Ken Berwitz

Ok, this finishes the blogging for 2008.  My wife and I are going to visit family, then into New York City with dear friends for what we hope to be a great dinner and a great night.

Since I want to wind up on a happy note, I am posting a link to one of the funniest, most brilliant pieces I have seen all year.  It was sent to me by my west coast pal Russ, who has a talent for finding really great stuff like this.

So, without further ado, here is "Uncle Ray's 2008 Year In Review".  And if it doesn't make you laugh early and often, you need a humor implant.

  http://www.youtubecom/watch?v=TWiXy55OHyY

Ken Berwitz

As Democrats and media have a collective cow over rod blagojevich appointing Barack Obama's senate replacement, I find it fascinating that they remain 100% mute about New York Governor David Paterson being able to do the same thing - in his case, replacing Hillary Clinton.

It is true that blagojevich stands accused of corruption and attempted bribery.   

But if that is a good reason to prevent him from naming a senate replacement, what should they be saying about someone who admitted to illegally taking campaign funds for personal expenditures -- and returned them only when he couldn't hide it any more?

What am I talking about?  Well, here is a story from the New York Post of March 22 of this year which explains it:

HOT-SHEETS GOV PUTS $$ BACK 'INN'

REPAYS 2002 ELECTION FUND FOR MOTEL STAYS

Hmm.

Paterson admitted - years after the fact and only under duress - that he illegally used thousands of dollars of campaign funds for personal reasons.  And then we have that $1,000 check to Luiza Vizcarrando, who says she doesn't know a thing about the money she supposedly got.

At this point it would be a good idea to post the definition of "embezzlement".  According to www.criminal.findlaw.com:

Embezzlement is defined in most states as theft/larceny of assets (money or property) by a person in a position of trust or responsibility over those assets.

Would you say Paterson's actions fit that description?  Exactly.

And just in case you think Paterson learned his lesson, read this.  It is excerpted from an article in today's edition of The Buffalo News:

Paterson campaign funds to pay for Caribbean trip

Despite state savings, critic raises questions

Paterson notes that he is financing the trip with his campaign money instead of taxpayer dollars — even though it is billed as mostly government- related, with some politics tossed in.

But the use of campaign funds also has raised eyebrows.

In June, Paterson proposed limiting campaign funds to expenditures “directly related to promoting the nomination or election of a candidate,” said Blair Horner, of the New York Public Interest Research Group.

The measure, introduced late in the State Legislature’s session, was not approved.

“Call us crazy, but we think campaign contributions were raised for elections, not to subsidize lifestyles of elected officials,” Horner said. “It may be a working vacation. But it’s not an election swing. I know of no enclave of [New York expatriates on] St. Maarten.”

So tell me; when do you suppose Majority Leader harry reid will threaten not to seat any replacement senator selected by David Paterson? 

When do you suppose the rest of the Democratic senators will demand that Paterson not pick a replacement? 

When do you suppose our wonderful "neutral" media, which finally had to notice blagojevich's corruption only after the telephone tapes made it impossible not to, will also notice that David Paterson has no more scruples than blagojevich does? 

When will they demand his resignation, or removal from office, as they have of blagojevich?

Ever?

Ken Berwitz

Earlier today I blogged about Rachel Maddow's attitude regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza - which is intended to cripple hamas' ability to put Israel under daily siege. 

Scott Johnson of www.powerlineblog.com has an excellent blog about the mindset of people like Maddow.  It has links to both Alan Dershowitz and Victor Davis Hanson's commentaries as well, and is very worthwhile reading.  So I'm posting it below:

Disproportionate idiocy

Alan Dershowitz addresses the subject of "Israel, Hamas and moral idiocy" in a Christian Science Monitor column that bears the stamp of his characteristic verve. On the same subject, Victor Davis Hanson offers seven moderate proposals that in their own way get at the moral idiocy Dershowitz addresses:

1) Request that 50% of Israel's air-to-ground missiles be duds to ensure greater proportionality.

2) Allow Hamas another 1,000 free rocket launches to see if they can catch up with the body count.

3) Have Israeli soldiers congregate in border barracks so that Hamas's random rockets have a better chance of killing military personnel, to ensure it can claim at least a few military targets.

4) Redefine "holocaust" to refer to deaths of terrorists in numbers under 400 to give greater credence to Hamas's current claims.

5) In the interest of fairness, allow Hamas to establish both the date that war is supposed to begin and the date when it must end.

6) Send Israeli military advisers to Hamas to improve the accuracy of their missiles.

7) Take down the barriers to return to Hamas a fair chance of getting suicide bombers back inside Israel.

Fans of the idiotic version of "proportionality" that Hanson mocks will be glad to know that Hamas is pounding southern Israel with rockets.

I doubt this will have much impact on Maddow & her LAMB friends, but there it is anyway. 

Reality is what it is, even if some people avoid it like the plague.

Ken Berwitz

A day has passed since rod blagojevich selected Roland Burris to complete the senate term of soon-to-be-President Barack Obama.

And "blago" has gotten exactly what he wanted.  Illinois is in an uproar and Democrats are furious and embarrassed.

But what can they do about it?  Damn little, that's what.

The Illinois secretary of state, Jesse White, says he will not certify Burris as the state's new senator.  That sounds very problematic, doesn't it?  Except there is no legal need for White to do it.  Here is what the Congressional Quarterly has to say about certification:

Although the secretary of state typically signs the certification letter — and a Senate-suggested template for the letter leaves a spot for the signature in addition to that of the governor — there appears to be no requirement under the federal or state constitution, Illinois law or Senate rules that the secretary of State sign off on the pick.

So although certification has become a tradition of sorts, it has no legal standing at all (it should be noted that the AP has an article today which indicates certification is a requirement.  Stand by for their retraction).

Then we have Majority Leader harry reid.   reid says that he and the rest of the Democratic senators will not accept Burris into the senate.  He is basing this rejection on Article 1, Section 5 of the constitution. 

Knowing this, you would logically assume that Article 1, Section 5 gives reid the authority to keep Mr. Burris out.  But it doesn't.  Here are the relevant parts of Article 1, Section 5, straight from www.senate.gov    -- complete with its own explanation of what they mean:

Original Text Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.		Explanation The House and Senate decide whether their members are qualified to serve and have been properly elected, and determine any disputed elections.  One-half plus one of each house is necessary to make a quorum to conduct business.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.		The Senate and House each sets its own rules, disciplines its own members, and by a two-thirds vote can expel a member.  Censure and lesser punishments require only a majority vote.

Well, let's see:  Mr. Burris was not elected, there are no returns to check and he personally fits the constitutional requirements to be a U.S. Senator. 

Further, in order to punish Mr. Burris for disorderly behavior and/or expel him from the senate, he would first have to be a member of that body.  And even then, punishment for disorderly behavior and expulsion would relate to his personal actions, not those of the guy who appointed him. 

So all reid has done is to again display his remarkable level of ignorance and ineptitude.  Yawn....same old same old for harry reid.  

Democrats (and Republicans too, for that matter) can shun Senator Roland Burris if they care to.  They can treat him like the 2009 version of Jefferson Smith from the great Frank Capra movie "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", or even worse.  But I don't see how they can prevent him from being seated.

Is rod blagojevich a corrupt scumbucket?  In my opinion the answer is clearly yes.  But - and this is the big question - has he been convicted of any wrongdoing?  No he has not. 

In the eyes of the law rod blagojevich is a Governor in good standing, no more or less so than any other Governor of any other state.  As such, he has a perfect right to appoint Barack Obama's successor -- which he has done.

And, as pointed out in my blog yesterday, blagojevich has cleverly selected a Black candidate to replace Mr. Obama as the one and only Black member of the senate.  For Democrats to reject Roland Burris is for Democrats to favor a senate without any Black representation. 

This is exactly the same strategy used by the first President Bush, when he proposed Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, for the Supreme Court in 1991.  Voting against a conservative meant also voting in favor of an all-White Supreme Court. 

I don't know Justice Thomas, but I have a feeling he is belly-laughing his way through this one.

Ken Berwitz

Rachel Maddow is intelligent and articulate.  That's the good news. 

The bad news is that she is a LAMB.  A member of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade. 

This brings us to Ms. Maddow's position on Israel - specifically, its attack on Gaza. 

LAMBs hate Israel.  They hate Israel because it is a winner.  It is successful.  It is far ahead of its impoverished neighbors in so many ways.

LAMBs tend to hate countries like Israel because they cannot be happy if anyone does better, or has more, than anyone else (which, of course, means that they cannot ever be happy at all). 

Never mind the reasons that Israel is so far beyond its Arab neighbors in freedom and democracy, education, industry, agriculture, medicine, science, etc.  Never mind that Israel's neighbors are their own worst enemies.  The neighbors have less, so they are aggrieved and oppressed. Israel has more so it is despicable.

This brings us to Gaza.

"Palestinians" have less than almost anyone else in the Middle East, Israeli or Arab.  Never mind that for over half a century palestinian Arabs, as a group, have forgone virtually everything that would improve their lives.  Never mind that they have, instead, dedicated themselves to taking over Israel and killing Jews.  That's okey-dokey with the LAMB set.  After all, Israel is the bad guy.  Israel has more, so it  must be the bad guy. 

Three years ago, Israel left Gaza, thus giving Gazans what they claimed to want.  100% of the land, free of all Jews.  A deal that hitler would have loved to pieces. 

Israel also offered to partner with Gazans in building their quality of life.  Why not?  The happier and more prosperous Gaza is, the safer Israel is likely to be.   Both sides win.

But Gaza didn't work out that way.  Instead of seizing the opportunity to build a functioning, viable society, Gazans went running to hamas, allowed it to take over the entire Gaza strip, and rededicated itself to obliterating Israel and killing Jews.  That was much more important than living in peace and prosperity.

When Israel finally had its fill of the daily mortars and rockets being fired at its civilian population, it attacked.  Not a "proportionate response", which never got Israel anything but more mortars and rockets, but an attack designed to severely damage hamas' ability to fire at Israel's cities and towns.

So how does Rachel Maddow react to this?  I'll let Jack Coleman of www.newsbusters.org tell you:

Maddow Criticizes Lack of 'Proportionality' to Israel Hitting Hamas -- While Exaggerating Civilian Deaths

That is exactly what I would expect from a LAMB. 

And, needless to say, Ms. Maddow also brings her LAMB views to MSNBC.  While I admit I have avoided watching her show recently (mostly due to business/personal/family time superseding politics), I have no doubt Maddow is as anti-Israel there as she is on her radio show.

Oh, well.

Improbable though it seems right now, there may come a time when Gaza collectively comes to its senses and starts valuing quality of life over hatred and death.  And if they do, Gaza has the potential to be as prosperous as Israel. 

Then Maddow and her fellow LAMBs will have another enemy to talk down.

Ken Berwitz

Thursday marks 50 years since the young revolutionary fidel castro toppled Fulgencia Batista and became the leader of Cuba.

How has he made out since?  If you ask the hollywoodenhead leftists, castro is a human god.  If you ask almost anyone else, you get a very different story.

Investors Business Daily sees Castro for the disastrous failure he has always been, and has put together a chronology of his unparalleled ineptitude in an excellent editorial commentary.  Here it is:

There you have it.  The real story of Cuba.  Other than Haiti, it is the longest running national catastrophe in the Western hemisphere.

Wait a minute.  Did I say "other than Haiti"?  I retract that comment.  Cuba is far worse than Haiti. 

Haiti has always been a poor country with no industry to speak of and a horribly uneducated population. 

By contrast, when fidel castro took control of Cuba he had major factories in place, transportation capabilities to ship the goods created in those factories and a well educated, highly trained work force  Plus, he had a hugely successful agricultural sector, especially sugar.  What a great set-up!

But instead of leaving things be, castro expropriated those factories and agricultural assets, while running off the capitalists who built them into what they were.  Communism was going to sustain and increase their success, you see.

The result of this insanity was that, in just a few years, he managed (or should I say mismanaged) to destroy it all.  And, as IBD points out, Cuba has never recovered.

So happy anniversary fidel and brother raul.  No one can say you didn't accomplish something.

Ken Berwitz

Since it has become the national pastime to blame President Bush for anything and everything, I thought I'd join the fun too.  This comes to us from USA Today:

The changes, outlined in a landmark security agreement the Bush administration signed in November, are part of the broadest transfer of responsibilities to Iraqi hands since 2004, when the government regained sovereignty from the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).

The most visible changes will take place in the Green Zone, the fortified section of Baghdad that has been the U.S. headquarters since the invasion in 2003.

Last week, Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, called it the Iraqi Security Zone. U.S. forces will continue to issue ID cards and act as advisers for months to come, but except for the sprawling U.S. Embassy complex along the Tigris River, the Iraqis "will be in charge" Jan. 1, Odierno said.

The changes represent "a palpable shift in power," said Daniel Serwer, former executive director of the Iraq Study Group, a panel appointed by Congress in 2006 to assess the situation here. "If the Americans had the bigger office on Dec. 31, they'll have the smaller one on Jan. 1."

Considering that this was a lost war (just ask harry reid and dozens of his cohorts in the Democratic Party), that ain't half bad.

I'm sure their apology is in the mail......

Ken Berwitz

Does Barack Obama have anything to say about Israel's attack on Gaza?  If so, he is doing a superb job of keeping it to himself.

Here is the story, from Reuters:

The protesters have a point when they note that Mr. Obama has spoken out about a bunch of things since being elected, including the Mumbai attacks. 

Why is he mum on Israel/hamas?

Is this tacit support for Israel?  Or is he just running scared from a controversial issue by invoking the "one President at a time" position?

It seems to me that Mr. Obama better start thinking about saying something.  Every day he avoids a position is a day he looks weaker.  And weakness is not a good thing to display when it comes to Middle East politics (or, for that matter, any other kind).

Ken Berwitz

rod blagojevich, the thoroughly corrupt, thoroughly disgraced governor of Illinois, has selected a replacement for soon-to-be-President Barack Obama. 

His dreams of a huge payday for the appointment are now over (or so it seems; let's remember this is Illinois we're talking about) and he was told flat-out that anyone he picked would be rejected. 

So blagojevich has responded by picking someone who will be extremely hard for Democrats to say no to:  Roland Burris.

Roland Burris, now 71 years of age, is a former state Comptroller and Attorney General.  His reputation - at least until now - is, to my knowledge, very impressive. 

And he is Black, which satisfies the demands of people like former Black panther bobby rush and the Chicago Sun-Times' racist duet, Mary Mitchell and Laura Washington.  These three feel that Mr. Obama holds a "Black" Senate seat, which should under no circumstances be given to a White person.

That makes Roland Burris a hard guy to toss aside, and blagojevich knows it.

It also makes Mr. Burris a lot like Clarence Thomas, who was appointed by George Bush 41 (the current President's father) to the Supreme Court in 1991.  Here's why:

Bush 41 wanted to place a conservative on the court.  But that was a near impossibility, given that Democrats held a 57-43 majority in the senate. 

Clarence Thomas certainly was (and remains) politically conservative.  But he is also Black, which made it much harder for Democrats to vote him down.  That's what Bush 41 was counting on.

The result of his clever gambit?  After a legendarily controversial senate hearing, Mr. Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a 52-48 margin.  Eleven of the 52 yea votes were Democrats.  A White candidate with Clarence Thomas's views would never have made it.

This, it seems to me, is something of a blueprint for blagojevich selecting Roland Burris. 

It will be more than a little interesting to see how it ultimately turns out.

Ken Berwitz

Some women think their male friends are really hot.  But none of them has anything on the Swedish woman in this story, which comes to us from www.thelocal.se:

Failed party trick lands Swedish man in burn unit

Published: 27 Dec 08 07:03 CET

A Swedish man’s attempt to impress his girlfriend on Friday night backfired, putting him in the hospital with serious burn injuries and facing allegations of endangering the public.

• Lush scents incur allergy group wrath (30 Dec 08)
• Police hire container to detain drunk skiers (30 Dec 08)
• Man with ECG monitor threatens golf club bombing (29 Dec 08)

The woman told police in Västervik in south eastern Sweden that her boyfriend poured gasoline over his arm and set the fuel on fire.

“It obviously didn’t go well. He burned his arm and other parts of his body and was in a state of shock,” said Kalmar police spokesperson Reine Johansson to the TT news agency.

“Don’t ask me what the point of the trick was supposed to be.”

The 33-year-old man was taken via ambulance to the hospital in Västervik.

According to police he will likely need specialized care at the burn clinic of Linköping University Hospital.

Following the failed stunt, the man is also under suspicion for negligence which endangers the public.

Police add that they have no reason to believe the man's burns resulted from actions other than those described by his girlfriend.

“We haven’t been able to talk with him yet; his condition is too bad to allow it. But we naturally plan to do so as soon as possible,” said Johansson.
.

Is this guy a finalist for the Darwin awards, or what?

By the way, I intentionally left in the three links which appear after the first paragraph, on the theory that they could be in the running too.

What's going on in Sweden?

Ken Berwitz

According to Peter Coy of Business Week magazine, these are the ten of the worst predictions of 2008.   Maybe you have other candidates for the top ten, but it's hard to dispute that these at least deserve finalist status:

The Worst Predictions About 2008

Here are some of the worst predictions that were made about 2008. Savor them -- a crop like this doesn't come along every year.

1. "A very powerful and durable rally is in the works. But it may need another couple of days to lift off. Hold the fort and keep the faith!" -- Richard Band, editor, Profitable Investing Letter, Mar. 27, 2008

At the time of the prediction, the Dow Jones industrial average was at 12,300. By late December it was at 8,500.

