Advertisement

The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 AM Eastern
Hugh Hewitt Book ClubHugh Hewitt Book Club

Down the Bolt Holes

Tuesday, August 2, 2005  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Using the information from the 2002 990 for the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club, Radioblogger has been dialing for directors this afternoon, and has reached a couple, both of whom declined to appear on the program. One told us that all calls were being directed towards the Rubenstein Public Relations Firm. Hmmm. I wonder who’s paying for that? We were also told that bloggers are calling and calling. Heh.

The MSM is still AWOL.

I interviewed Michelle Malkin on the story today. Radioblogger will have the transcrip later.

UPDATE:

Rubenstein Public Relations runs a sub-practice in Investor Relations. Their description:

WHO WE ARE

Rubenstein Investor Relations (RIR) is an integrated communications agency for publicly traded and future publicly traded companies.

Founded by Richard Rubenstein, a third-generation publicist and founder of the criticallyacclaimed media firm, Rubenstein Public Relations, RIR has been helping its clients in numerous ways through its extensive network of contacts.As a result of our efforts, some clients have formed strategic alliances that have resulted in improvements in liquidity and overall valuation. Others have increased stock exposure, broadening the company’s shareholder base and reducing trading volatility. Still other clients have raised capital through primary and secondary offerings, debt financing, and restructuring. Most important, we create tailored IR plans that meet our clients’ specific needs.

RIR is a boutique investor relations firm staffed by Wall Street professionals. We specialize in introducing and positioning small- and micro-cap companies to the appropriate community of investors. We focus on facilitating and developing strong and lasting investment banking relationships, building institutional support, and improving our clients’ overall investor relations strategies. We also enable our clients to seek funding and increase exposure through:

Advertisement

Why You Really Ought to Subscribe to TNR

Tuesday, August 2, 2005  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Yes, there are a lot of silly articles in The New Republic. But there is also great reporting, like Peter Bergen’s and Paul Cruickshank’s “Clerical Error: The dangers of tolerance,” on the radical imams that Great Britain has sheltered for the past decades. Here’s one chilling excerpt:

But it was only after September 11 that Al Muhajiroun began to draw significant media attention. Shoe-bomber Richard Reid was found to have attended some of its meetings. Bakri later hit the headlines when he tried to organize a conference to celebrate the “Magnificent 19,” a reference to the 19 September 11 hijackers. On April 30, 2003, two Britons of Pakistani descent attacked a nightclub in Tel Aviv, killing three. One of the attackers, Asif Mohammed Hanif–who appears to hold the distinction of being Britain’s first suicide bomber–used to hang out at Bakri’s offices. Omar Khan Sharif, who failed to detonate his device and was found dead in the Mediterranean Sea a few days later, also attended several Al Muhajiroun meetings. After the Tel Aviv attack, Bakri told The Daily Telegraph, “I knew Sharif very well, and he used to attend regularly at my sessions. He was my brother, and I am very proud of him and any Muslim who will do the same as him.” Bakri told us that Sharif had asked about the Islamic justification for suicide bombing, but denied any role in the attack.

Bakri’s name is also linked to a bomb plot broken up by British police in March 2004. Five British Pakistanis are awaiting trial for planning to use half a ton of ammonium nitrate, which they had been storing near Heathrow Airport, to hit targets in the United Kingdom. Several of the plotters, including a brilliant young cricketer, Omar Khyam, attended Bakri’s meetings. Khyam’s uncle told an interviewer: “Omar was a normal kid until Al Muhajiroun started preaching their hatred ’round here.”

Bakri told us that, while he had known some of those involved in the ammonium nitrate plot, they had cut their ties with Al Muhajiroun, finding his group “too moderate.” They did not believe, for instance, in Bakri’s “Covenant of Security.” This novel construct, for which Bakri attributes Koranic justification, proscribes Muslims living in Britain from waging jihad there. Bakri’s Covenant of Security was never more than a wafer-thin lid on the pressure-cooker atmosphere his inflammatory preaching had created. And, in 2004, during a tirade outside the U.S. Embassy against abuses at Abu Ghraib, Bakri declared the Covenant dead. Bakri also told Publica, a Portuguese magazine, that a “very well-organized” group in London “has a great appeal for young Muslims…. I know that they are ready to launch a big operation.” Alarmingly, Bakri told us that he thought there were more attacks to come. Even he expressed concern at the “jihadist tendencies” of some of his former followers who now “insult” him for not directly urging attacks on Great Britain and who “really dream, day and night, to be like Abu Musab Zarqawi.”

