The New York Times, not the Onion, reports:
The White House on Wednesday invoked the separation of powers to keep Desiree Rogers, President Obama’s social secretary, from testifying on Capitol Hill about how a couple of aspiring reality television show celebrities crashed a state dinner for the prime minister of India last week. “I think you know that, based on separation of powers, staff here don’t go to testify in front of Congress,’’ Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told reporters during his regular briefing. “She won’t — she will not be testifying in front of Congress.’’
They are kidding, right? Nope. Dead serious. Even the usually supportive media and law-professor contingent is gobsmacked by this hooey:
“I’d completely fall out of my chair if they invoked Executive privilege with regards to a social secretary arranging a party,” said Mark J. Rozell, a public-policy professor at George Mason who recently wrote a book on Executive privilege. “There is no prohibition under separation of powers against White House staff going to Capitol Hill to talk about what they know.”
You recall how loudly Democrats squawked when Karl Rove and other Bush advisers involved in real matters of executive deliberation balked at testifying before Congress. Now the most transparent administration in history is invoking executive privilege (which, according to my former Justice Department gurus, doesn’t “count” unless the president invokes it himself) to prevent the social secretary from testifying about a security breach at the White House. The arrogance and, yes, lack of transparency over an issue that has no policy implications (but that may prove embarrassing for a pal of White House honcho Valerie Jarrett) is remarkable, even for the Obami.
Calling Brando an anti-Semite for his hyperbole was a luxury people could engage in in the 1990s when most real Jew-haters (jihadis, Euro-leftists) hadn’t yet come out of the woodwork, or were hiding in plain sight.)
That said, however, didn’t “Joel Cairo” and “Caspar Gutman” from “The Maltese Falcon” qualify as shady Jews? I bet the average movie-goer would have viewed them as such.
I almost forgot “Nails Nathan” from “The Public Enemy.” But it’s true, “Nails” had class, even if his horse didn’t like him very much.
Absolutely. Brando’s pronouncement — whether anti-Semitic or not — was an absurd one.
Did Brando seriously contend that Hollywood had never perpetuated negative stereotypes of Jews?
Brando was 100% right!However the tears and begging for forgiveness to the top Jews was his greatest acting role ever!
Commentary » Blog Archive » Brando and the Jews great article thank you.
I think it’s funny that, on the one hand Jews describe themselves as the greatest sufferers in history, and on the other hand everyone is petrified at the mere thought of displeasing them. Brando was a wimp for apologizing and kissing ass. Rebel? I don’t think so.
I was living in NYC when Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” was released. Having grown up in the deep South, I was actually taken aback at how seemingly paranoid people appeared to be – and how insulting it was to hear people talk about how they expected Southerners would react to the movie, attacking Jews and burning synagogues to the ground.
I agree with the author that various high profile “attacks” by various Jewish political groups probably don’t have the intended effect. Basically, if I continue to hound someone, screaming “You don’t like me! You don’t like me!”, eventually their reaction will be “Yeah, *#$*# you!”
The method employed by various special interest groups seems to be to brand themselves as a group of some sort, based on a stereotype, work to promote that group – and then brand any outsider who poses any possible threat as a bigot.
I haven’t seen the interview, but the author seems to be relating that King kept baiting Brando, accusing him of being anti-semitic. “You hate me, don’t you? Admit it – you hate me!”
Again, as a Southern white boy, I lead the best possible life, facing no oppression of any form – so I can’t really relate to the suffering of Larry King
At any rate, typing this will be the first time I’ve ever even used the term “kyke” – but according to the bigots who surrounded me in NYC, me and my ignorant neighbors grew up hating Jews – therefore, Gibson’s “Passion” posed a serious threat to their race…
And so the movie was released, I went to see it simply out of protest – and from what I remember, the film didn’t result in any attacks on Jewish people or Jewish institutions by “impassioned” Christians.
So hey – Abe Foxman and his crowd can continue to “cry wolf” at the slightest of slights. I’m intelligent enough to realize that the doesn’t speak for a “people” – like King, he’s just a self-obsessed jerkoff who likes to hear himself talk and have others repeat him.
But I would say that Foxman and King do more to further anti-semitism than Gibson and King ever could. Just don’t try telling them that – you’ll be branded a bigot for life
COSSACKS BACK TOWER
Obama Invokes Executive Privilege; Where Is The Outraged Left?…
When George Bush was president there was a trumped up scandal involving a faux undercover CIA agent and her wanna-be ambassador husband. The entire “scandal” was called Plame Gate after Valerie Plame, the CIA agent who was not covert but a…