Ken Berwitz

Did Arizona Governor Jan Brewer really stick an angry finger at President Obama?

Well, if you look at that now-famous still photo of their meeting you "know" she did.  There it is, right in front of your eyes.  And our wonderful "neutral" media have certainly made sure to portray it that way.

But did she really? 

Funny thing about still photography:  sometimes it can catch an image that requires seeing "before" and "after" to fully understand.  Illustratively, we have all seen pictures of a baseball player making a leaping catch, or a basketball player taking a jump shot.  Do we conclude that these players float on air, or that immediately before and immedately after the picture was taken their feet are back on the ground?

With this in mind, please click here and you will link to Ken Shepherd's blog at newsbusters.org, which contains the Associated Press's raw video footage of Mr. Obama and Ms. Brewer's meeting. 

You will see that when they first meet, at :11, Ms. Brewer is all smiles as she greets Mr. Obama and shakes his hand.  We cannot see Mr. Obama's face, but based on the length of time the handshake continues (seven seconds until the next camera shot, and they are still shaking hands), coupled with Ms. Brewer's unchanging demeanor, it is reasonable to assume he was as cordial as she was.

Then, at about :30 in the video, the AP inserts the still picture of Ms. Brewer with her finger pointed at Mr. Obama. 

I urge you to take very close look.  I am not certain, but it appears that both of them may be smiling - Ms. Brewer more broadly than Mr. Obama, but both of them smiling nevertheless.

Please understand that I am not at all trying to "sell" this read of the picture.  I cannot tell for sure.  And we all have read the reports that, at some point, the conversation became testy.  But I have to say that, based on their looks, the nature of this finger-pointing thing is very, very iffy to me. 

I only wish there were footage -  say, five seconds before and after the still picture - so we could have a true sense of what went on there.  Truth be told, we will never know for sure.

Ken Berwitz

Do you "know" that political conservatives are more likely to be ignorant and prejudiced? You do if you read yahoo news. 

Excerpted from the yahoo article:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.

Controversy ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics.

"They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Let me get this straight:  Gordon Hodson, someone I (and I bet you) have never heard of, sends an email to livescience.com about a study we are not privy to anything but bits and piece of, and this is worthy of a feature article smearing everyone who doesn't toe the liberal-left ideological line?  You're kidding, right?

Well, yahoo.com is not kidding, because it published the article.  So let's look into this more extensively.

To start, it might be worth noting that livescience.com defines itself as a partner of MSNBC, and that it has a link to Elizabeth Warren's web site.  That should explain a lot right there.

Regarding the article itself, livescience.com's home page uses a "teaser" which says "low intelligence may lead to a craving for order, authority and hierarchy".  Thus, presumably, high intelligence must lead to a craving for lack of order, lack of authority and no hierarchy.  Do you agree with that premise?  Me neither.

Then, when you click on the teaser and get to the article, there is a little blurb which says that "a new study finds links between low intelligence and racism, prejudice and homophobia" - which is then tied to political conservatives as if they are synonymous. 

Does this sound like a legitimate research study, or a term paper for a political science class at Berkeley?

But, to be fair, we should see if the findings support such a claim.  So let's continue by considering how the article identifies this dreadful scourge of conservatism:

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

Un-frigging-believable. 

Can you tell me how conservatism would be linked to a belief that family life suffers when mum (mum???) isn't around during the day, or that schools should teach children to obey authority?  Do these geniuses think that no social liberals would agree with those statements?  Do you have to be conservative to believe family life suffers when one of the family members isn't there?

And then we have the racist component - which, as described, is beyond pathetic.  First the article cites an overtly racist question -- and then it renders the question valueless by assuring us that people are racially biased no matter how egalitarian they are.  If that is true, what is the difference how an overtly racist question is answered?  Everyone is racist anyway.

Now for the funniest part:  Hodson himself admits the study is BS:

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

"There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said

Well, well well. 

Here's something for Mr. Hodson, and livescience, and yahoo.com, to think about:  Using exactly the same premise - averages, over large groups rather than individual assessments - it can be proven that Black people are not as educated, not as successful and are more criminal than White people.  On average, every one of those claims is just as empirically true as the "findings" about social conservatives. 

But... but... I'm sure Mr. Hodson would say ...what were his own words?  Oh yeah....that such findings aren't implying that all Black people are uneducated, unsuccessful and criminal, and all White people are educated, successful and law-abiding.  It's just averages over large groups.