TNR is a bargain, especially the “only online” rate.

The Los Angeles Times and Benedict XVI’s Return of the Dark Ages

Tuesday, August 2, 2005  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

When the name “Ratzinger” resounded from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica to indicate who would be the next supreme pontiff of the 1.1 billion-strong Roman Catholic Church, elation burst out in many nations. Across Western Europe and in the U.S., though, particularly among progressive and liberal Catholics, a nearly audible groan could be heard.

That’s how the Los Angeles Times review of John L. Allen’s new book on the election of Benedict XVI begins. Do you need to read anymore?

In case you have any doubt, the first paragraph of the review ends with this sentence: “His election, for many, initially looked like a move back to the Dark Ages.”

Faced with plummeting circulation and management upheavals, the Times still fails in ways large –and in this case small– to see how ever day it sends message after message of contempt for the vast population of California that holds ordinary views of things like religious belief. The Dark Ages? Really? Outside of media elites, who, exactly, believed such nonsense. And who but the Times’ editorial staff could fail to grasp the offense –unnecessary in every way– that such sloppy throw away lines gives to devout and not-so-devout but loyal Catholics?

This is guaranteed to make the mullahs running Iran tremble.

Mark Steyn, at his best:

Tony Blair talks a good talk, explaining the rationale for war far better than President Bush. But he now needs not just to talk but to act. In France, the interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, has just expelled another dozen Islamists. By contrast, Mr Blair seems paralysed. In the weeks after 9/11, Mr Bush rethought 40 years of US policy in the Middle East. The Prime Minister has a more difficult task: he has to rethink 40 years of British policy in Leicester and Bradford and Leeds and Birmingham.

He has to regain control of Britain’s borders from the EU and of Britain’s education system from the teachers’ unions and of Britain’s welfare programmes from wily Somalis and others. In 20 years’ time, no one will remember whether Tony Blair abolished the House of Lords or foxhunting: that’s poseur stuff. They’ll judge him on whether or not he funked the central challenge of the times. If “the images of ruin and destruction” come to pass, it will not be because of the bombers but because of a state that lacked the cultural confidence to challenge them.

The Democrats in the U.S. are flunking “the central challenge of the times,” and Daniel Henninger suspects the voters will remember.

Stephen Schwartz reports on the death of King Fahd.

Michelle Malkin has the latest on Air America’s creative start-up financing. Ed Morrissey has more as well.

Off to D.C.

Ronald Brownstein on Hillary but not on McCain

Monday, August 1, 2005  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

The Los Angeles Times’ Ronald Brownstein writes on the 2008 presidential race today. He does not disclose that his wife is a senior aid to John McCain. Which candidate does McCain favor getting the Democratic nod? My guess is that it has to be Hillary as that will significantly boost the Beltway chatter about McCain’s cross-party appeal.

Indeed, it seems odd that this article does not mention the DLC’s role in blunting a potential McCain or Rudy challenge from “the center.” You have to wonder if Brownstein is holding back on references to McCain because of the problem his wife’s employment poses.

The Times recently pledged transparency in conflict-of-interest matters. I guess that means if you declare a conflict once in print, every reader for all time is presumed to know and not care about it. BTW: To my knowledge, the paper has still not detailed Mrs. Brownstein’s job or salary, or how funds paid her by Senator McCain are not part of Ron Brownstein’s direct financial interest that would preclude him from covering McCain or related stories, like today’s on Hillary: “[S]taff members may not cover individuals or institutions with which they have a financial relationship.”

My guess is that before long Mrs. Brownstein will resign from McCain’s staff because objective voices within the paper will see the iceburg the paper has already hit. Brownstein’s a fine writer, but his pieces should be in the opinion section, and his conflict fully noted every time asuch a piece runs.


Some guidelines.
Some ethics.

The Fourth Way - Hewitt book Advertisement
Advertise With UsAdvertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back to Top