2. AIG (NYSE:AIG - News) "could have huge gains in the second quarter." -- Bijan Moazami, analyst, Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, May 9, 2008

AIG wound up losing $5 billion in that quarter and $25 billion in the next. It was taken over in September by the U.S. government, which will spend or lend $150 billion to keep it afloat.

3. "I think this is a case where Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE - News) and Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM - News) are fundamentally sound. They're not in danger of going under I think they are in good shape going forward." -- Barney Frank (D-Mass.), House Financial Services Committee chairman, July 14, 2008

Two months later, the government forced the mortgage giants into conservatorships and pledged to invest up to $100 billion in each.

4. "The market is in the process of correcting itself." -- President George W. Bush, in a Mar. 14, 2008 speech

For the rest of the year, the market kept correcting and correcting and correcting.

5. "No! No! No! Bear Stearns is not in trouble." -- Jim Cramer, CNBC commentator, Mar. 11, 2008

Five days later, JPMorgan Chase (NYSE:JPM - News) took over Bear Stearns with government help, nearly wiping out shareholders.

6. "Existing-Home Sales to Trend Up in 2008" -- Headline of a National Association of Realtors press release, Dec. 9, 2007

On Dec. 23, 2008, the group said November sales were running at an annual rate of 4.5 million -- down 11% from a year earlier -- in the worst housing slump since the Depression.

7. "I think you'll see (oil prices at) $150 a barrel by the end of the year" -- T. Boone Pickens, June 20, 2008

Oil was then around $135 a barrel. By late December it was below $40.

8. "I expect there will be some failures. I don't anticipate any serious problems of that sort among the large internationally active banks that make up a very substantial part of our banking system." -- Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve chairman, Feb. 28, 2008

In September, Washington Mutual became the largest financial institution in U.S. history to fail. Citigroup (NYSE:C - News) needed an even bigger rescue in November.

9. "In today's regulatory environment, it's virtually impossible to violate rules." -- Bernard Madoff, money manager, Oct. 20, 2007

About a year later, Madoff -- who once headed the Nasdaq Stock Market -- told investigators he had cost his investors $50 billion in an alleged Ponzi scheme.

10. A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win, the title of a book by conservative commentator Shelby Steele, published on Dec. 4, 2007.

Mr. Steele, meet President-elect Barack Obama.

If I had to pick the single worst prediction among these eminently worthy candidates, it would be Barney Frank's idiotica about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  That is because, unlike most of the others, who at least had the decency to admit they screwed up, Frank threw an angry hissy-fit and blamed everyone else. 

It's not like we haven't seen this routine from Frank before.  But in view of how transparently dishonest and/or ignorant his comments were and how many investors, big and small, lost their shirts because they believed him, it stands in a league of its own.

But don't worry, Barney:  You're a hardline leftist, you are gay and you have a speech issue.  In your district (Newton, MA), there are enough voters who think electing someone like you makes them better human beings, to insure that you can be as ridiculous as you want and you'll never lose anyway.

On the other hand, someday you may be challenged in the primary by a transvestite illegal alien with a learning disability who belongs to Code Pink, has AIDS and advocates a national monument to che guevara.  He/she (they?)  would probably give you a run for your money. 

Ken Berwitz

When it was hamas raining artillery and mortars on Israeli civilian targets, this wasn't a problem to the UN. 

But now that Israel is attacking hamas' capability to launch its artillery and mortars, there is a problem.  A big one.

Here is how the UN is addressing it, courtesy of excerpts from an Associated Press article:

UN chief demands immediate Gaza cease-fire

By EDITH M. LEDERER – 1 hour ago

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon demanded an immediate cease-fire in Gaza and urged Mideast and world leaders to do more to help end the Israeli-Hamas conflict and promote political dialogue.

Ban on Monday urged Arab foreign ministers, who are holding an emergency meeting in Cairo on Wednesday "to act swiftly and decisively to bring an early end to this impasse." The bombings have killed at least 360 people — including 62 women and children, according to the U.N. — and wounded some 1,400 others.

"I think regional and international partners have not done enough," the United Nations chief said on the third day of an Israeli bombardment of Gaza. "At the same time, other world leaders must also step up efforts to support a longer term resolution of the issue."

Egypt's U.N. Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz said he was sure there would be swift and decisive action on the part of the Arab League.

"So the Arab side is going to do whatever it takes to ensure that if there is a new agreement to come, after we reach the cease-fire, that this is ... going to be the basis of further actions to be taken into the political process."

While Abdelaziz and the Palestinian U.N. observer, Riyad Mansur, seemed to be looking forward to a renewal of the cease-fire, Israel's Ambassador Gabriela Shalev said the attacks would continue "as long as it takes to dismantle Hamas completely."

"We need and want the understanding, the support of the international community," Shalev said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "But first of all, we have the right to defend ourselves and we have the duty to protect our citizens. This comes before the understanding, which we hope to receive, of the international community."

On Monday, Ban said Israel's leaders gave him "a guarantee" that humanitarian supplies and aid workers would be allowed into Gaza but he said he hasn't gotten a guarantee from Israel to stop the bombings.

"I have been urging to Israeli prime minister and foreign minister, and I still may have to work more on this," he said. "I'm mobilizing all possible influence and leadership in the region and I have been working day and night on this matter."

The U.N. Security Council issued a statement early Sunday expressing serious concern at the escalating situation in Gaza and calling on Israel and the Palestinians to immediately halt all violence. While not legally binding, its unanimous adoption was a reflection of world opinion.

On Monday, Ban again condemned "the excessive use of force by Israel," expressing profound sadness at the suffering to civilians, especially children, and demanding that both side "halt their acts of violence and take all necessary measures to avoid civilian casualties."

"A cease-fire must be declared immediately," he said. "They must also curb their inflammatory rhetoric. Only then can dialogue start."

Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. observer, said he urged the Security Council president on Monday to get council members — who include the world's major powers — to use their political weight to achieve a cease-fire.

He said he told the current council president, Croatia's U.N. Ambassador Neven Jurica: "We need you to use your might, to use your power, to use this position in order to bring Israel into compliance ... with the wish of the Security Council, with the position of the secretary-general, with the entire position of the international community."

"We hope in the next 24 hours ... that this position be turned into reality and Israel to listen, and not to behave above international law," Mansour said.

"I am confident if this is to be stopped, then there will be not firing of anything from the Palestinian side," he said.

Can you believe the BS from these frauds?  Let's look at some of the more egregious examples:

-ban ki-moron thinks "regional partners have not done enough"?  WHAT partners?  The term suggests that both sides have them.  Can anyone list out Israel's regional partners?  When this moron says "regional partners" he is saying "enemies of Israel";

-ban is upset that Israel guaranteed humanitarian access, but did not guarantee to stop bombing?  What of it?  The military objective is to prevent hamas from bombing Israel.  This can only be done by destroying hamas' capability to do so.  If Israel stops bombing hamas's military assets, it insures that hamas will continue to attack Israel -- you know, the attacks that the UN couldn't have cared less about until Israel acted to stop them.  Sorry, ban, nice try;

-"I'm mobilizing all possible influence and leadership in the region"?  To do what; find an equitable solution?  Name any country surrounding Israel that wants anything but Israel's obliteration.  You can't, can you?  So ban's idiotic posturing about influence and leadership is another hot steamy load;

-Finally, about two-thirds of the way through the article, we see where ban really stands (as if we didn't know already).  He condemns Israel's "excessive force". (i.e. go back to the proportional response game that allows hamas to continue hitting Israel at will). 

I particularly enjoy ban instructing that Israel take necessary measures to avoid civilian casualties.  Has this oompa-loomp ever asked hamas not to fire their artillery from civilian areas, thus making their own people human shields? 

Because hamas does this, Israel's choice is to either protect the Gazan civilians hamas couldn't care less about at the cost of Israeli lives, or protect Israeli civilians by taking out firing locations in the Gazan neighborhoods where they have been placed.

I challenge you to show me any statement from ban that addresses hamas' human shield strategy.  Take your time looking; it's in the pile with step-by-step instructions for untying the Gordian knot;

-Finally, I have to admit there is a bit of unintentional humor here - not from ban, but from riyad mansour, the "palestinian observer" at the UN:  "I am confident that if this is stopped, then there will not be firing of anything from the Palestinian side".  

Wow, peace must be at hand.  The guy who represents Israel's enemy is confident that if Israel would just stop destroying hamas' offensive capability, hamas wouldn't use it.  Like they didn't until now.

I have said this many times in the past, but it bears repeating again now.  The UN is dead.  Morally, ethically, spiritually dead.  And no country knows this better than Israel.

I fervently hope Israel continues until hamas' capabilities are so damaged that it will be months or years before they can re-arm (which they will certainly do, it's all they care about.  Why spend the money on improving their people's lives when there are Jews to kill?)

And maybe, during the interim, Gazans will notice that, when they don't attack Israel, Israel doesn't attack them.   What a nice change that would be.

Ken Berwitz

I write a lot about media bias in the US.  But as bad as it is domestically, international media leave us in the dust.

The reporting of Israel's attack on Gaza is as classic an example as you will ever see. 

How bad is it?  Here is an excerpted report by John Hinderaker of www.powerlineblog.com, which shows Agence France Presse's coverage of the attack, and just how amazingly far from reality it is:

The Middle East According to AFP

Agence France-Presse (AFP) is one of the world's most biased news agencies, especially where the Middle East is concerned. Today AFP published this helpful guide to the "key events in 2008" relating to Gaza, Hamas and Israel:

In AFP's narrative, the story begins with Israel imposing a blockade of Gaza in January. No mention of the rocket attacks launched by Hamas from Gaza that prompted the blockade.

The next event that the AFP finds noteworthy is Israel's five-day "offensive" of February and March 2008, which "kills over 120 Palestinians." No mention of the 257 rockets and 228 mortars that were fired into Israel from Gaza during the month of February alone, no mention of Hamas' resumption of suicide bombing in February, and no acknowledgement that many of those killed were Hamas terrorists.

In June, AFP reminds us, Israel and Hamas agreed to a six-month truce. Again, context is absent, but the significance of the truce lay in Hamas' agreement to stop launching attacks on Israel from Gaza. And for a while, it almost did..... the mortar and rocket attacks never quite stopped, but resumed in earnest last month, when they averaged around three a day.

AFP helpfully explains what happened: "Israeli assault sparks resumption of Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza." What "Israeli assault" was that? The IDF sent special forces 200 yards across the border to destroy a tunnel that had been built to facilitate the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Intelligence indicated that such a kidnapping was imminent:

The IDF accused Hamas of jeopardizing the truce by digging the tunnel and plotting to abduct more Israeli soldiers in the immediate future.

"The tunnel we uncovered was ready for imminent use, forcing us to act immediately," the military source said. "We did not know where the other end of the tunnel surfaced. In light of the intelligence we received about its immediate use, plans for special forces to enter Gaza this evening after sundown were approved," he added.

Hamas gunmen opened fire on IDF forces and Hamas fired 45 rockets into Israel the same night. AFP uncritically parrots Hamas' pretext that Israel's destruction of the kidnapping tunnel was the reason for its resumption of rocket and mortar attacks.

That's it, as far as AFP is concerned, until December 19, when Hamas "ends [the] truce." Of course...there was no truce to end by December.

The AFP says that on December 27, Israeli planes "blitz Hamas targets." Give them credit for acknowledging the nature of the targets, but isn't "blitz" a somewhat fraught term to describe Israel's carefully aimed attacks?

While AFP's summary of "key events in 2008" is useless as a guide to what has happened in Gaza and Israel over the past year, it does accurately reflect AFP's woefully biased coverage of that part of the world: the Middle East according to AFP.

And if you think this is bad, try reading a paper in almost any Muslim or Asian country.

With "news" reportage like this, there is little wonder that Israel finds it nearly impossible to make its case to the world

Ken Berwitz

The "magic Negro"is a literary device in which a Black person, usually of very modest background and education, exhibits amazing powers and insights which help White people to overcome a problem they have.  The title character in Robert Redford's movie "The Legend of Bagger Vance" is a perfect example.

Personally, I have a major problem with this expression because of the way some people use it -- the same problem I have with the word "niggardly", which derives from the word "niggard" and means stingy/miserly. 

"Niggard" is of Norse derivation and can be traced back to the middle ages.  Obviously, therefore, it has nothing at all to do with the word "nigger".

But my experience is that "niggardly" is almost always used for one of two reasons:

1) The user mistakenly thinks it derives from "nigger" and intends to be offensive toward Black people;

2) The user knows there is no connection between the two words, but hopes the person he/she is talking to thinks there is and will react negatively to it.  Then the user can indulgently explain the difference and maybe come across as sounding intellectually superior.

All too often, "magic Negro" is being used for reasons very similar to 2) above.  The idea is to evoke a surprised, angry reaction, so the user can then effect an air of erudition while pointing out that it is perfectly acceptable and not offensive at all (wink, wink). 

Last year, David Ehrenstein wrote a column for the Los Angeles Times in which he applied the "magic Negro" term to Barack Obama.  Ehrenstein's motives were not insidious at all; he explained why the term fits Mr. Obama very well. 

But, in doing so, Ehrenstein also provided an opportunity for race baiters to use the term to get the hoped-for negative reaction, and then feign shock and outrage while referencing his column to prove there was no offense intended.

This, interestingly enough, leads us to Chip Saltsman

Mr. Saltsman was Mike Huckabee's national campaign director and, currently, is a candidate to head the Republican National Committee.  

Earlier this month, Saltsman sent out a "seasons greetings" CD to key Republicans which contained a number of humorous parodies.  One of them was "Barack the Magic Negro", done to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon.  It was written by the talented Paul Shanklin, and has aired many times on the Rush Limbaugh show. 

Mr. Saltsman is now under siege for including Shanklin's parody.  He has been condemned by people on both the left and right side of the political aisle.  As he should be!  What an amazingly obtuse, stupid thing to do.

But there is another angle to this issue:  hypocrisy.

Michelle Malkin, a formidable conservative writer/commentator, is very angry about the reactions to Saltsman.  She feels that many of the people complaining about the "magic Negro" CD had no problem with far worse being said about President Bush throughout his 8 years in the White House. 

Is Ms. Malkin on solid ground?  Well, here is her write-up; you decide:

Ms. Malkin has a point, doesn't she? 

Where was the outcry when President Bush was being addressed in the most despicably insulting terms the hard-left could think of? 

Did Peter Yarrow or Lennie Lipton protest the excoriation of Mr. Bush?  If so, maybe they can show us a few examples of what they said over these past 8 years.

Don't hold your breath waiting for it, though.  Not unless you have magic lungs.

Ken Berwitz

At first blush you would wonder what legitimate purpose there is for Israel to hit a university.  Isn't Gaza University where the most intellectually gifted Gazans would go to become educated?  Isn't that where they would have more of a chance to think outside the box than Gazans whose learning is from the street?

Well, you might think that; but you would be dead 100% wrong if you did.  Here is a healthy dollop of reality, from the Jerusalem Post, and Scott Johnson of www.powerlineblog.com:

Higher education, Hamas-style

Turning to the Jerusalem Post, one discovers:

Two laboratories in the university, which served as research and development centers for Hamas's military wing, were targeted. The development of explosives was done under the auspices of university professors.

University buildings were also used for meetings of senior Hamas officials.

The IDF said rockets and explosives were stored in the buildings.

Islamic University, in other words, represents how thoroughly the institutions of the Gaza Strip, such as they are, from mosque to school to state, have been turned into instruments of terror with extermination as their object. It is the commonality of aims that places Hamas in service to Iran, a point which David Horovitz urges observers to keep in mind.

This reminds us again that, in Gaza (and Judea & Samaria/the west bank) indoctrination is all-inclusive.  It really doesn't matter if your learning takes place on the street or in the university, the focus of that learning will be the same.  Israel is to be destroyed through violence - specifically killing Jews, and the more the merrier. 

If a university's laboratories and/or meeting facilities can be used to that end, they most assuredly will be.

Now you know why Gaza University was hit.  And you also know why I hope they hit it every time those laboratories attempt to function again.

Ken Berwitz

I have never liked Rush Limbaugh's characterization of hard left women's groups as "Feminazis".  I dislike naziism being trivialized that way.

But are these groups sometimes nutty?  You bet they are.  And one facet of their nuttyness is self-contradiction.

Here, from Karen Agness writing for www.townhall.com, is a good example of what I'm talking about:

Feminists were devastated by Senator Barack Obama’s final Cabinet selections. Although Obama has not reversed any of his policy positions, he has committed a major crime in their eyes. He selected five women for his twenty Cabinet positions. This is not enough for them. That he chose one-fourth of his Cabinet positions to be filled by women instead of one-half is the problem.

Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women (NOW), is not happy. In a December 22nd CNN article she said, “When you are looking at a Cabinet and you have such a small number of women in the room when the big decisions are being made, there need to be a lot more women's voices in this administration.”

Amy Siskind, who recently co-founded the feminist group New Agenda, claims in the same article that Obama is taking “shocking steps backward” in not selecting more women and that “this constituency does not matter to the president-elect.”

The number of women Obama chose is similar to the number selected by his most recent predecessors, so claims that this is some revolutionary step in any direction are exaggerated. President George W. Bush started with four women in his Cabinet. Currently, five women serve in President Bush’s Cabinet, Elaine Chao is the Secretary of Labor, Mary E. Peters is the Secretary of Transportation, Condoleezza Rice is the Secretary of State, Susan Schwab is the United States Trade Representative and Margaret Spellings is the Secretary of Education. President Bill Clinton started with five women in his Cabinet. Also, like President Bush, Obama has filled one of the four most important posts (head of the department of State, Justice, Defense and Treasury) with a woman, Senator Hillary Clinton.

