with different interests than Juan Miguel, a minor without the capacity to understand the adversarial nature of encounters with his father’s attorney, Elian is entitled to his own attorney–a point made by conservative legal minds like . . . Alan Dershowitz? Since, ostensibly, Elian doesn’t have his own attorney, Craig violated ethics governing dealings with unrepresented parties.

And it can be argued that Elian is already represented by counsel, attorneys Spencer Eig et. al., who were representing not just the Miami family, but also, and specifically, Elian–in filing Elian’s petition for asylum. In that case, Craig had no right to contact Elian without Eig’s consent, constituting improper communication with a represented party.

And Craig violated several rules by orchestrating the raid on the Miami house. Because Reno and her government agent thugs acted as de facto judges in making their decision with regard to custody (in contravention of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals) in seizing the boy, Craig’s communication with Reno constitutes an illegal, ex-parte (one-sided, one-party) communication. Not to mention that it violates ethics rules prohibiting a lawyer’s use of methods of obtaining evidence that violates the legal rights of third parties–Elian and the Miami family. And what about the Court Order allowing this raid to happen? Craig was, likely, in on it, but the Miami family’s attorneys were not and were thus prevented from presenting their case to the ill-informed judge who signed the Order. Yet, another illegal, ex-parte act. But who’s counting?

Craig sent a letter to media outlets just prior to the raid–implicating his role in it, and asked the media to refrain from covering any such event. Doesn’t Craig know that, other than to announce the filing of a lawsuit, a lawyer is prohibited from contacting or soliciting the media in an ongoing lawsuit? And they call this guy a lawyer?! Pretty dumb for a Harvard AND Yale grad.

The fact is, Craig has played fast and loose with the law–with the rules–for some time. After all, his most famous client lied, and he defended it. He ridiculed the Clinton Impeachment panel for charging Clinton with lying. For that lying, Clinton is now about to be disbarred. While working for Ted Kennedy, he pushed the world to divest from and impose sanctions on South Africa. But Cuba, what a great country to trade with! In coordinating Clinton’s non-policy on Tibet, Craig “smoothed over” Tibetan protests over oppression by the Chinese, so his Boss-in-Chief could hold two garish summits with the Chinese oppressors. This is the Craig-Clinton version of justice.

Craig makes much of his representation of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. But lifting an old guy from tyranny does not allow you to dump a young kid back into it. Solzhenitsyn would never support sending Elian back. And Castro would never support guys like Craig on Cuban soil. Castro threw lawyers who represented pro-democracy Cubans (whose only crime was speech) into the same torturous Cuban prisons with their clients. And Craig represented John Hinckley, Jr., Ronald Reagan’s would-be assassin. Can you imagine what Castro would do to a man who represented his attempted murderer?

Shakespeare said: First, we kill all the lawyers.

Marisleysis and Lazarro Gonzalez can’t do that Greg Craig. But they can continue their fight for Elian’s freedom in the legal system.
And they can and should seek Greg Craig’s disbarment.

Anyone can file a grievance against him with the DC Bar for his actions in this case. And if the Miami family doesn’t. Maybe someone else will.

By

Dear President Ford:

I’m sorry to hear that you don’t believe in the merit system on which our great country was founded and is based. It’s disturbing that you don’t believe in due process and equal protection under the law. And, worst of all, It’s frightening that you believe in the worst kind of racism our country is now experiencing. I’m referring to your recent, ridiculous New York Times defense of affirmative action at our mutual alma mater, The University of Michigan.

As you know, recent lawsuits against both Michigan’s law school and its undergraduate programs may soon result in the elimination of sanctioned reverse racism at those taxpayer-funded institutions, especially in this era, where the end of affirmative action regularly enjoys more popularity in the polls than any other conservative issue position. That’s why, at the behest of your liberal friends in the academic business–like Michigan president Lee Bollinger–you wrote your weak, sophistic column. But, Mr. Ford, you’ve been spending too much time skiing with your limousine leftist buddies in Aspen. You’re completely out of touch.
I can see how you you’d identify with affirmative action. After all, you became President of the United States via your own version of affirmative action. You were never elected in your own right to any national office. You were swiftly promoted to the ranks of Vice President and President through the misfortune and resignations of others. But when it came time for you to earn it on your own merits–even as a sitting President–you couldn’t make the grade, losing the election to–of all people–Jimmy Carter. You never made it on your own merits, and now, you don’t think minorities should have to, either.

You write of our pursuit of racial justice as the most inspiring American triumph in the past century, referring to such racially just milestones as Harry Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces and Dwight D. Eisenhower’s use of federal troops to integrate Little Rock’s Central High. But how can the discrimination against white males ever constitute racial justice? How can you invoke the military–where, today, minorities like Colin Powell regularly climb to the highest rungs on the ladder, on a merit basis, not a racial one? What hypocrisy you display in praising desegregation of high school education, when your whole column promotes racial discrimination at the collegiate level.

I had to laugh when you cited your experience as a Michigan football player, Class of ’35, as the basis of your support for this awful, racist policy. Because a Black football player chose of his own volition not to play in a game against Georgia Tech, all of America needs to suffer from reverse discrimination?! You are as qualified to speak about the need for affirmative action on today’s college campuses as Alexander Graham Bell is to speak about the Internet. This is the end of the ’90s, and you’re still talking about the ’30s?! By the way, did you know that Adolph Hitler is dead and World War II ended? Ever hear of a few people named Jordan, Winfrey, and Cosby?

