Ken Berwitz

....need I say more?

Congratulations to "The Fourth Quarter"-back, Eli Manning - who always seems to pull gamesout at the end - and the rest of the New York Giants on a great victory.  That was the most exciting Super Bowl I have ever seen.

Oh, did I mention that I root for the Giants?

Ken Berwitz

President Obama's position on Catholicism appears to be that you can call yourself a Catholic, but if you choose to act like one the weight of the government will come down on you.  Specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services is forcing Catholic organizations to provide contraceptive services, and female sterilization as part of its health care.

Excerpted from Charlotte Allen's op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times:

The Catholic Church, which views sex and procreation as inextricably intertwined, forbids both elective sterilization and any effort to prevent conception other than refraining from sexual contact. In response to a request by the U.S. Catholic bishops and some other religious groups that regard artificial contraception as immoral, Health and Human Services carved out a religious exemption for employers. But it was the narrowest possible exemption, covering only employers representing organizations whose primary mission is instructing members in their faith and that serve and employ mostly members of their own faith. In short, Catholic parish churches would qualify for the exemption. Catholic schools, colleges, hospitals, charities and social service agencies — all of which minister to all comers without regard to their religious affiliation — would not.

Not surprisingly, the American Catholic bishops have presented a nearly united front in opposition to the rule, scheduled to go into effect in 2013. The website CatholicVote.org lists 140 bishops, more than 70% of the 198 heads of U.S. Catholic dioceses, who have either issued or intend to issue statements opposing the mandate. Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York accused the Obama administration of treating pregnancy and women's fertility "as a disease."

What is surprising is that prominent liberal Catholics — people who don't even agree with the church's position on contraception — have joined their voices in protest. One of them was E.J. Dionne, a widely syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. Dionne, who has been an Obama enthusiast since well before the 2008 election, accused the president in a recent column of having "utterly botched" the issue of contraceptive services. Dionne admitted that he wished "the church would show more flexibility on this question," but he also pointed out that the sweeping mandate "encroached upon the church's legitimate prerogatives" to ensure that its employment policies reflected its moral values.

Does this sound a little like the Obama administration's latest version of "my way or the highway"?  Maybe a lot like it?  If you say yes, we are in agreement. 

My personal feeling?  There have to be ways of resolving this other than forcing Catholicism to go against its own teachings.  But the Obama administration certainly does not seem disposed to finding them. 

Little wonder that Catholics - even not especially religious Catholics - are up in arms about it.

And what about the political implications?  I wonder if Obama & Co. realize how significant they may be. 

David Brooks, the New York Times' idea of a conservative (which is to say barely conservative at all) has this to say:

“I think that [the implication] is enormous … because you have Catholics who are upset. You have evangelicals who are really upset. And whatever problem they had with Mitt Romney that has now healed. They have now united with Mitt Romney because they are so upset about this story. And a lot of people think we are a diverse country, we have a lot of different values, that government should get involved — it gives money to a lot of these associations — but it should give different people with different values the ability to operate in a way they see fit.”…

“When you have the government saying one size fits all … you are going to do it our way, or not, well, then that insults a lot of people,” he continued. “And so I think this is having resonance across the country. It was — statements were issued in a lot of masses, a lot of pulpits this past Sunday. And, you know, I think it’s going to have a significant lingering effect for a long time.”

Mr. Brooks doesn't always get things right.  But this time?  He is spot-on.

And if the Obama administration wakes up and realizes that Mr. Brooks is right?  You can bet that HHS will reverse its ruling.  \

Simply stated, Barack Obama values votes a lot more than contraceptive services.  That is an iron-clad guarantee.

Ken Berwitz

Add the Washington Times to the large-and-still-growing list of skeptics who do not believe the latest job data make any sense.

Here are excerpts from its Friday editorial, pointing out how obviously bogus the data are:

The White House hyped the news Friday that January payrolls had risen by 243,000. The hitch is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also dropped 1.2 million from the calculated workforce. Somehow this net loss of a million workers in a single month was transformed into an improvement in the unemployment rate. As the old saying goes, figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.

The most important change was the deep decline in the workforce. While the overall population jumped an 1.6 million in January, the workforce declined a record-setting 1.2 million. This figure represents those who out of sheer frustration or for other reasons have dropped out of what the government defines as the active labor pool. They are worse than simply unemployed; they are both jobless and hopeless.

The good news for Obama administration statisticians is that these unfortunates don’t factor into the official unemployment rate, which only counts those thought to be looking for work. So while five people drop out of the system in despair for every new job created, the official unemployment rate declines and the White House enjoys a good news day.