Since women compose over half of the electorate and the U.S. population, the claim that women should make up half of the Cabinet does not seem so far-fetched. Yet, it does seem ridiculous when compared with earlier positions feminists have taken in this election. Regardless of the arguments for and against women making up half of Obama’s Cabinet, this feminist complaint reveals a deep tension within feminism today by raising a question: Does American feminism seek to achieve sex parity or policy representation?

The same day Senator John McCain announced his selection of Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President, NOW issued a press release entitled, “Not Every Woman Supports Women’s Rights.” The press release announced that NOW opposed Palin, “The fact that Palin is a mother of five who has a 4-month-old baby, a woman who is juggling work and family responsibilities, will speak to many women. But will Palin speak FOR women? Based on her record and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No.”

NOW publicly opposed Palin because her positions supposedly did not speak for women, and endorsed Senator Joe Biden because he “…is the VP candidate who appeals to women, with his authorship and championing of landmark domestic violence legislation, support for pay equity, and advocacy for women around the world.” The press release flatly denied that NOW supports women candidates solely because they are women.

NOW’s position on Palin’s nomination implies that NOW supports candidates based on whether they “speak for women” and represent feminist policy positions, regardless of sex. Yet, the feminist critique of Obama’s Cabinet based totally on the sex of his nominees contradicts this position and advances sex parity. As Obama announced his final Cabinet picks, feminist groups quickly dropped the rhetoric of wanting candidates “who speak for women” in support of sex quotas. They want ten women in Obama’s Cabinet. With the exception of the selection of Lawrence Summers, these liberal women’s groups criticize Obama’s nominees just because they are men, not because of their policy positions. Policy agreement is not enough.

Having lost the Cabinet battle, NOW and the Feminist Majority wrote a letter to Obama asking him to create a Cabinet-level White House Office on Women, and twenty other women’s organizations have signed a petition calling on Obama to create a Presidential Commission on Women.

Which is it? Either feminists support sex parity in higher office in which case they should have backed Palin or they support candidates who represent their policy preferences in which case they should evaluate the policy positions of Obama’s Cabinet selections. It would benefit the integrity of their movement to take a consistent position.

I think my favorite part is Ms. Agness noting that Barack Obama appointed the exact same number of women to cabinet posts as President Bush currently has.

Bush gave us the most diverse group of cabinet members in United States history - and got zero credit for it from our wonderful "neutral" media. 

Now let the Feminutties stew over Obama for a while -- remembering that they unwaveringly supported him in the election.

Ken Berwitz

P. David Hornik, writing for www.frontpagemag.com, has just put out a column about the Israelli attack on Gaza, which I think is excellent.

I have to think it's excellent because, as readers of this blog will quickly realize, it parallels what I've been saying.  Take a look and see for yourself:

Israel Strikes Back

By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, December 29, 2008

Exactly.

When you are dealing with terrorists who understand nothing but strength, you are forced to engage them in a way they understand.  If you don't, it will be you rather than they who are being bombed and killed - a fact borne out by the nonstop attacks on Israel during the "truce" period.

Has Olmert finally come to his senses?  Or is this a one-time-only wakeup that will last until the elections, followed by a reversion to the imbecilic "proportional" responses that put Israel into this mess?

We'll see.....

Ken Berwitz

New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin has written an excellent narrative about the increasingly embarrassing quest of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg to be appointed a US Senator.

Here it is, see if you agree:

Say goodnight, Caroline: How JFK's daughter flubbed the audition to become the next Senator Kennedy

Sunday, December 28th 2008, 4:00 AM

Warga/News

Senate hopeful Caroline Kennedy

In the beginning, just three long weeks ago, the idea of Caroline Kennedy being a United States senator had a certain ring to it. The Camelot myth still has shelf life and a merger with the historic Obama presidency provided an intriguing story line.

Kennedy would replace Hillary Clinton, one leading lady following another on a stage where name recognition often substitutes for merit. The narrative was tailor-made for the fever chambers of celebrity-obsessed media and the bandwagon quickly picked up speed.

Some top Democrats were certain Gov. Paterson, a close-to-the vest electorate of one, would find Kennedy irresistible now and as a running mate in two years. All others were chopped liver next to her sudden star power.

But a strange thing is happening on the way to the coronation. The wheels of the bandwagon are coming off. Fantasy is giving way to inescapable truth.

That truth is that Kennedy is not ready for the job and doesn't deserve it. Somebody who loves her should tell her.

Her quest is becoming a cringe-inducing experience, as painful to watch as it must be to endure. Because she is the only survivor of that dreamy time nearly 50 years ago, she remains an iconic figure. But in the last few days, her mini-campaign has proved she has little to offer New Yorkers except her name.

Her handlers and family enablers insist she feels no entitlement to the Senate job, yet there is no other possible reason to give it to her. Her name is the sole reason she even dares go for it. Camelot must be Gaelic for chutzpah.

New York can do better.

There is no denying the situation is odd. No one quite knows how to garner Paterson's approval or what his vetting process is. He hasn't even endorsed the sensible idea of public forums and debates, which would give voters a way to participate.

Kennedy apparently decided to go public to build support and scare off others, including Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, whose nasty divorce from her cousin still roils both clans. Kennedy also had to introduce herself to Democratic party leaders because, other than endorsing Obama, her politics were a mystery.

But the minute she faced the routine questions that help define a candidate for virtually any office, she had nothing to say. There was no "there" there.

"I just hope everybody understands that it is not a campaign but that I have a lifelong devotion to public service," she said during her first-ever visit to Rochester. "I've written books on the Constitution and the importance of individual participation. And I've raised my family. I think I really could help bring change to Washington."

Asked about her qualifications, she fell back on gibberish and the Kennedy name.

"As a mother, as an author, as an education advocate and from a family that really has spent generations in public service, I feel this commitment," she said. "This is a time when nobody can afford to sit it out, and I feel I have something to offer."

The "sit it out" part is revealing. Among those who want the job, she has done the least public service by any measure. She didn't even vote in about half the contested elections in the last 20 years.

Sensing she's not ready for prime time, her handlers, most of whom have connections to Mayor Bloomberg, suddenly insisted media questions be submitted in writing. The answers they provided, under their names, were vapid. And she will not, as is the campaign custom, release financial documents that reveal her wealth and holdings. We're expected to trust she has no conflicts of interest.

Even the one job she had in public life has come into question. Apparently on the basis of a chance meeting with New York's schools chancellor at a party on Martha's Vineyard, she signed on as a part-time fund-raiser. How much she raised and how much she worked have been challenged, but no matter. The point is that this self-described advocate for the public schools did not send her children to them.

Enough.

Limousine liberals are a dime a dozen, and carpetbaggers are nothing new in New York. And with the social scene constantly churning out the old for the next new thing, there's no reason middle-aged dilettantes can't also try their hand at politics.

They just can't start in the Senate. .

Could this get any more ridiculous?

The right thing to do would be for Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg to bow out as gracefully as possible (which, let's be honest, couldn't be very graceful at all by this time).

If Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg does not, she will force Governor David Paterson to either make an incredibly idiotic appointment - knowing that just about everyone out there sees it for what it is - or to reject her, which would be even more embarrassing than bowing out in the first place.

This should be a very interesting week in New York.....

Ken Berwitz

I've posted commentary by Christopher Booker of London's Daily Telegraph a couple of times on this blog.  He writes about global warming.  He is interesting, insightful and uses facts instead of flatulence (which isn't always the case when this subject is discussed).

Mr. Booker thinks that 2008 was the year of disproval for man-made global warming.  He has some pretty good reasons for making this claim too.  See if you agree (the bold print is mine):

Mr. Booker is a man ahead of his time - certainly compared to the mob-psychology-driven drones in US media who assure us that global warming is not only a fact, but it has overtaken us. 

I love it when they then  throw it over to the weatherman for that day's forecast and we find - more often than not - that temperatures are at or below normal.

Maybe someday, when media become unmesmerized enough to move away from Algoreism and back towards reality, their news desks will start paying attention to their weathermen.

Ken Berwitz

Michael Paulson writes about religion for the Boston Globe.  His latest column is about Israel's attack on Gaza, and it is excellent.  So I'm posting it here.  The bold print is mine:

Boston Jewish leaders defend Gaza strike

How necessary was it that Israel act?  Even a virtually unconditional peacenik like Amos Oz is finding a rationale for it.  In the USA that would roughly equate to cindy sheehan defending an operation in Iraq.  

Maybe this will all come to nothing more than a lot of people dying.  Sadly, it is the single most likely outcome.

But maybe the cost in blood today will cause a lot less blood to flow tomorrow, as Gazans - in their own self-interest - say enough is enough on the daily bombing of Israel. 

We can only hope.

Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama suddenly is the quietest man on the planet.  But he can't be for long.

Israel has hit Gaza in a major way.  Hundreds are dead and hamas' "security" is decimated (in other words, it will be harder for hamas to avoid Israel's retaliation for the daily bombings that brought this attack on in the first place).

Charles Johnson of www.littlegreenfootballs.com has a good piece on this, so I'll let him tell the story:

Kos Kid Roots for Palestinians, Takes Slap at Obama

Moonbats | Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 11:25:07 am PST

A Kos Kid with the possibly ironic username of “Daisy Cutter” is weeping over the Israeli airstrikes against Hamas weapons dumps and training camps: Daily Kos: Israel’s ongoing war on Palestinian self-determination (EDIT: 200 dead, Obama: no comment).

With today’s news of IDF air strikes abruptly ending the lives of some 140 Gazans, I can’t help but feel an abject sense of horror at the fact that most Americans will probably find some way to blame the Palestinians for bringing this on themselves. Nevermind the fact that it was Israel who initially broke the ceasefire. Forget the fact that Israel kidnapped two civilians from Gaza before Corporal Gilad Shilat became a household name. Nevermind that Israel’s strangulation of the Gaza Strip began immediately after the so-called disengagement and before the electoral victory of Hamas.

I remain confounded by the American progressive movement’s widespread refusal to stand behind the Palestinian people as they are subjected to an endless barrage of colonialist, racist aggression.

I, on the other hand, see it as a rare sign of wisdom. Not all “progressives” are as gullible and blind as “Daisy Cutter,” apparently.

That fascinating display of absolute idiocy based on absolute BS by "Daisy Cutter" would be a worst-case scenario from the Obama people.  A statement reminding Gazans that the actions emanating from their territory is what caused Israel's attack would be a best case scenario.

Now;  when does Barack Obama get into the act?  We all await scenario 1. 

Ken Berwitz

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An' foolish notion
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us
An' ev'n Devotion

That quote is from Robert Burns' poem, indelicately titled "To A Louse".  Translated into contemporary language, the great Mr. Burns actually was saying:

Oh, that God would give us the very smallest of gifts
To be able to see ourselves as others see us
It would save us from many mistakes
and foolish thoughts
We would change the way we look and gesture
and to how and what we apply our time and attention.

With this in mind, here is an article from today's New York Post, which reports the comments Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg made during interviews with the Associated Press and New York 1. 

Please read it through, trying to remember all the while that this is her attempt to convince us that she should be appointed to the United States Senate:

SWEET CAROLINE: I'M SET TO SERVE

Let's see; Mr. Kennedy Schlossberg thinks that a long and admirable record of charitable work qualifies her to become a United States Senator.  It seems me me that there are people with far fewer personal resources than Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg, who devote even more time to public service than she does.  Using that logic, shouldn't they be ahead of her on line for the senate appointment?

Then we have the remarkable suggestion that the Kennedy name not only does not help, but is a hindrance to her quest for public office.

Sure, ok.  The Kennedy family is not a help, but she manages to toss in the fact that her family is devoted to public service, as well as individual references to her brother, her mother and her father.   Why?  To lower her chances for the appointment?

Please understand that I do not consider Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg a louse, or anything like a louse.  But I think she would greatly benefit from reading the poem of that name.

Personally, I think that if Robert Burns were still around and was following Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg's attempts to convince us that she's the right person for the job, he'd have to amend part of his poem to read:

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us
It wad frae politics a blunder free us
From foolish Caroline Kennedi'eus

Schlossberg!

Ken Berwitz

Now, it is claimed, the death count from Israel's strike at Gaza is almost 200.  Since the brave warriors in Gaza make a point of firing at Israel from residential neighborhoods, some of the casualties are civilian. 

Here is an analysis of the attack and what it means from David Horovitz of the Jerusalem Post:

Analysis: The policy of restraint is over

The Israeli air strikes on Hamas targets in Gaza on Saturday, hugely dramatic in their scope, nonetheless mark only the beginning of an ongoing, potentially lengthy operation aimed at restoring calm to the South, rather than a one-off response to the escalated Kassam rocket fire. The policy of restraint, officials say, is over.

For months, Israel has been refining its intelligence information on the key physical locations that are crucial to the rule of Hamas in the terror state that the Gaza Strip has become since the Islamist group seized power there in June 2007.

And rather than seeking to target the fast-moving offshoots of that terrorist rule - the Kassam crews that set themselves up in residential Gaza neighborhoods, fire into Israeli residential areas and then quickly melt away - Israel has elected to fire into the heart of the terror beast.

Defense Ministry officials, from Ehud Barak on down, were Saturday preparing the Israeli public for what they said was likely to be a difficult period ahead.

Hamas is threatening a further escalation in rocket fire - with missiles reaching to Beersheba - and the mobilization of a new wave of suicide bombers.

The international fallout, even amid the relative inattention of the Christmas-New Year period, began remarkably quickly, with a chorus of calls for Israeli restraint, including predictable fury in the Arab world and a vehement protest from France at Israel's ostensibly disproportionate response.

Amid the military preparations, it will quickly become clear whether Israel has made parallel diplomatic preparations, with articulate officials prepped and ready to highlight to the watching world how untenable has been the situation of Hamastan firing into Israel for eight years, with interim lulls to rearm, and no cessation even after Israel pulled all its civilians and all military infrastructure out of Gaza in 2005.

The word from the defense establishment on Saturday afternoon was that some 60 planes had participated in the strikes at dozens of Hamas military and logistical targets. Preparations were in place for an intensification of military action, with the potential use of ground forces, officials said. No call up of reserves was under way but, again, the preparations were in place should it be deemed necessary.

Naturally, the effort launched Saturday to defang a rocket-firing, Iranian-backed terror army across a hostile border invites immediate comparison with the bid to destroy Hizbullah's terrorist infrastructure in southern Lebanon two and a half years ago.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert relentlessly insisted that he was the man best placed to learn the lessons of that indecisive and ultimately unsuccessful resort to force - a war mis-stewarded by an inexperienced prime minister, a defense minister, Amir Peretz, who was entirely unqualified for the job, and a chief of staff, Dan Halutz, who placed exaggerated confidence in the air force's capacity for destroying carefully protected underground infrastructure and a highly mobile Hizbullah fighting force.

We are now going to find out whether those lessons from 2006 - on military preparation, on the need for effective military-political coordination, on operating in an immensely complex regional and global context, and on setting realistic goals for the use of military force - were indeed well learned.

Mr. Horovitz understands perfectly.  Maybe, at long last - way too long -  this indicates that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert does too.

Since the world will inevitably side against Israel in this action, it has to act very swiftly and decisively to wipe out as much of the hamas infrastructure as possible. 

I wish Israel every success in this effort.

Ken Berwitz

Why did we remove the taliban from running Afghanistan? 

Well, for one, it was giving osama bin laden the run of the country to train al qaeda recruits and plan terrorist attacks.  This, of course, culminated in 9/11.

For another, it was because of the following, which comes to us via The Australian:

Taliban says if girls' schools don't close, it will bomb them, attack students
By Zahid Hussain in Islamabad
The AustralianDecember 27, 2008

THE Taliban has ordered the closure of all girls' schools in the war-ravaged Swat district of Pakistan and warned parents and teachers of dire consequences if the ban is flouted.

In an announcement made in mosques and broadcast on radio, the militant group set a deadline of January 15 for its order to be obeyed or it would blow up school buildings and attack schoolgirls. It also told women not to set foot outside their homes without being fully covered.

"Female education is against Islamic teachings and spreads vulgarity in society," Shah Dauran, leader of a group that has established control over a large part of Swat district in the North West Frontier Province, declared this week.

Teachers said that they had little choice but to comply. The Taliban have destroyed more than 125 girls' schools in the area in the past year, The Weekend Australian reports.

Swat, once a relatively liberal area and a popular tourist destination, has in the past few years become a heartland for Pakistan's Islamic militancy, which fashions itself on the conservative Taliban movement in Afghanistan.

Islamic militants led by the radical cleric Maulana Fazlullah have been fighting government forces since Pakistan launched a massive operation in the district late last year.

More than 200 government soldiers have been killed but the militants are still well entrenched in the area.

Mullah Fazlullah - also known as Mullah Radio for his sermons broadcast through his illegal FM radio stations - has long been exhorting people to stop sending their daughters to schools, which "inculcate Western values". Hundreds of girls and women teachers have quit schools as a result.

The militants have also prohibited immunisation for children against polio - claiming that the UN-sponsored vaccination drive is aimed at causing sexual impotence - causing a sharp rise in cases of the disease.

Since the start of the government offensive, girls' schools have been targeted increasingly by Islamic fundamentalists. The district has 842 boys' and 490 girls' state schools for 300,000 children aged three to nine; only 163,645 boys and 67,606 girls are actually enrolled at state and private establishments, according to official figures.

According to the local authorities, 50 per cent of girls have stopped attending school because of the militants' threats. Hazir Gul, a teacher, said the inability of the authorities to provide protection against attacks had emboldened the Islamists, who burned schools "whenever they want".