I’m much more qualified to talk about the merits of affirmative action at the university level. I graduated from Michigan less than ten years ago, not 65 years ago. And, unlike you, I didn’t attend high school in lily-white western Michigan, either. I graduated from a majority Black school, Southfield Senior High, two miles from the Detroit border and solidly in the ‘hood. You say we need “tolerance . . .beyond our neighborhoods.” Well, Mr. Ford, welcome to my neighborhood.

I watched my Black classmates, who got the same education and opportunities and came from the same upper middle class background as I did, get into Michigan with appalling grades and test scores, while many less fortunate white students with impressive academic credentials got rejected. Do you think this helped end racism? No, it bred racism.

I watched brilliant Black students, like my friend Deidre–a scholar, model, and basketball star–saddened by the fact that their legitimately-earned admission to Michigan would never mean anything–knowing that because of affirmative action, no-one would ever believe they really deserved to get in on the merits. She now has an MBA and runs the vast business operations and investment vehicles for basketball star Isiah Thomas. She didn’t want or need your affirmative action.

Your apparent elitist, racist philosophy that Blacks can’t do well on their own, so we Whites have to help them up is belied by the views and ultimate successes of many of my Black classmates. An article I wrote in my high school newspaper captured their feelings. “I wouldn’t want to walk into a corporation and move ahead quickly to the top because I’m Black,” said my classmate Ken Browner, an unwed father and Army ROTC member. “It’s just not fair . . . . I want to earn my way up, not just be given a free ride.” Spencer Overton, now a Harvard Law School graduate, said he, too, felt race-based affirmative action was unfair.

When I went to Michigan–and it’s no different, today–at least two-thirds of the football and basketball teams were Black. Funny, I don’t hear you advocating affirmative action for Whites who are overwhelmingly underrepresented on these teams. You write that affirmative action at Michigan creates “the finest educational environment for all students” and produces a “significant minority component” with “outstanding academic success.”

In reality, minority students got to take easier, remedial classes in the maths and sciences, and they were apocryphally recorded on their transcripts as the same tough courses that the rest of us were restricted to. It’s no surprise that many minority students dropped out, though–even with these absurd advantages–because when you admit the unqualified, the best of intentions won’t remedy the lack of qualifications.

What about my experiences interviewing for jobs and applying to graduate school? Was it fair that my friend Gail, the daughter of a wealthy stockbroker, got into Columbia Law School with an LSAT score below the 70th percentile and a GPA just bordering a 3.0, all on the basis of skin color? Was it right that, at the University of Wisconsin Law School, my minority classmates got exclusive final exam reviews sessions, in which the exam questions were disclosed? Mr. Ford, how do these episodes constitute racial justice? Sure, it’s just anecdotal evidence. But that’s the problem with affirmative action–virtually everyone has a personal anecdote of how this reverse form of racism harmed them.

Mr. Ford, you write that the Michigan lawsuits are a “threat” to diversity and will result in “cultural and social impoverishment” of Whites. But affirmative action never benefits the poor, underclass Blacks it was meant to help. And where is the poor White underclass in all of this? Affirmative action benefits middle- and upper-class Blacks with plenty of advantages in life. A Black guy in a polo shirt is hardly diverse from or more culturally and socially enriching than a White guy in a polo shirt.

You describe your vote for the package of Civil Rights Act bills. But reverse racism was never the intent of these laws, which explicitly ban all racial discrimination, including affirmative action. Before they were passed by Congress, these bills’ floor manager, Senator Hubert Humphrey, told one of the bill’s opponents during Senate debate, “If the Senator can find in the bill any language which provides that an employer or other will have to hire or admit on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, I will start eating the pages, one after another, because, it is not there.”

You say that the lawsuits will scuttle Michigan’s admissions system, where you claim race is only one of many factors. Reality check: Michigan philosophy Professor Carl Cohen, a former ACLU board member, found the exact opposite. His FOIA request of devastating admissions data showed that race was usually the only factor in the admission of clearly less qualified minority candidates over far superior White ones.

Since the filing of the suits, Michigan’s new admissions policy, requiring 99 points for admission, gives an automatic 20 points for minority status, but only six points for a perfect 1600 SAT score. This, too, is clearly illegal, Unconstitutional, and a violation of Civil Rights laws. Even liberal Justice Lewis Powell’s landmark Bakke decision expressly forbids this. “Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This, the Constitution forbids.”

Mr. Ford, I’m glad you’re not President anymore, because as the Chief Executive enforcing our laws, you’d have a problem.
Luckily, people are fed up with reverse racism, and brave Americans, like Ward Connerly–the Black University of California regent–are fighting successfully to end affirmative action. His referendum banning affirmative action at the collegiate level in California won, despite a well-funded, Goliath-like campaign against it. And his American Civil Rights Institute is targeting other states.
In Michigan, a federal court jury recently awarded Patricia Steffes $2.6 million against Pepsi, after it discriminated against the White, 24-year employee, giving her promotion to a much less qualified Black man.

These are great Americans who care about freedom. They are fulfilling Martin Luther King, Jr.’s vision where one day his kids would be judged not “by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Mr. President, you, on the other hand, want to continue to take away freedom and opportunity from hundreds of thousands of Americans by preserving affirmative action. Your country just award you the Presidential Medal of Freedom. You believe in freedom, but apparently not in true equality.

And there will never be full freedom, as long as there are race, gender, and ethnic preferences in America.

Sincerely,