A year ago, there were 99 million people either officially unemployed or otherwise not working, and the official unemployment rate was 9.1 percent. Now, unemployment reported by the government is down to 8.3 percent, but the number without jobs has topped 100 million. The disconnect between increasing joblessness in America and the rosy White House official statistics should be the subject of a congressional investigation. Something does not add up.

Does this matter to the Obama administration? 

Nope, not so long as most mainstream media continue to circle the wagons and - having already proclaimed how wonderful the news is and how far along we are to recovery - have buried the story so deep that you'd need permission from China to dig it out.

If our mainstream media were seriously interested in presenting both sides of the story, these data would quickly have been, as the old saying goes, screwed, blued, and tattooed with the taint of fraudulence.  But that, of course, is not happening.

No wonder so many people now rely on cable and intenet news venues - their numbers growing larger every day.

Ken Berwitz

I have written about this so many times that it seems ridiculous to have to keep rewording the exact same position over and over again.  So here is a repeat of my blog from last November, which says it all:

=========================================================

ABOUT THAT POSSIBLE ISRAELI STRIKE AGAINST IRAN...

Ken Berwitz   For nearly a week we have been told by various news agencies that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering a strike against Iran - presumably against its nuclear capabilities.   Not surprisingly, this has generated a large amount of condemnatory rhetoric from the international community, and from the usual bunch in this country.   With that in mind, I thought I would post a couple of excerpts from blogs I wrote some time ago which seem, to me at least, especially significant now.    The first one was written almost two years ago, on January 30, 2010.  It reacts to a New York Times editorial which suggested that the response to Iran, which had finally admitted lying to the world about building nuclear centrifuges, should be to threaten "tougher sanctions": -It’s time for President Obama and other leaders to implement tougher sanctions?  That inherently suggests that the sanctions they already have implemented are tough, but just not tough enough.  What basis is there for making such a claim?  Have sanctions stopped Iran for even one second from doing a thing?   -Yes, Mr. Obama set a deadline of the end of 2009.  Iran’s “leadership” ignored Mr. Obama, thus indicating their assumption that he was a feckless windbag and his “deadline” wouldn’t mean a thing or cost them a penny.  They were right.      -Iran goes on its merry way developing nuclear weapons it fully intends to use on Israel (ahmadinejad and the mullahs could not be clearer about this).  And our answer, after three sanctions resolutions didn’t do a thing to stop this is….a fourth sanction resolution.   Tell me:  what happens if/when Israel, which a) does not want to be vaporized and b) cannot possibly assume the rest of the world will do anything meaningful about those centrifuges, attacks them?  How many sanctions will we see then?  How many condemnations?   And don’t doubt that the USA, under President Obama, will....be one of the countries joining in the fun. The second one was written on March 28, 2010, a week after President Obama directly, purposefully insulted Mr. Netanyahu on a state visit by refusing to have pictures taken with him, and then kept him sitting, waiting and cooling his heels, while the Obama's enjoyed a dinner that Mr. Netanyahu was not invited to: The Obama administration is playing with fire here.  The UN will not do anything to prevent Iran from its goals, any more than it did anything to stop the genocide in Darfur or to prevent its own troops from raping young girls in the Congo, and other places where they are sent.  The UN is morally, spiritually and ethically dead - and has been for a long time.   That leaves the USA.  If we also decline to do anything, or we do things that are clearly not going to work, what choices do we leave Israel?   And who will we blame if Israel acts to prevent its own annihilation?  Benjamin Netanyahu?  Last week's star of "Guess Who's Not Coming To Dinner"? Would it be fair to say that the reasons for Prime Minister Netanyahu considering a strike against Iran were known ahead of time?  WAY ahead of time?   And now, almost two years later, would President Obama have a problem if Prime Minister Netanyahu - as a matter of his country's survival - follows through on what Mr. Obama and his likeminded pals at the United Nations had all that time do something about, but did not act on in any meaningful way?   If I were Benjamin Netanyahu, my answer to Barack Obama would be "You have a problem with me considering an action against Iran?  Well, that's your problem.  My problem is that I have to insure the survival of my country.  In that regard, thanks for nothing."

==========================================================

There are a great many things that this woefully inept administration has screwed up.  And the Middle East is right at the top of the list.

Understandably, Israel will do what it deems necessary to insure its survival as a sovereign state - and, more generally, the survival of the Jewish people.  President Obama can either support or not support this effort. 

If he does, good for him and it's about time.

If he does not, maybe that will be enough to turn even some members of "The Lost Tribe" (my term for the Jews who support Israel but still support Barack Obama anyway) towards reality.