Attacks on girls' schools are not confined to the Swat district. In the past two years a further 100 schools have been burnt down in Waziristan and other tribal areas, leaving tens of thousands of children between the ages of five and 15 without education.

In many areas, hardliners have established sharia, or Islamic law, and introduced public executions for those who break it.

.  .

Most of us supported the invasion of Afghanistan -- and then, as per usual, the hate-USA, hate-Republicans crowd quickly started finding fault with everything we did there.   The fact that the taliban has not regained control since our invasion?  Irrelevant. 

Well, maybe this brings the relevance home just a tad.  And maybe it will make some of these geniuses think about what would happen if the taliban mindset were again in control of Afghanistan - or maybe even other places closer to us.

But I doubt it.

Ken Berwitz

Finally, Israel hits back at Gaza. 

Finally a reaction - not proportional but on Israel's terms - to address the wholesale bombing of Israel from Gaza during the utterly fraudulent "truce" - which, in reality, was hamas attacking Israeli towns almost daily while it was re-arming.

Here is part of an Associated Press report which gives the details:

Israeli aggression.  That's what they're calling it in Gaza (and with almost 60 muslim countries and a world in need of oil, that is also what they'll be calling it in the UN, I assure you). 

Me?  I say that it's about time. 

The only language understood in Gaza and Judea/Samaria (the west bank) is this kind of action.  Now hamas, their sympathizers and the ones who stand silently by (otherwise known as the entire Gazan population) can go into their usual routine of crying that they are victims, as they try to rebuild their "security".  

Tragically, the only way this will ever change is if the people there have a reason to fear Israel more than their fellow "palestinians". 

If Israel does this enough times, maybe that will happen.  If Israel doesn't do this, it never will.

Ken Berwitz

Did you ever wonder what those expensive cosmetic surgeons do with all the fat that is liposuctioned out of their patients' bodies?

Well, here's one use I bet you hadn't considered.  It comes to us from Forbes Magazine, via www.foxnews.com:

California Surgeon Used Human Fat to Power Car

Friday , December 26, 2008

A former Beverly Hills, Calif. liposuction doctor claimed to have the environment's best interests at heart when he began fueling his and his girlfriend's SUVs with human fat sucked out of his patients.

Unfortunately the practice was illegal, according to California state health officials.

An investigation by the California public health department revealed that Craig Alan Bittner created "lipodiesel" from his patients' fat and used it to power his Ford SUV and his girlfriend's Lincoln Navigator, Forbes.com reported this week.

"The vast majority of my patients request that I use their fat for fuel — and I have more fat than I can use," Bittner wrote on his now defunct Web site. "Not only do they get to lose their love handles or chubby belly but they get to take part in saving the Earth."

California law forbids the use of human medical waste to power vehicles.

Bittner's practice, Beverly Hills Liposculpture, closed in November.

Several former patients have filed lawsuits against the doctor, claiming he allowed his unlicensed girlfriend and an assistant to perform procedures, causing mistakes that left the patients disfigured, attorney Andrew Besser, who represents three of the former patients, told Forbes.com.

I can just hear the conversations in that office  "Doctor, why is this procedure taking so much longer than you said it would?"  "Well, we're driving out of state this weekend"

I bet Michael Moore personally could have gotten both cars cross-country.  Twice.

The next time you are in traffic and instead of the usual fumes it smells like someone is barbecuing some really cheap hamburgers, maybe you're behind this guy.

That's my contribution.  The next bad joke is yours. 

Ken Berwitz

You do not play cat-and-mouse with people who tell you in so many words that they want your country destroyed and you dead.

Benjamin Netanyahu understands this.  The current "leadership" of Israel does not.  That is why Israel allowed a phony "truce" that, in reality, was nothing other than a time-out to allow hamas to gather arms, and it is why Israel is being assaulted by hamas rockets and artillery right now.

Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, writing for the (usually left wing and pro-appeasement) Ha'aretz, have the story:

	Advertisement

And there are also practical considerations. Israeli intelligence assessments say that Hamas is interested in returning to a period of calm, but wishes to do so from a position of power, once it has imposed its conditions on Israel: first and foremost, significant improvements with regard to the opening of the border crossings into the Strip. Israel, say sources in the defense establishment, is likewise in need of a show of strength against Hamas, so it will not be dragged into the next cease-fire as the weak and frightened side in the deterrence equation.

Barak and Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi have sounded determined in recent days. There will be a military operation. Its exact timing is a question of suitable operative conditions - that is, better weather and the possibility of achieving a surprise. Barak says he will no longer consent to the "ping-pong" of provocation and response that Hamas seeks to dictate. The next cease-fire must be total and will be undertaken only after the IDF makes its strength felt in the Gaza Strip. Ashkenazi is bitter about the politicians who are vying among themselves with aggressive declarations, and portraying the caution and responsibility shown by the General Staff as cowardice.

Topple Hamas?

The various statements by Israel's ministers reflect a good deal of confusion. Livni and Vice Premier Haim Ramon have spoken on several occasions about the need to topple the Hamas government in Gaza. Barak (and Ashkenazi, too) seems to feel that such a goal is unrealistic now. The main objective for the army is considerably more modest: exacting a significant price from Hamas, to prompt it to agree to return to the framework of the lull. The likely method for achieving this objective is not occupation of the Strip or the pursuit of every Qassam launcher. Close to the start of the operation, the army will make clear publicly that its goal is not complete cessation of the rocket fire, and that the barrages are likely to extend to even more communities as the operation proceeds. The IDF will seek to strike sites that Hamas defines as "assets," until the organization agrees to a renewed calm.

The past two weeks have underscored one problem facing Israel: It is very difficult to prevent the launching of rockets and mortars in wintry weather. Visibility over Gaza is extremely poor in such conditions, making it hard for aircraft to identify their targets. (This problem is also currently being grappled with by those developing the Qassam interception system, which will likely not be ready for at least two more years.) Despite these limitations, it appears that the air force will still have a central role to play in any Israeli offensive. If the escalation continues, it could also develop into a ground operation. The Southern Command currently has at its disposal leading infantry brigades from Golani and the Paratroops.

Still, Israel's leaders claim that they will avoid an all-out offensive, that occupation of Gaza is not an objective, and that Hamas is not interested in a major confrontation, either. But one has to wonder whether anyone has bothered to inform Hamas about this wonderfully rational scenario. The Palestinians have always had this annoying habit of not conforming to the nice plans the defense establishment has laid out for them.

This week, Hamas did appear to be hallucinating, likening itself to its bigger and more dangerous sister, Hezbollah. The same type of slogans, threatening proclamations, videos of militants training - and even the same type of haughty TV broadcasters smilingly reporting on actions undertaken against the Zionist enemy. But Hamas also appeared to be repeating Hezbollah's mistakes from 2006, arrogantly believing that if the Israelis declare they don't want to reoccupy Gaza, then it is left with nearly unlimited room to maneuver.

Even if it turns out that Hamas is right (which is highly unlikely), it is taking a tremendous gamble. A major air strike by Israel would apparently include bombardment of Hamas offices and institutions. A further deterioration to a large-scale frontal confrontation could end up costing Hamas its rule, although the IDF would surely suffer significant losses, too. Meanwhile, the tremendous importance that Hamas attaches to matters of honor and prestige cannot be discounted. A few mornings ago, while headlines in Israel reported on Hamas' readiness to consider a new cease-fire, the organization was behind the launching of over 60 rockets and mortars, intended to settle the score for an incident the previous evening, in which paratroops killed three Hamas men out to plant explosives near the separation fence. As in the past, Hamas is prepared to risk its rule just to avoid the perception of having surrendered to Israel.

Mushir al-Masri, a Hamas parliament member in his early 30s, largely symbolizes his organization's arrogant side. On Wednesday, Al-Masri stood before a Palestinian crowd in a mosque during the funeral for the three men killed by the paratroops. He waved an admonishing finger at Israel with the other. "We will strike them in Sderot and Ashkelon, and what comes after Sderot and after that," he warned, echoing Hezbollah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah's famous speech during the Second Lebanon War. The glittering gold watch on Al-Masri's left wrist detracted a bit from the message - given the modest public image that Hamas seeks to maintain, and the economic distress of most Gazans.

On the eve of the escalation, Israel's foreign minister journeyed to Cairo, but Livni's visit seemed more like a PR and coordination mission than a last attempt at mediation. In Israel, the feeling is growing that Egypt would not be much opposed to a little blood being shed among Hamas. Cairo did not issue any denial following the report in the London newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi two days ago that Intelligence Minister Omar Suleiman had told Major General (res.) Amos Gilad that Israel needs to teach Hamas a lesson.

Relations between Egypt and the Hamas leadership in Gaza are tense and brimming with mutual resentments. Cairo is angry about the torpedoing of the Hamas-Fatah dialogue it had sponsored, and about what it saw as excessive arrogance on the part of Hamas. Gaza is angry that several Hamas officials have been imprisoned in Sinai for almost a year, and it is openly critical of Egypt. It appears that the Egyptians would prefer to let the parties stew in their own juices for a while before bringing all their weight to bear in order to attain a new cease-fire.

.

The Israeli government and Ha'aretz can pretend all they want that this is a temporary strategic move on the part of hamas.  But hamas' objective in this is the end of Israel and millions of dead Jews. 

Elections are coming soon.  Based on the polling I've seen, the country - at least as of now - seems to have decided that it can no longer play pretend this way. 

I hope that realization still obtains on election day.

Ken Berwitz

How do you like your lunacy?  Do you want it in four letter words, or subtle and nuanced. 

The New York Times gives you subtle and nuanced.  And here is a great example.

We are in terribly hard economic times, when jobs are being lost left and right.  So what does the Times editorial board think we should do?  Why give equal rights to illegal aliens, that's what. 

No I am not drinking or on drugs.  I really read this in today's paper.  And, to prove it, here is the editorial I am referring to.  I've put a several of the ripest parts in bold print:

Getting Immigration Right

Got that?  You uphold lawfulness by giving legal rights to illegals. 

And, since the demands of this editorial include insuring that illegals get the same kind of compensation as legals, what the Times is really saying is that illegals should be able to compete on an even keel with people who are here legally, so they can fight over a dwindling job market.

Their conclusion?  If illegal workers are treated no differently than legals and given exactly what legals are given, it will move us toward solving the illegal worker problem.

Ok, you be the judge.  If an illegal knows that, once over the border, he/she will not face deportation, and will be paid exactly the way a legal is paid, do you think he/she will be encouraged or discouraged to come here illegally?

I would call the Times editorial board idiots for this, but I decline to insult idiots so completely.

Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama has come a long way from being a "community organizer" on the south side of Chicago.  I doubt very many people, supporters or detractors, will dispute that. 

But just how far and on who's bankroll?  That's where it gets interesting.  Real interesting.

antoin "tony" rezko is a slumlord criminal who, earlier this year, was convicted on 16 felony counts.  If that were you or me, we'd be planning for a very long stay at a correctional facility.  But tony rezko isn't you or me.  He is a long time friend, confidante and financial angel of Barack Obama.

rezko is the guy who Obama first dismissed as a supporter - nothing special, just one of many - who had given him a total of maybe $25,000 over the years.  Then, as facts became known, Obama admitted to $50,000, than 6 figures (the number moving upward only when it became impossible to pretend otherwise) and eventually to something like $250,000. 

We then found out that rezko was deeply involved in getting Barack Obama the mansion he lives in - and additional land adjoining it.  Both acquisitions appear to be at below-market rates.

Now let's fast-forward to the present.  Barack Obama is going to be the President of the United States, and tony rezko is about to become a jailbird.  So guess who is singing?

It turns out that the real owner of Barack Obama's house is not Barack Obama.  The real owner, based on information uncovered by World Net Daily (and, of course, unreported by our wonderful "neutral media") is....William Miceli.

And who is William Miceli?  He is a) tony rezko's lawyer, and b) a lawyer at the firm Barack Obama used to work for.

That interesting enough for you? 

Here are the particulars, from best-selling author (The Obama Nation) Jerome Corsi.  Please read every word and - very importantly - click on the links to see how well referenced this story is:

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Rezko attorney 'owns' Obama mansion
Lawyer at firm where Democrat worked receives tax bill

Posted: December 25, 2008
11:40 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

An attorney for convicted fundraiser Tony Rezko is listed as the owner and taxpayer for Barack Obama's Chicago mansion, according to records obtained by WND.

William Miceli is a lawyer at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which also formerly employed Obama.

The controversy began when a website called News and Commentary for Thinking People published a 48-page document that lists Miceli as the owner of the Obama home at 5046 S. Greenwood.

Miner, Barnhill & Galland was Obama's employer when he did extensive legal work for Rezko, who awaits sentencing after he was convicted in June of fraud, money laundering and bribery-related counts.

Miceli, as a senior attorney at the firm, supervised Obama when the future president wrote letters on behalf of Rezko urging public authorities to award him new public properties to rehabilitate, notes the "Barack Book" website maintained by GOP.com.

WND asked for comment from Obama's transition team and the Democratic National Committee but did not receive a response.

Investigative reporter Tim Novak at the Chicago Sun-Times has identified 15 building projects that Rezmar, Rezko's development company, redeveloped while it was represented by Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time at the firm.

The law firm changed its name when senior partner Allison Davis left to join Rezko in his schemes to take out loans on low-income housing projects. Several of the transactions remain under investigation, because the millions of dollars Rezko borrowed against the properties to make redevelopments are gone, while many of the properties remain boarded up and uninhabitable.

Following the Jan. 21 Democratic Party primary debate, Miceli told the Washington Post that he was Obama's supervisor at the law firm, in response to Sen. Hillary Clinton's charges Obama had worked for a Chicago slumlord, Rezko.

The Post said "Obama denied doing any legal work directly for Rezko or his companies," contending Obama had done only "about five hours worth of work" on a joint real estate development project involving Rezko and a Chicago church group.

Miceli told the Post Obama "was a very junior lawyer at the time, who was given responsibility for basic due diligence, document review."

Miceli said Obama "did what he was told by the firm," minimizing the importance of any work Obama admittedly did for the Rezko account.

WND confirmed the tax bill for the Obama home is mailed to Miceli, not to Obama or the Northern Trust account through which Obama has claimed the home was purchased.

Records from the Cook County Treasurer's Office give the PIN number for the Obama property as 20-11-115-037-0000 and list Miceli as the person who receives Obama's property tax invoice by mail.

Eric Herman, a spokesman for the Cook County assessor, confirmed to WND that the Treasurer's Office records were correct and that Miceli did receive the Obama property tax invoice by mail.

Miceli did not return a call WND placed to him at Miner, Barnhill & Galland.

Herman told WND a second PIN number, 20-11-115-036-0000, identified the vacant lot next to the Obama mansion that was purchased by Rita Rezko, Tony Rezko's wife.

Here, WND found conflicts between the tax records maintained by the Cook County Treasurer's Office and the deed information maintained by the Cook County Recorder of Deeds.

Rosslyn Whitlock, an Internet support specialist at the Cook County Recorder of Deeds, confirmed to WND that the office has no information listed for the Obama home under the PIN number 20-11-115-037-0000, the number used by the Cook County Assessor's office for property tax purposes.

Records at the Cook County Recorder of Deeds list Rita Rezko as the holder of the warranty deed for the vacant lot at 5050 S. Greenwood adjoining the Obama mansion, under the PIN number 20-11-115-036-0000.

WND was able to locate warranty information at the Cook County Recorder of Deeds , which Herman at the County Assessor's office told WND was the "old PIN number" assigned to the Obama home at 5046 S. Greenwood Avenue, before the home was sold to Obama.

Neither spokesman could explain to WND the discrepancy in PIN numbers, nor why the Cook County Recorder of Deeds has no information filed under the new PIN number assigned to the property after the Obama purchase.

Records with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds under the PIN number 20-11-115-034-0000 indicate the mortgage is held by Northern Trust Company under trust number 10209, which Obama has indicated was the trust the Obama family used to purchase the home.

Meanwhile, WND has reported that since arresting Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has taken new interest in Rezko's involvement in the Obama mansion purchase.

WND also reported real estate credit analyst Kenneth Conner has filed a civil suit alleging he was wrongfully dismissed by Mutual Bank

Ken Berwitz

Is David Paterson having second thoughts about annointing Queen Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg to the United States Senate?

It sure seems so.  Here is the New York Post's account of what he has to say about Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg as of yesterday:.

Ken Berwitz

For many years, there was the dictatorial Czar.  Then for about 70 years there was the freedomless Soviet Union (USSR).  Then the USSR broke up and its SSR's became what they used to be and/or should have been, free states.  Russia became a free state too, with democratic elections.

Now, Vladimir Putin - a former KGB bigshot, let's not forget - is reverting Russia back to the old USSR days.  Bit by bit, piece by piece, it is happening right in front of us. 

Here are the particulars, from Stephen Brown writing for www.frontpagemag.com.  Please pay special attention to the paragraphs I've put in bold print:

Soviet Law Returns To Russia

By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, December 25, 2008

It was an act of Soviet repression in Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Memorial, a leading Russian human rights organization dedicated to keeping alive the memory of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin’s victims and to investigating political persecution in the former Soviet Union, had its St. Petersburg offices raided recently. Acting on a spurious accusation by the Prosecutors Office, masked security agents stormed the internationally acclaimed group’s premises, seizing computer hard drives containing 20 years of work documenting Soviet crimes.

But while Stalin would have disliked the absence of arrests of those documenting his crimes, that may soon change. Almost simultaneous with the Memorial raid, new legislation was submitted to Russia’s parliament, the Duma, that reflects a return to Russia’s sinister, communist past. Concerning a new amendment on the treason law, critics fear the bill will broaden the law’s definition so much it will be used against anti-government dissenters.