If so, he would be right.  Being Black does not make a person anything but Black.  Therefore, looking at overall averages, with no context at all to them, is ridiculous.  What does it tell you about the next Black person you meet?  Nothing, that's what. 

Just as looking at overall "averages" based on arbitrary definitions of political conservatism, doesn't tell us anything at all about individual political conservatives.

So what is the point of this "study" - other than finding a gratuitous, nonsensical way to stereotype political conservatives, which yahoo.com was more than happy to put on its web site?

If you come up with one, do let me know.

Ken Berwitz

What happens when a supposedly reliable news agency puts out a major-league hit piece on a rising political star (do you need me to tell you this is about a Republican), and the piece is just plain full of crap?

Here's your answer.

On Thursday, Reuters distributed an article by David Adams that, in essence, said Florida's Republican Senator, Marco Rubio, may be discussed as a VP prospect, but he won't be picked. 

Among the reasons are that he is a big spender who bought a big house with a big mortgage and a big home equity line, but is having all sorts of trouble making the payments, as well as paying off his student loans from years ago.  Worse, he has been a habitual user of party-issued credit cards for personal expenses, who has had to reimburse the Republican Party about $16,000 - so far. 

Talk about taking the shine off of Rubio's rising star!

But there is a problem.  A ton of what was written in that article was either distorted or flat-out untrue.

Reuters had to - red-facedly and then some - issue a revised version which...in the news organization's own words:

(Removes words "and at times has had difficulty paying his mortgage," paragraph 7; removes "he did not make payments on a $100,000-plus student loan" and instead states "he did not pay down the balance of a $100,000-plus student loan," paragraph 10; removes "he was caught up in an Internal Revenue Service Investigation" and instead states "his name surfaced in an Internal Revenue Service investigation," paragraph 12; removes "voted against Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's Supreme Court nominee" and instead states "opposed President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor," paragraph 41; removes "voted against Obama's healthcare overhaul" and instead states "opposed Obama's healthcare overhaul," paragraph 41)

Ken Berwitz

According to an Associated Press article, members of the Muslim brotherhood and secular protesters have been fighting each other in Cairo's Tahrir Square, each demanding things be done their way.

With the Muslim brotherhood, and the even more fundamentalist Salafists, winning 75% of the seats in Egypt's parliament, who do you think is going to come out a winner?  Fundamentalist Islam or the well-bred, well-fed, English-speaking, westernized protesters?

Oh, did I mention that the current status of Egypt's 33 year peace with Israel is that it is on ice, until there is a national vote -- of the same people who put the fundamentalists in control of the country?

Thank you, President Obama, for working so hard to force Hosni Mubarak out of power and leaving the vacuum that is being filled this way.  I'm sure you are thrilled at how things are working out. 

And thank you, Accomplice Media, for largely burying what is happening in Egypt, so as not to sully the sterling reputation of the man they love -- as demonstrated by the fact that the Associated Press keeps putting out stories about what is happening there and you keep declining to pass them along.

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

This one pretty much speaks for itself.

Excerpted from an article at buzzfeed.com:

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told (MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell).

Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.

Ms. Warren is not wealthy?  She's not part of "the 1%"?  You have to wonder if she is dense enough to believe that, or is she just trying a standup comedy routine in case the senate gig doesn't work out?

But, either way, it doesn't matter.  Because the mainstream media will not be nailing her for it.  And what is left of the "Occupy" crowd will not be picketing her, any more than they picket people like George Soros or Michael Moore, or Russell Simmons, etc. etc. etc.

Elizabeth Warren's hypocrisy, like that of so many in the media, and the "Occupy" movement she claims to have created the intellectual foundation for, is breathtaking.

Ken Berwitz

After all this time, and all that brillant left wing propaganda, you might think Rachel Maddow would be a little more well known - at least to folks smart enough to become contestants on Jeopardy.

But, as seen on this video from Breitbart.tv, when three Jeopardy contestants were shown a picture of Ms. Maddow, none of them could identify her.  There was complete silence until the buzzer sounded.

Maybe they were mesmerized by her look. 

Maybe the sight of her immediately put thim in deep in thought over some gem of wisdom she had imparted which especially touched them.  Or, maybe they just didn't know who the eff she was.

I don't know about you, but I'm betting on door #3.

What does this mean?  Nothing, of course.  But you have to admit it is pretty funny. 

I bet they'd have recognized Sean Hannity......

Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama, yesterday, explaining why there are about 15 million more people on food stamps now than the day he took office:

"First of all, I don't put people on food stamps. People become eligible for food stamps. Second of all, the initial expansion of food-stamp eligibility happened under my Republican predecessor, not under me. Number three, when you have a disastrous economic crash that results in 8 million people losing their jobs, more people are going to need more support from government."

Ok, let's take these one at a time.

It is, of course, true that a President does not put people on food stamps, within the narrow context that he does not personally sign them up.  But the economy that the President and congress oversees does put people on (or take people off) food stamps.  And, as you can see from the chart below, the huge surge in food stamps coincided with Democrats taking over both houses of congress in 2007, then President Obama taking office in 2009:

While it is true that the initial part of this surge occurred while President Bush was still in office, a) it took place after Democrats gained control of congress, thus wrote the budgets , and b) it continued, unabated, through three years of the Obama administration - the first two of which had a virtually veto-proof Democrat house and senate which could have done pretty much anything it wanted legislatively.

Now I have a question; a very basic one: when does Barack Obama take responsibility for this? 

Yes, there was a period of slightly under a year during which 8 million people lost their jobs.  But Mr. Obama has been President for 2 /2 years AFTER that period, most of it with a Democrat congress to back him up.  What did HE and THEY do about it?  

Well, let's see what happened.

Currently, we have something like two million fewer job-holders in this country than the day Barack Obama took office.  Obviously that is not good.

But let's give Mr. Obama a free pass and blame President Bush, and President Bush alone - not the Democrat congress - for the period of greatest job loss during the Obama presidency - about 4,000,000 - which occurred from January through June of 2009.  

So what happened after that?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since July, 2009 - i.e. after the loss of all those jobs, and months into implementation of the so-called "stimulus package" (I'm not even going to start on ObamaCare) - we have gained back all of 1,407,000 jobs. 

This is supposed to be the good news? 

Mr. Obama has given us the worst recovery from a recession in my lifetime.   And he gave it to us at a cost of 5 TRILLION dollars in additional debt. 

Again:  this is supposed to be the good news? 

Simply stated, Barack Obama has been disastrous for the economy of this country.  Not President Bush, not Republicans, not Waldo, not Dora the Explorer, not JoJo the Dogfaced Boy, not anyone else.  Barack Obama.  Period.

And all his whining, all his excuses, and all his blaming of everyone else, does not change this.  Not one bit.

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I blogged about the pending lawsuit, currently being considered by Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi, which might result in President Obama not being allowed on Georgia's state ballot.  That being the case, I think it would be a good time to remind readers of just how much we do not know about the man we elected President in 2008, and who currently sits in the Oval Office.

Here is a list compiled by Jim ONeill of Canada Free Press last March.  To my knowledge it is as accurate now as it was then (keeping in mind that, if the experts referenced in yesterday's blog are correct, the supposed original birth certificate Mr. Obama issued last April is very likely a photo-shopped fraud):

• Obama’s birth certificate—Not released
• Obama/Dunham marriage license—Not released
• Noelani Kindergarten records—Lost
• Soetoro/Dunham marriage license—Not released
• Soetoro adoption records—Not released
• Punahou School records—Not released
• Noelani 3rd Grade records—Not released
• Occidental College records—Not released
• Social Security documentation—Controversial
• Selective Service documentation—Controversial
• Passport—Not released
• Columbia College records—Not released
• Harvard College records—Not released
• Illinois Bar Records—Not released
• Medical records—Not released
• Illinois State Senate schedule—Lost
• Law practice client list—Not released

The bottom line is that we know more about where Waldo is than we know about who we elected President of the United States.

Maybe Judge Malihi of Georgia will do us all a major service, and force Mr. Obama to let us in on who and what he he is.  

It's long past time that someone did.

Ken Berwitz

Last night's Republican debate was the last for about a month.  (Can I get a hallelujah?).

Based on how it turned out, unless some major unforeseen factor comes into play before Tuesday, or there is a remarkable voter surprise during the primary, it looks to me like Mitt Romney has not only weathered the Gingrich surge, but is poised to make a major move toward securing the nomination.

In my opinion Romney, who needed to stanch Newt Gingrich's momentum, had his best debate of them all.  And Gingrich, while making salient points and generating several strong applause-lines (which he will do in every debate), wound up eating Romney's dust.

Romney out-and-out nailed Gingrich on the immigration issue.  This little vignette occurred after Gingrich, several times, accused Romney of trying to push grandmothers and grandfathers out of the country:

GINGRICH: Well, so we have gone — we’ve gone from your Washington attack when I first proposed this and you said it was outrageous; it would be a magnet to you’re accepting the fact that, you know, a family is going to take care of their grandmother or their grandfather.