Ken Berwitz

Did you know that President Obama had the effrontery to compare his demands that "the rich" pay "their fair share" to the teachings of the world's greatest religious figures?

Before you assume I can't possibly be right, consider Mr. Obama's ego.....

Now:  here is what he said, yesterday, when speaking at a national prayer breakfast:

"I wake up each morning and I say a brief prayer, and I spend a little time in scripture and devotion. And from time to time, friends of mine, some of who are here today, friends like Joel Hunter or T.D. Jakes, will come by the Oval Office or they'll call on the phone or they'll send me a email, and we'll pray together, and they'll pray for me and my family, and for our country.

 

"But I don't stop there. I'd be remiss if I stopped there; if my values were limited to personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends. So instead, I must try -- imperfectly, but I must try -- to make sure those values motivate me as one leader of this great nation.

"And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren't discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren't taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God's command to "love thy neighbor as thyself." I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs -- from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato."

Did I say effrontery?  The word doesn't begin to describe this.  But who is going to call him on it?  Our media???

Let me put it this way:  try to imagine those same words coming from President Bush.  Then try to imagine what the media would be saying today about a President Bush who talks about how deeply religious he is and how supersedingly his religious beliefs inform his actions as President of all the people. 

And try to imagine what they would say about President Bush setting himself up as a messenger providing the acceptable political path from every major religion, with Plato thrown in for good measure.

The attacks would be non-stop for President Bush.  But I'm taking bets they will be non-start for President Obama.

If I am wrong, I will be apologizing on this blog within the next 24 hours.  But don't count on it happening.

These people may call themselves journalists.  They may think they are journalists.  But a great many of them are not.  They are propagandists for the political views they side with, and journalistic neutrality is some wispy little abstract concept to be pontificated about during academic seminars or dinner parties.

Ken Berwitz

As we continue to hear about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's penchant for making verbal gaffes that our wonderful "neutral" media can take out of context and use against him, I though you might be interested in a couple of gaffes from the media themselves, which the same thing could be done with.

Let's start with someone who has become a mother lode of ridiculous comments over recent times: Chris Matthews.  Yesterday, Matthews said, so help me:

 "I speak for the media generally — left, right and center"

Does anyone in his right mind believe that the lifelong Democrat, and wildly partisan, Chris Matthews is some all-purpose spokesperson for everyone's point of view across the entire political spectrum?  Nope, of course they don't.  But he said it. 

Or did he?

Here's what Matthews actually said while speaking to Sue Lowden, a Gingrich supporter - but, this time, in context:

“Well you must know Sue, that here in the media, and I speak for the media generally — left, right and center, there is a tremendous interest in Newt Gingrich because he is the most lively candidate we’ve come across in years, perhaps more so than President Obama in terms of ideas, in terms of electricity as a candidate,” Matthews said. “Sometimes he says things that make people hold their mouth in a gasp almost. Other things he says occasionally brilliant things.’

Gee whiz.  When you see his comment in context, you realize that all Matthews meant to say was that media across the board are interested in Newt Gingrich.  But if you extract only those words, without worrying about what he really meant, you get a completely different meaning.  

Just like Matthews, and so many of his cohorts, did to Romney's when he said he didn't worry about the poor, while conveniently forgetting the rest of what he said - i.e. it was because they have a safety net that either works or can be fixed.

Then we have CNN's John King, reporting on Romney's Nevada primary victory last night, and referring to him as "Governor Mormon". 

Did King really mean to say that?  Is that his way of describing the people he talks about?  Does he also refer to Barack Obama as "President Black Guy"? 

No, of course not.  It was obviously a slip of the tongue.  But, given that King has had no problem nailing Romney when he misspeaks, why should we cut him any slack? 

I cite these examples to emphasize something I would hope you know already - that we are all human, we all slip up here and there, and reasonable people - honest and decent people - will not try to turn them into more than they are.

But so-called "journalists" who do not like a candidate, and/or who are rooting for his opponent, can, if they choose to, seize on every one of them to build a case against that candidate.  And, clearly, this is being done to Mitt Romney.

I wish I could believe that yesterday's gaffes by Mr. Matthews and Mr. King made caused them to realize as much, and maybe be less likely to do attack Romney in the future.  But, to tell you the truth, I put the odds at roughly 1,000,000 to 1 against.

If I'm right?  Too bad for Mr. Romney.  And too bad for the integrity level of Mr. Matthews and Mr. King.

Ken Berwitz

The following links are currently posted at www.drudgereport.com:

400 SLAUGHTERED IN SYRIA...
12 dead in latest Egypt clashes...
Iran begins new military exercises...
Ayatollah Khamenei threatens Israel...