According to Russian political analyst, Yevgeny Kiselyov, under the old treason definition one had to commit “a hostile act” that damaged “the external security” of the state to be charged. In the current amendment, the words “hostile” and “external” have been removed. With the words “act” and “security” now standing alone, critics say this allows for a much wider interpretation of the law. Also included as a traitor in the new bill is anyone who renders “financial, technical, consultative or other assistance to a foreign state, international or foreign organizations or their representatives in their activities directed against the security of the Russian Federation...”

Due to this loose definition, some believe the state may now even interpret the new treason legislation any way it pleases, much like in Soviet times. It is suspected the new measure is also meant to curb Russians’ dealings with foreigners, especially with journalists. Contact with foreigners was strictly prohibited in the Soviet era. Even before the new amendment, Russians, especially scientists, had experienced legal difficulties regarding what is considered elsewhere as normal exchanges with foreign colleagues.

Also indicative that a political climate already existed for the new legislation was a recent announcement by the Prosecutors Office in Yekaterinburg that it is considering “sanctions” against journalists who have written about Russia’s current economic troubles. According to the Prosecutors Office, the press, one of the foundations of a democratic society, is actually part of the problem since it is “contributing to the panic.”

The treason amendment, which has passed the Duma’s lower house, is not the only legislation causing Russian human rights activists concern. The Duma also voted recently to ban jury trials on charges of treason and terrorism in favour of a panel of judges. Such charges include “involvement in armed units, violent seizure of power, armed rebellion and mass riots.” Jury trials disappeared in Russia after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, but were restored in 1993.

Some believe the Russian government is pushing the anti-treason legislation at this point in time because it is preparing for any civil disorders that may arise from the economic crisis sweeping the country. Russia’s is an energy-exporting economy which, one analyst said, relies on a $70 per barrel oil price to stay afloat. Currently at about $50, if the oil price ever dropped to $20 per barrel, there would be “a revolution.”

Although Prime Minister Putin’s popularity rating is high among Russians, much of it is due to the fact the people received a share of the oil riches the last eight years. If this wealth evaporates, and Russians again experience the economic hardships and disorders of the 1990s, then all bets could be off regarding social unrest.

Others believe Putin, a former KGB officer, is simply using the economic crisis to pass legislation to enhance his authority and that of his many former secret police colleagues in the government. They cite the fact that Putin rolled back democratic measures while president; and the latest anti-democratic measures are simply a continuation of this trend.

But the main reason for the new legislation, as well as the biggest obstacle to establishing a democratic order based on the rule of law in Russia, is that the general attitude regarding a free society has changed very little since Soviet times. Russian President Dimitri Medevedev alluded to this in an address to the nation last November when he said: “The state bureaucracy is governed by the same distrust of personal freedoms as it was 20 years ago. That logic is pushing it towards dangerous conclusions and dangerous actions.”

Just as responsible for this damaging attitude is that for decades after the 1917 Russian Revolution the Russian people saw those in power devising and using the law simply to further their own, sometimes murderous, ends. This immoral and twisted use of legal systems discredited and undermined any faith in them, both among the rulers and ruled. Under Soviet rule, the only law both learned, like in many totalitarian states, was that might is right, which is also the law code of the gangster world.

And these gangster values still persist today, as is evident in some Russian politicians’ use of language. According to one writer, the gangland term, “rubbed out”, was gaining “popularity in Russian politics” in 2006. Even Putin, Russia’s prime minister, was not averse to this trend. On national television, he warned a sick business owner, who missed a meeting and whose dealings Putin didn’t like, to get well soon “or we will have to send him a doctor to clean up all these problems.” And Andrei Lugovoy, a Duma member and former KGB officer accused of murdering a Putin critic in London with a radioactive substance, told a Spanish newspaper this month anyone seriously damaging the state “should be exterminated.”

Since Russia’s leaders have refused to explore and analyse the evil of their country’s Soviet past, it is not surprising some of its aspects are being repeated today. Ironically, the one organization, Memorial, that could have led the way in publicising Soviet crimes and leading the country back to a healthy political and economic life was itself “rubbed out.”

Ken Berwitz

Paul Mirengoff of www.powerlineblog.com has an excellent piece today about what the idiot "leader" of Syria, bashar al assad, thinks he can get from soon-to-be-President Barack Obama.   Paul takes it apart and explains it beautifully:

A man with nothing much to offer

David Ignatius reports on his interview with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Syria apparently has been engaged in indirect negotiations with Israel, and Assad tells Ignatius he hopes that Barack Obama will assist in the process.

Ignatius' report confirms, however, that Assad is not prepared to offer Israel anything that would make it worthwhile to turn the commanding Golan Heights back to Syrian control:

Asked whether Syria was prepared to restrain Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite militia in Lebanon, Assad said this was a matter the Israelis should sort out in separate negotiations with the Lebanese. Indeed, he promoted the idea of the other negotiating tracks -- which would draw in, at least indirectly, Hezbollah and Hamas.

In other words, in exchange for making concessions to Syria, Assad is offering Israel the opportunity to make concessions to Hezbollah and Hamas. That might be Ehud Olmert's idea of a good deal, but fortunately Olmert is no longer making the calls.

Given this negotiating posture, it's pretty clear why Assad needs Obama to pressure Israel. But what does Assad have to offer Obama (and the United States) in return?

Ignatius's report suggests that Assad is dangling the prospect of making himself useful with respect to Iraq and Iran. In the case of Iraq, he is offering to help "stablilize" that country as American troops leave. What he's really saying, surely, is that in exchange for concessions, he will agree not to stir up too much trouble in Iraq. But it's doubtful that Syria is in a position to stir up much trouble there. Syria is not influential with the Shiite militias, and it's difficult to imagine Sunni tribesmen breaking the peace at Syria's behest.

As to Iran, Ignatius said (in a radio interview) that he asked Assad how someone as secular and westward looking as he could consider remaining in the mullahs orbit. To this shockingly naive question, Assad gave the obvious answer -- it's not about cultural affinities, it's about who "plays a role in the region" and "who supports my rights." Assad is saying that if the U.S. will play a role supportive of Syria in his relations with Israel and Lebanon, Syria might tilt against Iran.

But even if Assad could be trusted to do so (a huge leap of faith), what does he have to offer when it comes to limiting Iran's influence? It is Iran, not Syria, that influences/directs Hezbollah. More generally, Iran's power and influence are a function of ithe inspiration supplied by its ideology, the wealth (now diminished) produced by its oil industry, and its military strength, soon to be bolstered in all likelihood by nuclear weapons. Syria doesn't add (or potentially subtract) much from this equation.

Obama may be naive, but we can reasonably hope that he is not naive enough to enter into any sort of partnership with the likes of Bashar al-Assad. Making concessions to evil tyrants is bad enough. Making them to evil tyrants of no major importance is senseless.

Barack Obama has no foreign policy experience and has never held an executive position (unless you consider being in charge of handing out grant money to be one).  Apparently al-assad thinks that also makes him a fool who can be manipulated into doing really stupid things.

I'm 99% certain that al-assad is wrong (Obama's personnel decisions are anti-Israel enough so that I hold back 1%).  

And I'm 100% certain that in a game of wits between these two al-assad ain't the guy going on to the lightning round.

We'll keep an eye on this to see if/how it progresses.

Ken Berwitz

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

I bet your mommy taught you that sometime during your single-digit years of age.. 

Too bad the New York Times didn't have a mommy. 

What am I talking about?  Read this, from www.timeswatch.org and see:

The Times Falls for French Prank After Mocking Palin for Similar Gaffe

The Times, which last month mocked Sarah Palin for getting taken in by a French prank....got taken in by a French prank, publishing a phony letter from the "Mayor of Paris."

Posted by: Clay Waters
12/23/2008 8:28:23 AM

The Times, which last month mocked Sarah Palin for getting taken in by a French prank…got taken in by a French prank, printing a letter Monday allegedly from Bertrand Delanoe, the Mayor of Paris, calling Caroline Kennedy's bid for a U.S. Senate seat as "appalling" and "not very democratic."

The Times explained in Tuesday’s edition:

In Monday’s newspaper, we published a letter over the name of the mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoë, criticizing Caroline Kennedy. This letter was a fraud and should not have been published. Mr. Delanoë’s office has since confirmed that he did not write it.

Printing the letter, which also appeared on nytimes.com until it was removed, violated the standards and procedures of The New York Times editorial department.

It is our practice to verify the authenticity of every letter we publish. Like most of our letters these days, this one arrived by e-mail. We sent an edited version back to the writer of the e-mail and did not receive a response.

At that point, the letter should have been set aside. It was not.

The Times has expressed its regret to Mr. Delanoë’s office for the lapse in judgment that led to this error. We now express those regrets to our readers.

We will be reviewing our procedures in an attempt to ensure that an error like this is not repeated.

Back on November 6, the Times’ Republican-hostile reporter Elisabeth Bumiller mocked Gov. Sarah Palin in a story relishing the post-election backbiting emanating from the John McCain campaign. Bumiller concluded by recapping a prank interview Palin conducted with who she thought was President Nicolas Sarkozy of France but was actually a French radio prankster.

One of the last straws for the McCain advisers came just days before the election when news broke that Ms. Palin had taken a call made by Marc-Antoine Audette. Mr. Audette and his fellow comedian Sebastien Trudel are notorious for prank calls to celebrities and heads of state.

Ms. Palin appeared to believe that she was talking to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, even though the prankster had a flamboyant French accent and spoke to her in a more personal way than would be protocol in such a call. At one point, he told Ms. Palin that she would make a good president some day. “Maybe in eight years,” she replied.

Let me ask you a question:  If Sarah Palin was successfully pranked because she is some unsophisticated rube from Alaska without the wits to figure out the caller wasn't Sarkozy......

.....what does it make the New York Times, which is located in ultra-sophisticated midtown Manhattan and has specific procedures to prevent phony letters to the editor from being published?  (I know this because I have been published in the Times and was called beforehand for that reason)  

So now the Times is busy wiping an entire poultry farm worth of eggs from its masthead.  It has even offered what the Times apparently thinks is an apology (When you want to make up with your spouse, try saying "I express my regret" instead of "I apologize" and see how far it gets you). 

One other thing:  The New York Times spent the last 8 years skewering George Bush for virtually everything he did as President.  But how did the Times do during Bush's years?  On the day that George Bush took office New York Times stock was at $45 a share.  As I type this, it is at $6.  And before you blame that on Bush, please note that it is the lowest price for New York Times stock since at least 1986 (that's as far back as the chart I found will go).  

Maybe another "expression of regret" is in order.  Straight from the glass house on 8th Avenue..

Ken Berwitz

Hoover didn't understand it.  Roosevelt ignored it.  Now Obama is determined not to learn from either of them.

Government invervention and micromanaging hurts the economy.  They do not get us out of economic downturns, they solidify and prolong them.

John Stossel understands (how does he manage to stay on ABC with ideas like this anyway?).  Here is what he has to say about Barack Obama's grandiose "transformation" plans:

Arrogant Conceit

The answer has always been, and remains, no. 

Barack Obama's ego may tell him otherwise; it may whisper in his ear that "you're the guy who can square this circle, you'll just mesmerize the recession away like you mesmerize audiences at political rallies".  But that's just ego talking.  Reality is very, very different.

Let's hope Mr. Obama has an epiphany (earpiphany?), tells his ego to take a hike, and acts in the best interests of the country. 

Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama is putting together a far less left wing, far more circumspect administration than his hardcore base expected.

Not that it isn't leaning leftward or that it doesn't have hardcore people;  it is just a lot less in that direction than the LAMBs (Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade) had in mind. 

And they are royally ticked off about it.

Jeff Jacoby explains why in his latest column:

Obama and peeved progressives

If we learned anything about Barack Obama, it is that he has a very selective acquaintance with the truth.  We experienced this over and over again during his campaign - enough times to realize that he has no problem using his extraordinary personal magnetism to pull the wool over people's eyes whenever it benefits him.

And, apparently, LAMBs are just as vulnerable to Mr. Obama's dishonesty as everyone else. 

The difference is how they feel about it, compared to centrists and right wingers. 

LAMBS thought they'd get a hard-left administration, so they're bitter and angry.  But many in the center and on the right are surprised in the positive, for exactly the same reason.

Bottom line:  When someone is continually untruthful, you should never think you know what he/she will do next.  That, so far, is the story of President-designate Barack Obama.

Ken Berwitz

How would you like to be the judge on this one?

It comes to us from the Orlando Sentinel:

Angry wife jailed after biting husband's you-know-what

Rene Stutzman | Sentinel Staff Writer

2:49 PM EST, December 23, 2008

Charris Bowers (December 23, 2008)

He says he was fighting off her aggressive attempt to perform oral sex on him.  She says he stuck his penis in her mouth.

Now I ask you, your honor, which of those two accounts has more credibility?

And I have to say that I'm intrigued by the deputy photographing the injury.  "Gentlemen of the jury, here is Exhibit A.  Ladies of the jury, I swear the picture was taken from a distance, it usually looks much bigger and better than that.  When I'm healed I promise you will think of it as Exhibit A+"

Personally, I think she is going to win.  I doubt that his evidence will stand up in court.

Ken Berwitz

What is this garbage?

Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg wants to be annointe....er, carefully selected as a United States Senator by New York's accidental Governor David Paterson.  But she doesn't want to disclose anything about her finances .  However...she promises she will do so after becoming a senator. 

I kid you not.  This is what she is saying.  And to prove it, here are the key excerpts from an article about her breathtakingly elitist attitude from the New York Times - which, I assure you, is no enemy of the Kennedy family:

Kennedy Declines to Make Financial Disclosure

You have to wonder what else Queen Caroline expects.  Maybe a throne - a small one, of course - instead of the seat provided to lesser beings in the senate chamber.  A modest tiara and robe would be nice too. 

Personally, I have always sort of liked Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg, precisely because she didn't do this.  I always felt that she went about her business without trading on the media's adoration of her family name.  Or so I thought until she decided it would be nice to be in the senate with uncle Teddy. 

Now I see that when Queen Caroline wants something, that family name is a tool to be shoved in our faces.  She is disgusting me.

But don't you doubt that Paterson, a corrupt, limited little dweeb in his own right, is going to appoint her.  Hey, this is all a game, isn't it?  You become lieutenant governor based on your father's political pull, you use your campaign funds for restaurants, clothing and motel rooms to get laid because your wife isn't enough, and nothing happens to you.  So why not make a despicably unfair senate appointment too?  Who's going to blow the whistle?  MSNBC?

It is so good to have that D after your name.............

Ken Berwitz

You won't need me to explain why this genius should make it to the finals.  Here are the particulars from www.southcoasttoday.com:

Man using cutting torch to thaw ice accidentally sets house on fire

NEW BEDFORD — A home-owner using a blowtorch to melt ice on his back porch accidentally set fire to his North End triple-decker Monday, officials said.

The blaze at 107 Davis St. caused $20,000-$30,000 worth of damage and displaced several residents, Fire Capt. Scott Kruger said.

Those who were home escaped safely after being alerted by smoke alarms, he said.

Firefighters responding to the call around 1:39 p.m. saw flames and smoke coming from the tenement's second and third floors. It took 25 firefighters about 30 minutes to subdue the fire.

Snow and ice the fire trucks' mobility. Firefighters guarded against hoses freezing and prevented streets from icing over from the running water.

Capt. Kruger said the building's owner was trying to melt the snow and ice on the back porch using a large torch hooked up to a 20-pound propane cylinder.

He got too close to the building's wood frame and ignited the vinyl siding. The fire quickly spread into the building's uninsulated exterior wall and chased into the second and third-floor apartments, Capt. Kruger said.

The fire damaged the rear bedrooms in the second- and third-floor apartments, and caused extensive damage to the structure and electrical wiring.

Occupants have all made alternative housing arrangements.

No firefighters were injured.

The homeowner will not be charged in the accidental fire.

"This is an example of how you should not use a cutting torch to thaw out frozen water pipes or anything else," he said. "When you have wood framing, it will cause a fire."

Ken Bewitz

Would you believe that Dan Rather is still trying to sell you on the 100% discredited premise that those fake documents from 2004 that "proved" George Bush missed a few national guard meetings in the early 1970's, were legitimate?

Well, he is.  And Rather is being abetted in this idiotic fraud by NPR.

Charles Johnson of www.littlegreenfootballs.com was the first guy I know of who caught on to the fact that the documents Rather presented were fakes.  Here is his account of this latest attempt to foist them on the public:

In 1897, portions of "Biarritz" were translated into Russian, renamed "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and presented not as fiction but as fact. 

In 1905, it was distributed to an ignorant, gullible, and already anti-Semitic Russian population as an authentic document.   

Since then, no matter how many times this forgery has been exposed, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" continues to be presented as a historic document which blueprints how Jews intend to dominate the world.  To this day it is a best seller in Muslim countries, and even in supposedly enlightened countries such as Japan.

If Dan Rather keeps this up, I'm going to start referring to his so-called documents as "The Protocols of the Rather of Lyin'".   They have the same credibility, so why not the same name too?

Ken Berwitz

Richard Cohen is a very well known and very reliably liberal/left columnist for the Washington Post.  He is also an Obama supporter, along with his mother and, until now, his sister. 

But things have changed.

  Here is Mr. Cohen's latest column, which explains why.  The bold print is mine:

Warren On? Party Off.
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, December 23, 2008; A17

Not that he was planning to attend, but Barack Obama should know that my sister's inauguration night party -- the one for which she was preparing Obama Punch -- has been canceled. The notice went out over the weekend, by e-mail and word of mouth, that Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation had simply ruined the party. Warren is anti-gay, and my sister, not to put too fine a point on it, is not. She's gay.