The idea that you are going to push them out in some form by simply saying they can’t go get a job — I think the grandmother is still going to be here. All I want to do is to allow the grandmother to be here legally with some rights to have residency but not citizenship, so that he or she can finish their life with dignity within the law.  (APPLAUSE) 

ROMNEY: You know, our problem is not 11 million grandmothers. (APPLAUSE)  Our problem is — all right.  Our problem is 11 million people getting jobs that many Americans, legal immigrants, would like to have. It’s school kids in schools that districts are having a hard time paying for. It’s people getting free health care because we are required under the law to provide that health care.

And the real concern is the people who want to come here legally. Let’s let legal immigrants come here. Let’s stop illegal immigration.

(APPLAUSE) 

And Romney's strong statement of support for Israel  - every bit as strong as Gingrichs's - probably went a long way towards attracting Jewish voters (and securing Sheldon Adelson's financial support if he is the nominee). 

Arguably, Gingrich's worst moment - and one of Romney's very best - was when he went into his all-too-typical whine mode after being challenged on an accusation about where Romney had invested his money.  Here is the transcript of Gingrich's whine, and Romney's "perfect squelch" response:

BLITZER: Let’s get to the issue of transparency, because voters out there, they want to know as much about you four gentlemen as possible before they vote.  Tax returns — let me bring this to Speaker Gingrich.

Earlier this week, you said Governor Romney, after he released his taxes, you said that you were satisfied with the level of transparency of his personal finances when it comes to this. And I just want to reiterate and ask you, are you satisfied right now with the level of transparency as far as his personal finances?

GINGRICH: Wolf, you and I have a great relationship, it goes back a long way. I’m with him. This is a nonsense question.

(GINGRICH: Look, how about if the four of us agree for the rest of the evening, we’ll actually talk about issues that relate to governing America?

BLITZER: But, Mr. Speaker, you made an issue of this, this week, when you said that, “He lives in a world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts.” I didn’t say that. You did.

GINGRICH: I did. And I’m perfectly happy to say that on an interview on some TV show. But this is a national debate, where you have a chance to get the four of us to talk about a whole range of issues.

BLITZER: But if you make a serious accusation against Governor Romney like that, you need to explain that.

GINGRICH: I simply suggested –  you want to try again? I mean –

ROMNEY: Wouldn’t it be nice if people didn’t make accusations somewhere else that they weren’t willing to defend here?

(APPLAUSE)

Game, set, match. 

Romney then went on to point out that his money is in a blind trust, therefore he could not have known how it was being invested - which is true of anyone holding a blind trust.

Regarding ron paul:  He did his usual imitation of Maxine, the cantankerous, sarcastic character from Hallmark Cards (though Maxine's clothes fit better).  He was sometimes funny, sometimes insightful - especially on money issues, which is his strongest area - and a welcome departure from the battle royal between Romney and Gingrich. 

I am noticing that, more and more, paul keeps invoking his background as a physician.  I doubt that it will change many people's votes, but who knows?  ron paul, I expect, will get his usual substantial-but-nowhere-near-enough vote count, and continue to be a loser.

Rick Santorum is something of another story.  Yes, I know he has not done well in the primaries (Iowa had caucuses, not an actual primary vote), he has a major ace in the hole:  if Gingrich should leave the race Santorum is the guy who will pick up the lion's share of his support.

For that reason, if Rick Santorum was as strong last night as most analysts think he was, he has given a major boost to Mitt Romney, because the better Santorum does next Tuesday, the more votes he extracts from Gingrich.

A new Rasmussen poll came out yesterday which indicates that in the past few days, Gingrich's post-South Carolina surge is disappearing as fast as it grew.  Four days ago Rasmussen had Gingrich leading Romney by 42%-33%.  But now Romney is ahead 39% - 31%:  a 17% turnaround in no time flat. 

If most Florida voters saw the debate as I did, and Rasmussen's poll is accurate, Mitt Romney will be a far happier man next Tuesday night than Newt Gingrich.

So will I.

One other thing:  Last night Dick Morris pointed out that, in addition to there being no more debates for almost a month, just about every February primary (Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Maine, Arizona and Michigan) will be held in a place where Romney would expect to do well.  So if Romney comes out of Florida with a big win, he should do very, very well for the next month.  After that, it probably would be too late for Gingrich or anyone else.

On the other hand, this is politics.  So anything can happen at any time.

We'll see.....

What possible reason would he have had for not doing so….?