In looking at these links (and, I hope, reading them), remember that:

-In 2009, when Iranians were marching in the streets with the intent of removing its illegitimate government in favor of a more tolerant, westernized society, President Obama choose to say and do nothing, and

-In 2011, when Egyptians protested Hosni Mubarak's government, President Obama aggressively demanded that he move out of the way -- apparently to be replaced by fundamentalist Islamics who hate the west and reject the 33 year old peace treaty with Israel.

Can this man, and this administration, possibly have botched foreign policy worse? 

Ken Berwitz

We've all heard the indelicate expression "pissing away money".  But not often do we actually find physical examples of it.

This is one of them, as excerpted from Michael Zennie's article in London's Daily Mail:

Students at a high school in Boca Raton, Florida, must step over rivers of urine and endure the stench of rancid waste after a plan to bring 'green' waterless urinals into bathrooms backfired.

School officials at Spanish River High School thought they had found an environmentally-friendly, cost-saving solution for their bathrooms when they installed Falcon Waterfree urinals in their boys bathrooms.

But with no water moving through the school's copper pipes to flush the urine into the sewer system, the waste produced noxious gases that ate through the metal, leaving leaky pipes that allowed urine to drip into walls and flow onto floors.

'It was pretty disgusting,' school board chairman Frank Barbieri told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

'The girls had to step over a river of urine. I could smell it as soon as I walked into the hallway.'

Now, the school district, which was hoping to save $100 a year in water costs for each waterless urinal, must pay $500,000 to repair the damage and replace the appliances with the traditional flush variety in four high schools. 

Neither the school, nor Falcon Waterfree Technologies, the Los Angeles-based maker of the urinals, thought to check the pipes before installing the new urinals.

Look, you have to give the folks at Spanish River an A for effort.  Or maybe an I for Intent.  Their idea, in theory was a good one. 

But let's be honest.  This is a classic case of right church, wrong pee-ew!

On the other hand, it has the potential to work out quite well.  If the urinals are this big a failure, maybe the Obama administration will consider giving Falcon Waterfree Technologies a $100 million grant to build urine-powered solar panels.........

I can just see their advertising:  "We turn the yellow back to green!"

Ken Berwitz

It wasn't so long ago that President Obama was openly supporting the agenda - or at any rate what our wonderful "neutral" media were touting as the agenda - of the "Occupy" movement.  Put another way, he was singing the praises of "the 99%" to whichever gullible souls were willing to believe that they are who he cares about (and, sad to say, there is no shortage of such gullible souls).

With this in mind, here are the first few paragraphs, and the last one, from Brent Bozell's latest column at newsbusters.org, in which he details just how deeply Mr. Obama is involved with the 1%:

While Democrats mock Mitt Romney for his allged lack of interest in the “very poor” and focus their political pitch on income inequality, one can’t help noticing the Obamas running around to $35,000-a-head fundraisers with the very rich and very famous in New York City and Hollywood.

Michelle Obama kicked off February with an exclusive fundraiser in Beverly Hills at the home of Netflix executive Ted Sarandos and his wife Nicole Avant, who raised Hollywood millions for the Obamas in 2008, and then became their ambassador to the Bahamas. Now Nicole Avant’s back managing Obama’s Hollywood money march. Many of Tinseltown’s titans ponied up: Jeffrey Katzenberg, Harvey Weinstein, Haim Saban, and Steve Bing, among others. (Katzenberg’s also given $2 million to the Obama-affiliated super PAC called Priorities USA Action.)

California has the largest amount of "bundlers" who’ve raised gazillions for Team Obama. Bundlers collected at least $35 million from their wealthy-people networks. That represents at least 40 percent of the $86 million raised by the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee last quarter.

That list includes not only Katzenberg and Weinstein, but Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour. ABC “Desperate Housewives” star Eva Longoria was in the second highest tier, bundling $200,000 to $500,000. You don’t have to have a California address to be a Hollywood bundler, either. David Cohen of Philadelphia is executive vice president of Comcast, the new owners of NBC and Universal Studios.

Campaign Obama wants its candidate to be seen as the embodiment of the “99 Percent.”  In truth, he is the personification of the exclusive and ultimate One Percent – the superrich and superfamous. Our “news” and entertainment media have their hands full trying to meld those conflicting themes into one convincing narrative.

Maybe, in Mr. Obama's world, this melange of left wing looney-tunes, anarchists, propagandized students and freeloaders are the 99%.  But not in mine - or, I suspect yours.

Yet he continues to sell the idea that he's just one of the guys, no different than you or me.  And our Accomplice Media remain perfectly willing to let him do it, largely unchallenged except by rightward web sites like newsbusters.org.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.