She is -- or was -- a committed Obama supporter. On the weekend before the presidential election, my sister and my mother drove from the Boston area, where they both live, to Obama's New Hampshire headquarters in Manchester. There my mother made 76 phone calls for Obama, which is not bad for someone who is 96, and gives you an idea of the level of commitment to Obama in certain precincts of my family.

I should say right off that my mother feels less strongly about Warren than my sister does. But I should add immediately that my sister feels very strongly, indeed. She's been in a relationship with another woman, the quite wonderful Nancy, for 19 years, and she resents the fact that Warren has likened same-sex marriage to incest, pederasty and polygamy.

"I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage," Warren told Beliefnet.com's Steve Waldman. "I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

Waldman asked, "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?"

"Oh, I do," said Warren.

There you have the thinking of the man Obama has chosen above all other religious figures to represent him in this most solemn moment. He likens my sister's relationship -- three children, five grandchildren, so loving as to be envied and so conventional as to be boring -- to incest or polygamy.

The conventional thing to say is that Obama has a preacher problem -- first the volcanic Jeremiah Wright and now the transparently anti-gay Warren. But the real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama's inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.

This was apparent to me almost a year ago when I reported that Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, had given a major award to Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. The award was presented in Wright's name and featured in a cover story in the church's magazine, Trumpet. When I asked the Obama campaign about this, I was told that Obama himself did not agree with Farrakhan. What a relief!

And what a joke. I never for a moment thought Obama viewed Farrakhan any differently from the way I do. But I also thought that as a U.S. senator, as a presidential candidate or even as a mere citizen, he had an obligation to denounce the award -- maybe quit the church. Do something! He did nothing.

Now we have a repeat of that episode. This time it is not Obama's preacher who has decided to honor a bigot, it is Obama himself. And, once again, we get the same sort of rationalizations. Obama says he does not agree with Warren about all things. Obama says he himself is not anti-gay and, in fact, although he does not support same-sex marriage (as opposed to civil unions), he has been a stalwart champion of gay causes. Therefore, it seems to follow, he can honor an anti-gay activist.

I can understand Obama's desire to embrace constituencies that have rejected him. Evangelicals are in that category and Warren is an important evangelical leader with whom, Obama said, "we're not going to agree on every single issue." He went on to say, "We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans." Sounds nice.

But what we do not "hold in common" is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence.

Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue -- the rights of gays to be treated equally -- as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that's nothing to celebrate.

The party's off.

The column is fascinating for what you see....and for what you do not see.

What you see is how amazed Mr. Cohen is that Mr. Obama has no problem sandbagging gay people. 

Why would he feel this way?  Obama lied repeatedly about one thing after another after another throughout his his campaign.  Why would anyone realistically expect him to be honest to or about gays?  

Heck, didn't the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton, do exactly the same thing to gays by immediately reneging on his promise to end "don't ask-don't tell" in the military?  This is nothing new, is it?

Democrats have learned that if they say the right things in the right way, they can screw major constituencies and still retain their loyalty on election day.  They have been pulling this on Blacks for decades and will continue to do so unless they start losing Black votes:  Why would gays expect any different treatment? 

Now, what don't you see?  You don't see Richard Cohen even considering the possibility that he was wrong about Barack Obama.   

Is Cohen enraged by Obama's selection of Rick Warren to make the invocation?  Yes.  Is he enraged by Mr. Obama's church honoring the racist, anti-Semitic scum louis farrakhan?  Yes. 

But does he at any point in his column even wonder whether Barack Obama might be insincere in his beliefs?  Unforthcoming?  Flat-out full of crap?  Nope.

Read it until your eyes pop out.  For all of Cohen's outrage and hurt indignation, not one time does he suggest that he may have been had.  He still believes that Obama stands for the things he wants Obama to stand for.

That is how people like Barack Obama keep people like Richard Cohen like puppets on the end of their strings.  And it is why, after all is said and done, he is still a wholly owned subsidiary of Obama, Inc.

Albeit belatedly, Richard Cohen's sister finally gets it.  When does her brother wake up?

Maybe this is the start of his learning curve.  We'll see.

Ken Berwitz

Here is another entry in the "You can't make this stuff up" department.  It comes to us from the American Bar Association journal, via www.freerepublic.com:

If doing it in an airplane bathroom means you joined the mile high club, what's this?  The between courses club?

Isn't this carrying the idea of an off-the-menu dessert a little bit far?

Now that's an early-bird special!

Lucky the guy remembered to take his viagra.  Otherwise the charge could have been assault with a dead weapon.

Ok, that's my contribution.  Now you do a few.

Ken Berwitz

jimmy carter is at it again.

Now he's upset that hezbollah - a group whose mission is the destruction of Israel via the killing of its Jews - isn't sufficiently armed to defend itself against the Israelis.

While you're busy picking up your jaw from the floor and trying to reattach it, I will post the article with carter's quotes - quotes that are unknown to you if you rely on the New York Times, the Today show, or probably just about any other mainstream media:

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Carter laments: Terrorists lack 'defense' against Israel
Recounts last week's 'peacemaking' trip to Middle East

Posted: December 22, 2008
9:27 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Let's see if we've got this right.  hezbollah, a terrorist group which controls southern Lebanon and is specifically dedicated to the destruction of Israel , has an unfair disadvantage?

Well, there's a new Democratic administration coming in.  Maybe carter can prevail upon Mr. Obama to arm hezbollah sufficiently for ti to have a 50-50 chance of decimating Israel.  He'll certainly have at least some support among the Israel-hating left in his party. 

I don't use the language necessary for an appropriate response to jimmy carter in this blog.  But the end of the appropriate response is "where he breathes". 

Got it?

Ken Berwitz

The Media Research Center is a conservative site for news and commentary, led by L. Brent Bozell.  Every year it picks out the most "notable quotables" from media - i.e. the quotes that, in its view, are most egregiously biased.

Here is the winner, and the top two runners-up, for 2008:

The winner:   

In addition to these gems, there are equally imbecilic quotes for a variety of specific categories.  you can see them all by clicking here.

Ok, now go ahead.  Ask me about the most notable quotables for conservative mainstream media journalists.  I dare you.

Ken Berwitz

Here, from a larger article, is Victor David Hanson's take on the "qualifications" Caroline Kennedy would bring to the United States senate:

Caroline Kennedy’s Moment—A Sad Reflection of Our Times

The probable appointment of Caroline Kennedy, the 51-year-old daughter of former President John Kennedy, to fill Secretary-of-State nominee Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate seat is both laughable and yet a parable for our bankrupt times.

Consider aristocratic entitlement. Ms. Kennedy apparently spends a great deal of her time divided between her Park Avenue Upper-East-Side Manhattan townhouse and her hereditary estate on Martha’s Vineyard. She has had no real experience with the ordinary lives of New Yorkers, either a few dozen blocks away in Harlem (despite a sudden ad hoc lunch last week with the Rev. Sharpton at a soul food diner) or the state’s rural towns to the north.

Ms. Kennedy is about as undiverse as one could imagine. She was educated at exclusively private schools among those of her like race and class. Her financial security is due to either inheritance or marriage; there is no evidence of a self-employed stellar legal or business career. But there is plenty of evidence that Ms. Kennedy reflects the current Democratic Party’s obsession with celebrity and Hollywood-like imagery—as we see from the recent politicking of everyone from Oprah to Sean Penn, the Senate run of comedian Al Franken, and the messianic cult that surrounds Barack Obama, from his vero possumus Latin seal to his mass rallies with Greek temple backdrops.

It's bad enough that Ms. Kennedy has no résumé other than a fantasy "birthright":  Even if there were one, I believe the simple fact that she willingly and publicly sat at the same table with a racist, anti-Semitic hustler like al sharlatan should disqualify her right there. 

But, hey, that's just my warped sense of logic.  After all, what do the tawana brawley hoax, Crown Heights riots, Freddy's Fashion Mart torching, defamation of character judgment and 1.5 million in unpaid back taxes (among others) have to do with anything? 

After all, these are Democrats we're talking about.

Ken Berwitz

John Lott and Ryan Lott (who is a college student and, I suspect, John's son) have written a clear-as-a-bell primer on how Norm Coleman's senate seat is being stolen.  

Here it is, complete with ballot-by-ballot examples:

Ballot Madness: Tipping the Scales in Minnesota's Senate Recount

Monday , December 22, 2008

John R. Lott, Jr. and Ryan S. Lott

The Canvassing Board overseeing the vote recount for Minnesota’s tightly contested U.S. Senate race isn’t quite done examining disputed ballots, but the board issued a projection Saturday night that Al Franken will pick up 270 votes when it finishes. Currently the board is determining voter intent in disputed ballots. If the projection proves correct, Franken will beat incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman by 78 votes.

Vote totals have changed a lot since Nov. 4, when Coleman led Franken by 725 votes. Correcting typos cut Coleman’s margin to 215, and a recount by all the counties reduced it further to 192. Yet, the additional 270 votes picked up by Franken from the Canvassing Board’s decisions have been among the most controversial.

The vote pickup has occurred through two actions by the board — divining voter intent and determining what votes should be counted. While decisions to include missing or overlooked ballots have gotten the most attention, the process of determining intent has also been important in determining the outcome here.

The Canvassing Board faces a difficult task in divining voter intentions. It is very difficult to determine how a voter meant to vote simply by looking at what might be stray marks on the ballot. And whatever rules are adopted must be consistently used in evaluating all ballots.

Some board decisions on votes are exceedingly difficult to understand, and even watching the television coverage of their decisions this last week provided little additional insight. Here is an example where the Minnesota Canvassing Board claims the vote is clearly for Franken. Voters are supposed to fill in the small oval next to a candidate’s name to vote for that candidate. The board explains its decision as there being "No Dup" (presumably meaning that there was no duplicate ballot), but it is not clear how that would switch what looks like an obvious Coleman vote to a Franken vote.

What to do when voters change their minds at the last moment or accidentally fill in the wrong oval? In such a case, the voters are supposed to ask for a new clean ballot. But the board presumes that some voters who change their minds simply put an “X” through the blacked-out oval. Even if the voter doesn’t blacken an oval for another candidate, an “X” through an oval is interpreted as the voter changing his mind. There is a claimed exception to this rule: if all the votes for each candidate that a voter supports are simultaneously marked by both filling in the oval and an “X,” voters are assumed to support those candidates.

The primary problem isn’t the rules. The real problem is the lack of consistency. Take some of the ballots that only marked the oval for Coleman, but where the oval is also marked through with an “X.” The Canvassing Board determined that those marks meant those voters intended to support “other/no one.” Here are a couple of examples, with more here.

Yet, there are a number of cases where the exact same markings for Franken were decided by the Canvassing Board to result in votes for Franken. More can be found here.

But to make the case even more strange, given this rule, what should the board decide when the oval is filled in for Coleman, but the Franken space is marked with an “X”? The board ruled that the vote is for Franken.

Nor can Coleman even win when there is an oval filled in for Coleman and the Constitution Party candidate receives an “X.” In that case, the board determined the support went to “other/no one.”

But if you have an oval filled in for Franken and the Independence Party candidate receives an oval with an “X,” the vote is given to Franken.

There are other cases where the ballots are clearly marked for Coleman, though the marks were relatively small, and the board awarded the votes to no one.

There are still other cases where it is hard to see how the board could legitimately declare certain votes for Franken. For example, a voter filled out neither the oval for Coleman nor for Franken, but colored in the area in between the two candidates. Part of the blob touches the edge of Coleman’s oval and one thin line goes slightly into Franken’s oval, and for 28 other races on the ballot the voter seems to have been able to fill out the required ovals – there is only one other case where he missed. Perhaps the board saw that the voter was voting for other Democrats and used that to help influence its decision, but there were a number of Democrats who voted for Obama and other Democrats, but not Franken.

Still the most obvious classification would have been not for Franken, but for “no one,” what most readers of the Minneapolis Star Tribune thought was the right answer.

Mistakes were also made against Franken, but they were much less common.

The Canvassing Board has made a number of other controversial decisions. For example, 10 days ago, news headlines proclaimed “Franken Wins Big at Canvassing Board.” One decision, to count 133 so-called “missing” ballots in Minneapolis’ Ward 3, precinct 1, immediately gave Franken an extra 46 more votes than Coleman. That decision by itself gives Franken most of his projected winning margin.

There has been much arbitrariness over whether to count newly found votes. Compare these 133 additional votes to the 171 votes that were found in Ramsey County’s Maplewood Precinct 6. In Precinct 6, Franken argued that the original vote total had missed the 171 votes because the voting machine was initially not working and the 171 were not rerun through the new machine that replaced the original defective one. However, Republicans were concerned that the newly “found” ballots might not have been really cast on Election Day.

Since the recount showed that there were 171 more ballots than recorded votes, the decision was to add in the ballots, giving Franken a net gain of 37 votes.

Contrast this to the 133 ballots in Minneapolis. The 133-vote problem arose because more votes were recorded on Election Day than were found when the recount was conducted. The initial explanation was that the ballots must have been accidentally run through the voting machine twice — that no votes were missing, but that 133 had just been accidentally counted twice. The Canvassing Board however decided not to rely on the recount and instead on the original machine totals.

The only commonality in these two decisions was that the outcome benefited Franken. When the recount is in Franken’s favor that is used. When the original machine tally works best that is used.

Ignoring the questions with correcting the typos and discovered ballots in an election judge’s car, the Canvassing Board’s decisions have easily supplied more than the 78 vote lead that the board projects Franken to end up with. Yet, the Canvassing Board’s choices will leave long lasting questions about the legitimacy of any win.

I don't think this could be much clearer, do you? 

Get ready for al fraudken, the bogus United States senator from Minnesota.

Ken Berwitz

Burt Prelutsky is a very successful, very prolific writer.  And he is  a political conservative in Hollywood, so you know he has guts.

Mr. Prelutsky also writes a column for www.townhall.com.  Today's topic is college diversity.  Since I found myself alternately laughing and nodding in agreement while reading it, I thought you might enjoy it too. 

So here it is:

Just when you think the folks on the left can't get any goofier, they go and surpass themselves. If silliness were an Olympic event, these lunkheads could be counted on to bring home the gold. The fool's gold, that is.

Actually, they could probably excel in the sprints, seeing as how they're not weighed down with a whole lot of common sense. In case you haven't gotten the word, the religious left, as I like to think of them, seeing as how they live their lives by a certain dogma, have now determined that poor people are terribly under-represented on America's college campuses. It was, I suppose, only a matter of time. After all, if no institute of higher education can justify its existence unless its student population is composed of X-percent of women, Hispanics, blacks, gays and the physically handicapped, some Democrat was bound to notice that there still remained an untapped source of future votes; namely, poor, young whites.

Diversity in the student body is the catch phrase. But, as you may have noticed, there is no parallel diversity along the faculties. In the humanities departments of most American colleges, professors run the gamut from liberal to radical. Given a choice between Ahmadinejad and a Republican, a large majority would vote for the little schmuck in the windbreaker.

Frankly, I see no reason to give preferential treatment to students for no better reason than that their parents are poor. If a mix of humanity is what they're really seeking, I say they should throw open the doors to idiots. And, no, I'm not referring to those aforementioned professors in the liberal arts who get paid a lot of money for doing nothing more than foisting their half-baked politics on a bunch of highly impressionable 18-year-olds. No, I'm talking about the genuine article -- people with subterranean I.Q.s.

I mean, if diversity is of such monumental importance, why limit it to race, gender and national origin? Obviously, members of these groups have far more in common with each other than they have with the intellectually- challenged -- or whatever it is that the P.C. crowd is calling dumb people this week.

Honestly, I haven't a clue why college would be a more exalting experience just because the student in the next seat has different pigmentation or hails from a country where indoor plumbing is optional.

Admittedly, it's been many years since I was a collegian. Still, as I recall, the real value of the four years, aside from learning how to drink and how to talk to women without stuttering, was the enforced proximity to the minds and works of Socrates, Newton, Freud, Shakespeare, Plato, Milton, Michelangelo, Einstein, Da Vinci and Jefferson, and was neither enhanced nor diminished by the color or creed of the other students.

The truth of the matter was that my interest in my fellow scholars, and I don't think my attitude was at all atypical, was limited to wanting to date the more attractive coeds and wanting to eviscerate those brainiacs most likely to raise the class curve.

Inasmuch as smart, poor kids already receive academic scholarships, one can only assume that it's the stupid ones whom the social engineers are trying to cram through the ivied portals. But, inasmuch as once in, they're destined to flunk out, I have a better solution. I suggest we take our lead from "The Wizard of Oz." The Scarecrow, as you may recall, didn't waste four years boning up for final exams. The great and powerful Oz merely handed him a diploma, and just like that, Ray Bolger was squaring the hypotenuse and jabbering away like a young William F. Buckley, Jr.

Why not give diplomas to anybody who wants one? In a day and age when people are wasting their parents' hard-earned money majoring in things like Gay Studies, Sit Coms of the 60's, and Comic Books as Literature, why not do the decent thing and just hand out sheepskins to anyone who says, "Please"? A built-in bonus of my plan is that with all those goobers off the campuses, there would be additional parking spaces for the people studying to be doctors, mathematicians, and scientists.

After all, when all is said and done, most college graduates aren't really smarter than other people. They just think they are.

"Given a choice between Ahmadinejad and a Republican, a large majority ( of professors) would vote for the little schmuck in the windbreaker"?  You have to love this man.

I'll put up more Prelutsky in the future.  It's worth our while to read what he has to say.

Ken Berwitz

I remember very well when Vice President Dick Cheney told Vermont senator patrick leahy to do something acrobatic that not very many people would be able to manage (how's that for a sanitized version)?

I remember very well that it happened after leahy had spent months making accusations of dishonesty against Cheney that he could not back up - not then, not since.

And I remember being thrilled that he did it.  I consider leahy an absolute two-faced lying skunk so it was greatly satisfying that Cheney decided to treat him like one. 

Now, four and a half years later, it is more than a little pleasing to find that Mr. Cheney is entirely unrepentant about this little episode - as you can tell by the following CNN article which reports on Mr. Cheney's Sunday interview with Fox News Channel (note:  it includes a link to the original CNN story from June of 2004):

From CNN's Ed Hornick

 

Vice President Dick Cheney said he isn't sorry for calling a senator the f-word.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, deserved it when Cheney launched the f-word at him in 2004.

In an interview with "Fox News Sunday," Cheney was asked if he had any second thoughts or embarrassment. "No. I thought he merited it at the time," Cheney said, laughing.

The incident occurred in June 2004 when both Cheney and Leahy were on the Senate floor.

Sources who related the incident to CNN at the time said the vice president had told Leahy to either "f— off" or "go f— yourself."

Read more on the incident

The encounter during the 2004 presidential campaign, sources said then, was brought on by Leahy's criticism of the vice president over Halliburton Co. Cheney is the former chief executive officer of the oil field services company, and Democrats had suggested he helped win lucrative contracts for his former firm while serving in the Bush administration.

"It was partly that, it was partly also … it had to do with — he is the kind of individual who will make those kinds of charges and then come act as though he's your best friend, and I expressed in no uncertain terms my views of his conduct and walked away," Cheney said at the time.

But as the old saying goes, time heals all wounds … well, sort of.

"And we've since, I think, patched over that wound and we're civil to one another now," Cheney said this Sunday.

How nice to find that Dick Cheney sticks to his guns.  He hasn't changed a bit. 

But, then again, neither has leahy, so that's just fine with me.

Ken Berwitz

Here, for no particular reason, is a little compendium of the weekend's activities:

-On Saturday we drove into the city with our dear friends and saw Billy Elliott.  I love Saturday matinees because, instead of stuffing your face hurriedly before an evening show, you sit back relaxedly, enjoy the performance without suppressing burps (or worse) and then have a leisurely dinner ahead of you. 

The show was excellent.  Great, great talent on that stage and amazing dance sequences -- though I have to say there is not even one memorable song  (that's quite a surprise, it being Elton John and all);

-Dinner was at one of our favorite places in lower Manhattan:  Piccolo Angolo on the southwest corner of Hudson and Jane.  Renato, the owner and resident personality (to say he gives the place character would be to grossly understate) somehow screwed up our reservation, but fit us in anyway. 

The food was just great.  And Renato's son Peter, who works with his father, wandered over several times to talk baseball, hockey and whatever else we could think of.  Nice young man. 

If you're looking for a quiet and intimate repast, you should avoid Piccolo Angolo like the bubonic plague.  But if you're looking for a really fun time and terrific Italian food, you should come running;

-Yesterday my beautiful wife dragged me to a bunch of stores.  It's the weekend before Christmas (which we don't celebrate) and I'm doing Christmas shopping.  Yeah, there were things we needed, thus reasons to be at those stores, but every year it seems as though we wind up with a flurry of December shopping at the worst possible time.  If there is any blame here, it's probably mine (actually it isn't, but she might read this);

-One stop was Barnes & Noble, where we bought several books for our transcendentally fabulous grandson and other children we'll be seeing this week.  While we were in the children's section there were two little ones, apparently brother and sister, sitting on the floor animatedly reading/looking at a book together and oblivious to everyone around them  It was so sweet that I just stopped what I was doing to watch.  Love to see this kind of thing

-Later that afternoon it was off to the movies.  We saw Slumdog Millionaire.  It is very, very depressing and unpleasant.  It is also a bit hard to follow at times.  Even the "happy ending" is not really happy.  But the story is extremely engaging, the acting - especially the children who play Jamal and Salim - but most especially Dev Patel as the older version of Jamal - is great.  I recommend it....but don't expect to stroll out humming the tunes.

-When we got back from the theater I checked Turner Classic Movies a few days ahead, fully expecting to see the classic 1951 version of A Christmas Carol (now called "Scrooge", for legal reasons I suppose), starring Alistair Sim.  Unfortunately, TCM is not showing that version; it is showing the 1938 Reginald Owen one. 

Reginald Owen was a fine actor.  But, of the dozen or so versions of this film that were made, nothing even comes close to Alistair Sim and Mervyn Johns as Scrooge and Cratchit. 

-We also fit in a quick stop at Wegman's to get groceries, and bought salmon for dinner.  I braved the ridiculously cold and windy weather to grill it outdoors (if the NY Giants can play outdoors in that weather for hours, dammit, I can grill a piece of fish).  Food always tastes better from the grill -- and Wegman's always seems to have the best salmon.  My wife calls its texture "velvety";

-Speaking of the NY Giants, they looked as if they were going to be blown away last night (take that as a reference to both the game itself and the wind, which really kicked up as it went on).  At one point, Carolina had a 21 - 10 lead and the ball.  But they came back, with a stirring 2 point conversion right at the end to tie things at 28.  Then Derrick Ward and Brandon Jacobs ran them downfield and into the end zone for a 34 - 28 win. 

Special tips of my (non-existent) hat to Jacobs, who was amazing even though he played hurt, Ward, who ran for an incredible 215 yards, averaging 14  per carry (that's not a typo either), Justin Tuck who played with the flu and showed us all what sucking it up is all about -- and, of course, Eli Manning, who was tremendous, especially on third down.

Ok, enough.  It's Monday.  Back to work.

Ken Berwitz

Here, from the New York Post and complete with graphics, is 2008:   the Democratic year of corruption (click on the picture to enlarge it....or, if that doesn't work, click here ):

Were there corrupt Repubicans too?  Sure there were.  But how often did you hear about Democrats compared to them? 

The Post has done us a service by reminding us of how corrupt Democrats were this year (and how little, comparatively speaking, most mainstream media reported about it).  And I'm passing it along.

Ken Berwitz

Here is an Associated Press article on a corrupt politician named Marc Dann.

Which party does Dann belong to?  See if you can figure it out:

Report says Ohio's former AG raided campaign cash

So which party is it?  (Hint:  You don't see any party mentioned, do you?)

Yes, you're right.  Marc Dann is a Democrat.

How'd you guess?

Ken Berwitz

By now, most people know that Rick Warren is going to give an invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration (assuming Mr. Obama doesn't cave in to the pressure, that is).  But what do most people know about Elizabeth Alexander, who has been chosen to read her poetry at that same inauguration?

Here's what they (and probably you) don't know, courtesy of Colleen Raezler at www.newsbusters.org:

BREAKING: Media Skips Inaugural Poet's Racy (and Racial) Poems of Pickled Genitalia, 'Naked Buttocks'

On Dec. 18, all three network evening news programs reported president-elect Barack Obama’s announcement that Rev. Rick Warren had agreed to give the Inaugural Invocation. Each noted as well the divisive nature of the pick, at least in the eyes of the gay community.

NBC’s Brian Williams asked during the Nightly News broadcast "Is it disrespectful to some Obama supporters?" CBS’ Katie Couric reported that "Obama is drawing anger from gay rights’ advocates upset that he’s chosen evangelical minister Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration." ABC devoted a "Close Up" segment during World News with Charles Gibson to the controversy, complete with quotes from Joe Solmonese, president of the gay-activist group, Human Rights Campaign.

Amidst all the furor from gays and the left, it’s easy to see how the networks failed to give the same attention to Obama’s selection of his friend, poet Elizabeth Alexander, to write and recite a poem at his inauguration ceremony. But as a Dec. 18 Investors Business Daily editorial "An X-Rated Inauguration?" pointed out, Alexander could be more divisive than Warren.

First, there’s Alexander’s use of language. Her poem "The Venus Hottentot" is about black female exploitation and contains the line, "her genitalia will float inside a labeled pickling jar." And: "Since my own genitals are public I have made other parts private." And: "I am a black cutout against a captive blue sky, pivoting nude so the paying audience can view my naked buttocks." And, most notably, this:  

In this newspaper lithograph, my buttocks are shown swollen and luminous as a planet.

Monsieur Cuvier investigates between my legs, poking, prodding, sure of his hypothesis.

I half expect him to pull silk scarves from inside me, paper poppies, then a rabbit.

Let's hope she refrains from such imagery during a televised ceremony. (See the poem read on YouTube.) 

More importantly, there’s Alexander's view of race. Her Venus poem ends with a murderous desire from the exploited woman:

If he were let me rise up from this table, I’d spirit his knives and cut out his black heart, seal it with science fluid inside a bell jar, place it on a low shelf in a white man’s museum so the whole world could see it was shriveled and hard, geometric, deformed, unnatural.

The IBD editorial noted:

In an essay on the Rodney King beating that made a big splash in radical circles, Alexander contended that "a language of black male bestiality and hypervirility, along with myths of drug abuse and ‘superhuman strength,’ was deployed" by lawyers for the police officers in King’s first trial. But as brutal and inexcusable as King’s videotaped pummeling was, attorneys for both sides agreed that King’s intoxication was no myth.

The Associated Press and Washington Post coverage of Alexander’s role in Obama’s inaugural ceremonies focused on the story of Alexander’s attendance at Martin Luther King’s "I Have a Dream" speech as a toddler.

Tree Swenson, executive director of the Academy of American Poets, told the AP that Alexander "is a superb choice for the Obama inauguration: She is from Washington, she represents Obama’s generation, and she has written about the civil rights conflict and other historical events that have shaped the character of this country."

But AP and Washington Post ignored her writings on race, the graphic imagery of her poetry, and critiques of her work.

Other links:

Daily Kos approves.

The New York Times gets no more specific than "Ms. Alexander said she believes her poetry 'attends to history,' including 'sometimes thorny and difficult American history,' even as it speaks in contemporary moments and landscapes."

The Hartford Courant hails the "fresh" poet's voice and provides historical background for the "Venus Hottentot" poem.

Alexander in May on Rodney King:

The 1991 beating created “a space for group self-definition and self-knowledge,” read Alexander. But it was also a signpost along a dark historical road.

“Black bodies in pain for public consumption have been an American national spectacle for centuries,” she read — from the public lynchings of yesterday to the basketball and boxing of today.

Warren's religious position on homosexuality?  Shout it from the rooftops.

Alexander's poetry on human genitals, hearts (along with who knows what other organs), violence and stereotypes of Black people?  Hidden from view.  You're not supposed to know. 

Move along, sheeple, nothing to see here.

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

Ken Berwitz

When even a thoroughly corrupt, totally shameless organization like the United Nations has to admit fraud, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is at incredible levels.

And there is little out there that is more fraudulent than the sale of "carbon credits".

Have I got your attention?  Good.  Please read this article, which comes to us from today's Times of London.  The bold print is mine:

UN suspends carbon-trading auditor

A $100 billion dollar "industry".  Phony as a $3 bill.  The company perpetrating the fraud is "confident of being reinstated in January" (that's less than two weeks away).

Does this have the UN's stench all over it, or what?

My only regret is that I didn't invest in this scam.  I should know by now that if a loudmouth leftist (like Al Gore for instance) is selling guilt to the industrialized world - especially the USA - it will sell like there is no tomorrow..........which, it occurs to me, is what they are selling.

The UN again proves it is aptly named.  The organization is UNfair, UNethical, UNequal, UNreliable and UNable to act with even the slightest degree of integrity.

Ken Berwitz

Want to see some world class spin?  Ok, I'll show you.

Today's New York Times features a story titled "White House philosophy stoked mortgage bonfire".  What does that tell you?

It tells me that President Bush's policies were what caused the mess we're in. 

In point of fact, Mr. Bush did have a lot to do with this mess.  It is true that he bears a good part of the blame.  But the headline doesn't indicate that he is part of the problem, it indicates that he is the lynchpin of it all.

Ok, now I'll post the first part of the article.  Please read it and see if you find any other culprits.  The bold print is mine:

THE RECKONING

White House philosophy stoked mortgage bonfire

By Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Stephen Labaton

 

Published:  December 21, 2008

WASHINGTON : "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home." — President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when President George W. Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, "scared the hell out of everybody."

It was Sept. 18. Lehman Brothers had just gone belly-up, overwhelmed by toxic mortgages. Bank of America had swallowed Merrill Lynch in a hastily arranged sale. Two days earlier, Bush had agreed to pump $85 billion into the failing insurance giant American International Group.

The president listened as Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, laid out the latest terrifying news: The credit markets, gripped by panic, had frozen overnight, and banks were refusing to lend money.

Then his Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson Jr., told him that to stave off disaster, he would have to sign off on the biggest government bailout in history.

Bush, according to several people in the room, paused for a single, stunned moment to take it all in.

"How," he wondered aloud, "did we get here?"

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of homeownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how we got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them — an old prep school buddy — pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

So, did you find any other people involved? 

Bush wanted people to own their homes, especially minorities (for all the good it ever did him on election day).  He spent years trying to fix Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, but wouldn't "cut a deal" (translation:  he wouldn't water the fix down so that it wouldn't work). 

Oh, and the lenders, some of the homebuyers and Wall Street are to blame too (that's a lot of people, folks).

Then there is that matter of a "recalcitrant congress".  I guess it was only space limitations that precluded the Times from mentioning the lion's share of recalcitrance was from Democrats, not Republicans.  (Besides, why ruin a reliable story line?)

But to the casual reader, who skims the headline and the few paragraphs, determines that bastard Bush did it again, and goes on, this is entirely lost. 

The fact that Bush's motives were salutary and he tried to fix the problem years before this collapse?  Irrelevent 'n immaterial. 

Nice hit job, Times. 

Then they wonder why people call them biased.

.

Ken Berwitz

Here are two blogs I found at www.newsbusters.org.  I am posting them together, because they so clearly typify the bias we find in news media when it comes to Democrats and Republicans - especially conservative Republicans.

Please note that you can click at the bottom of each to read the entire article.  I urge you to do so. 

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

Ken Berwitz

Ok, what would YOU call it?

People want to do things.  Sometimes the things they want to do are damaging to the environment.

But if you're rich?  Not to worry.  You just buy carbon offsets from al gore's company or some other algoratic which, they promise, will fund activities that compensate for the damage you are doing to the environment.  Now you can pollute to your heart's content.

What about the idea of doing something beneficial for the environment without adding back pollution, therefore actually improving things?  Nahhhhhh, that's for the unwashed masses, not you.

Here is how it works, from John Hinderaker at www.powerlineblog.com:

Party Like It's 1999

Some of you participated in the "Ecodriving" contest that was featured in our cube ad for a week or two. I did, despite scoring zero on my first attempt. In the end, Power Line readers scored several million points, finishing second only to Wonkette readers--sure, but we have jobs--among the sites where the Ecodriving ad was placed.

I was never clear on what the Ecodriving ad was advertising until the campaign was over, and we got a packet from a company called TerraPass that sells carbon offsets. Yes, that's right--by virtue of our participation in the Ecodriving game, we and our readers received a hefty 13,000 pounds of carbon offsets, courtesy of TerraPass!

That's exciting news, clearly, but I haven't quite figured out what it means. Here is TerraPass's explanation; click to enlarge:

(To see chart, click here)

Honestly, I'm not quite sure what that means. A colleague who will remain nameless says:

So, what does one get when one purchases "carbon offsets"? Evidently, a package of promotional material that allow one to advertise to the less generous that one has purchased carbon offsets.

What do the offsets mean? "[A] sponsorship of clean energy production and projects that result in direct, measurable [but don't ask for the measure itself!] reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."

"By sponsoring these projects, you've balanced your own carbon footprint from activities such as driving, flying, or home energy use."

In other words:

1. You give Terrapass a bunch of cash.
2. Terrapass invests in technology companies.
3. Terrapass sends you bumper sticker.
4. Terrapass enjoys dividends and capital gains on your investment.
5. Terrapass uses these to fund the printing of more bumper stickers.
6. Which are purchased by even greater saps that yourself.

Not a terribly good deal structure, right? But the carbon offsetters know their customer base: Al Gore's warmingists. And, baby, you can sell them anything.

Well, we didn't give them any money, but you get the point. Still, I would never accuse one of our advertisers of running such a scam. I'm sure it makes sense in a way I haven't quite figured out yet. It is true, though, that part of what you get is the ability to advertise your eco-consciousness, as through this bumper sticker, which was part of the package:

Put that on the back of your Hummer, and your neighbors will be silenced.

A year or so ago, when Al Gore was publicly claiming that his extravagant lifestyle, complete with 100-foot long houseboat...

(To see the bumper sticker and Al Gore's houseboat, click here)

...was environmentally OK because he "offset" his carbon emissions, somehow, I tried to investigate some of the prominent "carbon offset" companies. Most did not respond to my inquiries; some of the web sites I found incomprehensible. Other business models were all too clear. One company pays people in poor countries to stay "poor," using, e.g., human treadmills for energy, to balance out a wealthy Westerner's Escalade. Another, the most ludicrous in my opinion, takes your money and in exchange "designates" in your honor part of a forest. It doesn't plant trees or anything of the sort, it merely "designates," or names after you, a few acres of a forest. It's almost exactly the same as the companies that, for a fee, purport to name a star after your girlfriend.

No doubt the TerraPass system would make sense if I understood it, but for now I think the import is clear: if you are a Power Line reader, you have received absolution! Turn up your thermostat. Take your snowmobile for a spin. Trade in your Prius for a Navigator. Rent a private plane to go skydiving. And, in general, party like it's 1999. You're entitled!

So not only do we see that the "carbon offsets" scam---er, effort to improve the environment is actually just an entitlement for the rich, we also see that a lot of what this fraud...er, new industry does is hurting poor people.

Go Al go.  Take 'em for everything you can.  They want you to.  They're begging you to.  Don't disappoint 'em.  There are so many more millions to make off of  'em.

Your houseboat is too small anyway.

Ken Berwitz

bernard madoff is a swindler and a thief of unprecedented proportion.  He is also Jewish, and deeply involved with Jewish people Jewish charities and the state of Israel.

In other words, he is a dream come true for anti-Semitism. 

And if you have any doubt that he is creating/nurturing/reinforcing it, read this article from Agence France Presse, via www.breitbart.com: 

Anti-Semitism floods Internet after Madoff scandal: campaigners

Dec 19 03:33 PM US/Eastern

Anti-Jewish commentary is flooding the Internet in the wake of Bernard Madoff's arrest on charges of masterminding one of the biggest Wall Street frauds in history, campaigners said Friday.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said there had been "an outpouring of anti-Semitic comments on mainstream and extremist Web sites."

Madoff, 70, is Jewish and a prominent member of the powerful US Jewish community. He is alleged to have defrauded investors, including a number of Jewish-related charities, of some 50 billion dollars.

"Site users have posted comments ranging from deeply offensive stereotypical statements about Jews and money -- with some suggesting that only Jews could perpetrate a fraud on such a scale -- to conspiracy theories about Jews stealing money to benefit Israel," the ADL said in a statement.

"Jews are always a convenient scapegoat in times of crisis, but the Madoff scandal and the fact that so many of the defrauded investors are Jewish has created a perfect storm for the anti-Semites," said Abraham Foxman, ADL national director.

"Nowadays, the first place Jew-haters will go is to the Internet, where they can give voice to their hateful ideas without fear of repercussions."

Unfortunately, everything Mr. Foxman says is true.  But, even more unfortunately, what he says is incomplete. 

It is one thing to hate Jews, call them names and stereotype them as money-hungry, grasping, unethical, etc. It is another when the basis for that hatred is a Jew who fits those stereotypes.  A bernard madoff has to be addressed directly and specifically. 

What Foxman said about madoff could as easily have been said about hamas.  That is not good enough.

What should have been said is something along the lines that "unfortunately, the reasons stereotypes exist is because they are sometimes true.  In this individual case, they are.  I am saddened and shamed to say that bernard madoff is every one of the things that an anti-Semite would accuse all Jews of being.  But I am Jewish and I am not any of those things.  Nor are the vast majority of other Jews.  madoff's actions do not just bring shame on him personally, they give haters a chance to say "see, they're ALL like that"  And we are not".

Had Foxman spoken this way, there would be both a recognition of why madoff fans the flames of anti-Semitism and an explanation of why it is wrong.   In other words, it would be reasonable and credible.

Instead, madoff's crimes are mentioned, but quickly brushed aside in favor of the standard boilerplate commentary against anti-Semitism.  That sounds more like whining than sincerity to me.  And god only knows what it sounds like to someone who already hates Jews or is receptive to doing so.

Personally, I am Jewish.  I despise anti-Semitism and the people who spew it.  bernard madoff (and his sons too, who I have zero doubt are in it up to their necks right along with him) is poison to me.  He/they make me sick. 

But I know that the way to address this isn't to complain that Jews are being picked on.  It is to face the situation generating that anti-Semitism head on (which everyone else will do anyway) and talk about it with candor and clarity. 

Maybe Mr. Foxman and other Jewish "leaders" will do that one day.  I hope the day comes soon.

Ken Berwitz

Charles Krauthammer is a great writer and a great columnist.  He has a great column today on the impending annointme....er, appointment of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg as New York Senator to replace Hillary Clinton.

You can read it all by clicking the above link.  But in case you want to cut to the chase, I've put the last half of Mr. Krauthammer's column below:

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy. She seems a fine person. She certainly has led the life of a worthy socialite helping all the right causes. But when the mayor of New York endorses her candidacy by offering, among other reasons, that "her uncle has been one of the best senators that we have had in an awful long time," we've reached the point of embarrassment.

Nor is Ms. Kennedy alone in her sense of entitlement. Vice President-elect Biden's Senate seat will now be filled by Edward Kaufman, a family retainer whom no one ever heard of before yesterday. And no one will hear from after two years, at which time Kaufman will dutifully retire. He understands his responsibility: Keep the Delaware Senate seat warm for two years until Joe's son returns from Iraq to assume his father's mantle.

This, of course, is the Kennedy way. In 1960, John Kennedy's Senate seat was given to his Harvard roommate, one Ben Smith II (priceless name). He stayed on for two years -- until Teddy reached the constitutional age of 30 required to succeed his brother.

In light of the pending dynastic disposition of the New York and Delaware Senate seats, the Illinois way is almost refreshing. At least Gov. Rod Blagojevich (allegedly) made Barack Obama's seat democratically open to all. Just register the highest bid, eBay-style.

Sadly, however, even this auction was not free of aristo-creep. On the evidence of the U.S. attorney's criminal complaint, a full one-third of those under consideration were pedigreed: Candidate No. 2 turns out to be the daughter of the speaker of the Illinois House; Candidate No. 5, the first-born son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Caroline Kennedy, Beau Biden and Jesse Jackson Jr. could someday become great senators. But in a country where advantages of education, upbringing and wealth already make the playing field extraordinarily uneven, we should resist encouraging the one form of advantage the American Republic strove to abolish: title.

No lords or ladies here. If Princess Caroline wants a seat in the Senate, let her do it by election. There's one in 2010. To do it now by appointment on the basis of bloodline is an offense to the most minimal republicanism. Every state in the union is entitled to representation in the Senate. Camelot is not a state.

Michael Bloomberg usually has his head on pretty straight.  Can he possibly have cited Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg's uncle as a basis for making her a senator?  Did he really say that?

Tell you what:  I have two uncles.  Both of them were doctors.  One was an OB/GYN in Brooklyn, affiliated with Brookdale Medical Center.  Maybe I'll call the OB/GYN department at Brookdale to see if they have an opening on staff. 

And if they tell me I'm not qualified to be an OB/GYN just because my uncle was, I'll reference Michael Bloomberg.  That should end the issue right there.  But if it doesn't, I'll threaten them with Governor Paterson. 

I can almost see them shaking.

Ken Berwitz

From www.cnn.com today:

(CNN) -- Democrat Al Franken has pulled ahead of incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman in Minnesota's still unresolved U.S. Senate race, according to a running tally on the Minneapolis Star Tribune's Web site.

Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, left, and Democrat Al Franken have swapped leads in Minnesota's Senate race.

 Late Friday morning, the newspaper's tally put Franken ahead by 102 votes. Coleman's lead had fallen to single digits Thursday evening.

But the race remains fluid: The results reported by the newspaper are ongoing, with hundreds of challenged ballots still to be reviewed.

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has said that he and four other members on the Canvassing Board will not end their workday until all remaining challenges have been reviewed.

One major wild card that remains are roughly 4,000 ballots that were originally challenged by the campaigns, who have since withdrawn those challenges. The secretary of state's office has yet to declare how or when those ballots will be awarded to the candidates.

About 3 million votes were cast in the election, and the close result tripped an automatic recount.

"When the recount is over and all the votes that were legally cast are counted, Al Franken will have won this election and will be declared the winner," Marc Elias, Franken's lead recount attorney, told the newspaper

Who is declaring that al franken will win?  Is it franken himself.  Or his campaign manager?  No and no.  It is his "lead recount attorney".  That says it all.

This is being done right in front of your eyes, folks.  Enjoying the show?

Ken Berwitz

If a Christian congressperson had ties to - and was being bankrolled by - a radical right wing "church" with a history of supporting violence in the name of christianity, how do you suppose media would cover it? 

Well, Keith Ellison, the USA's first Muslim congressperson has that exact situation with radical Islam. 

Have you so much as heard of it, let alone been given details?

If not, then keep reading.  This piece by Scott Johnson at www.powerlineblog.com will get you up to speed.  Please pay special attention to the last paragraph, which I've put in bold print:

Who paid for Ellison's Hajj?

John Hinderaker wrote about the Star Tribune's puff piece by Mitch Anderson earlier this week on the pilgrimage of Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison to Mecca for the Muslim Hajj. The brief piece relied heavily on comments by Ellison spoksman Rick Jauert, who told Anderson "that Ellison paid for the journey himself." (Incidentally, the Star Tribune seems to have tinkered with the version of the story on which John commented)

Today the Star Tribune devotes a second puff piece by Anderson to Ellison's Hajj The rationale for another piece on the same subject is obscure. Apparently adding weight to Ellison's greatness in the eyes of the Star Tribune, Anderson quotes Ellison: "This is just me trying to be the best person I can be."

Anderson buries the sole item of journalistic interest at the end of the article. Anderson reports: "[Ellison's] expenses were paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota." Despite the fact that it was Anderson himself who previously quoted Ellison's spokesman asserting that the trip was on Ellison's own nickel, Anderson drops the subject there. As one can infer from my Standard piece "Louis Farrakhan's first congressman," this is typical of the paralysis to which the Star Tribune's coverage of Ellison has been subject.

Ellison's relationship with the Muslim American Society of Minnesota should be troubling. The MAS Minnesota stands at the center of many of the religiously inspired controversies that have roiled the Twin Cities. It was the MAS Minnesota's own fatwa, for example, that prompted Muslim taxi drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to refuse to transport passengers carrying liquor or accompanied by guide dogs. It is the MAS Minnesota that houses the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, the Muslim charter school operating in violation of the First Amendment. (Both of these stories were broken by my friend Katherine Kersten in her discontinued Star Tribune column.)

The Muslim American Society that is the parent of MAS Minnesota is a story in itself. The MAS was founded as the American offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is the radical Islamist organization that originated in Egypt that has put down roots in Europe and elsewhere. See Lorenz Vidino's excellent Middle East Quaterly essay on the MAS's efforts to Islamize Europe and Daniel Pipes's discussion of the MAS's American efforts.

Pipes also comments on the Muslim American Society's goals here and points out Daveed Gartenstein-Ross's important Standard column that looks at the Minnesota MAS chapter's stated goals. Gartenstein-Ross further explored the MAS's deep ties to radical Islam in a column for the Dallas Morning News.,

The Muslim Brotherhood was also at the heart of the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas. The Holy Land Foundation was the chief American fundraiser for Hamas. Both the Holy Land Foundation and Hamas were created by the Muslim Brotherhood.
See the Dallas Morning News article by Jason Trahan and Tanya Eiserer on the Holy Land Foundation verdicts last month.

Joe Kaufman documents the hate and support for Islamist terrorism spewed by the MAS Minnesota. Kaufman likens Ellison to other politicians such as Robert Byrd who have been involved with hate groups. Byrd was of course once an officer in the Ku Klux Klan.

Kaufman notes that unlike Byrd's, however, Ellison's associations continue while he remains in office. Ellison is perhaps more akin to such former House members as Vito Marcantonio, who became a friend of the Communist Party in Congress as a member of the American Labor Party.

Keith Ellison embodies the American left's weird alliance with radical Islam. How Ellison reconciles his Islamic faith with the Democratic Party's devout belief in homosexual rights, leftist feminism, abortion rights and every other element of the party's most radical agenda is a subject that the Minnesota media have somehow left unexplored, along with several others raised by Mitch Anderson in his two Star Tribune puff pieces on Ellison's Hajj.

How can this be?  How can this happen?  And how can media so determinedly keep you ignorant of it?

Well, I don't know how.  But they do, don't they? 

An ignorant electorate is an electorate that can be owned and operated by someone.  Sadly, to a great extent I have just described our electorate. 

When will we learn?  Ever?

Ken Berwitz

I don't like to do I-told-you-so's.  But in this case it was so obvious that (I hope) you realized it just as much as I did, so I'm doing one now.

hamas, the terror organization specifically dedicated to vaporizing Israel through jihad, has declared an end to the "truce" (as if there ever actually was one). 

Translation:  It is re-armed enough to kill a lot more Jews and spread a lot more terror.

Here is the story, via an excerpt from a larger article published by Reuters:

Hamas declares end to ceasefire with Israel in Gaza

Ken Berwitz

In the previous blog I pointed out how two-faced mainstream media are when it comes to dealing with al sharpton - so much so that, instead of being a political death knell, associating with this sack of manure is a political bonanza for the Democrats who do it.

Here is a more extensive look at just how biased our media are, from Seton Motley, writing for www.humanevents.com:

The degree of two-faced, duplicitous behavior by our wonderful "neutral" media is utterly breathtaking.  And with Obama coming into office, along with a Democrat-packed congress, don't expect things to get better. 

If you want a hint of how this goes, here's a good one for you.  On the Today show this morning, Andrea Mitchell did a piece about Bill Clinton finally being forced to disclose the donors to his library and foundation.

Remember what media said about President Bush dealing with the Saudis?  Remember what they said about the Dubai port deal?  Bush was an idiot, who was willing to compromise the security of the United States because he was in bed with Arab countries that hate us. 

Well, it turns out that two of the biggest contributors to Clinton are....Saudi Arabia and Dubai. 

So what did Andrea Mitchell refer to them as?  "Major allies in the Middle East", that's what.  It's all better.  Clinton did it, not Bush.

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

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday, Caroline Schlossberg Kennedy openly had lunch with a career racist/anti-Semite.  So that immediately ends any chance she has of being appointed the U.S. Senator from New York, right?

Nope.

The career racist/anti-semite Ms. Kennedy lunched with was al sharpton.  So instead of being condemned and shunned, Ms, Kennedy Schlossberg is even more beloved by the media and sharpton's pal, Governor David Paterson - who succeeded to the office after eliot spitzer resigned - is even more likely to pick her.

Here is the story, which I pulled from www.breitbart.com:

Sharpton takes Caroline Kennedy to lunch in Harlem

Dec 18 04:52 PM US/Eastern By JENNIFER PELTZ Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - The Rev. Al Sharpton took Caroline Kennedy to lunch Thursday at a famed Harlem soul food restaurant as she continued her quest to join her uncle in the U.S. Senate. Kennedy smiled as she and the civil rights activist made their way through a throng of media and into Sylvia's, whose walls are lined with photographs of visiting politicians including the Clintons.

"I come at this as a mother, as a lawyer, as an author, as an education advocate and from a family that really has spent generations in public service," Kennedy told reporters after lunch. "I feel this commitment, and this is a time when nobody can afford to sit out. And I hope that I have something to offer."

The late President John F. Kennedy's daughter acknowledged Wednesday she's seeking to be appointed to the Senate seat held by Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been nominated by President-elect Barack Obama to be secretary of state.

Kennedy was asked what she would need to do to prepare herself for the post, which has attracted the interest of at least a dozen Democratic officials including her former relative by marriage, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

"I have, you know, quite a lot to learn, but I feel like I bring a lot with me, as well," Kennedy said.

She was also asked why she was plunging into politics now, after spending most of her life carefully cultivating her privacy.

"These are issues that I care so much about and I understand that, really, I have been trying to work on them as a private citizen and in the position that I have," she said. "But really, to solve our problems, I think government is the place where people need to come together."

Kennedy's emergence as a contender has generated both buzz and controversy. She comes from a Democratic dynasty but has never held public office, and some Republicans and Democrats have criticized her lack of experience.

Democratic Gov. David Paterson has said he won't make an appointment until Clinton is confirmed. The governor confirmed Kennedy's interest in the seat on Monday, the same day she reached out to Sharpton in a telephone call.

After speaking to Kennedy, Sharpton released a statement saying he disagreed with those who say she isn't qualified to be U.S. senator.

He said he had invited her to dine wtih him at Sylvia's this week, reminding her that he took Obama there during his campaign "so it's a good luck stop since he did all right."

This is the same al sharpton who gave us the tawana brawley hoax.  The same one who goaded the rioting crowds in Crown Heights by sneering out characterizations of Lubavitcher Jews as "diamond merchants".  The same one who incited protesters in front of Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem until one of them torched the place and killed 7 people. 

He is also the same sharpton who is front and center in every racially charged event he can find.  The same al sharpton who was convicted of defamation of character, who had to hand back over $100,000 in matching funds when he ran for President because of the way it was used and who has been found to owe the the government $1.5 million dollars in back taxes (which I doubt that he will ever pay - sharpton isn't very good at paying his debts).

Let me ask the question I ask over and over in here.  If this were a REPUBLICAN, do you suppose that he would be a media darling?  A kingmaker in the Republican Party?  A man whose prominence in the Republican Party would be treated as nothing with nothing by media?

More than ever before, it is so good to have a D after your name.  Even if, in this case, it stands for Dissolute, Dishonest and Discriminatory.

Ken Berwitz

As the challenged ballots continue to be counted, al franken continues to gain votes.  Norm Coleman's lead is down to about 40 now.

It will continue until franken gains the lead and then the election will finally be over.

How is franken gaining when the erroneously rejected ballots in a virtually even race should logically come out virtually even as well?

Why do YOU think?

Get ready for senator franken.  Another one is being stolen.  Right in front of your eyes.  On the 50 yard line.  In the town square. 

Enjoy the show.

--------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:  I checked at 9PM and now Coleman's lead is 5 votes.  The Minneapolis Star-Tribune is projecting that al franken will win by 89 votes.

Presto change-o.  Watch it happen 

Ken Berwitz

I grant you that China is hardly the place most people would associate with fine wine. 

But before you reject the possiblity out of hand (or out of Han, I suppose), read the following article which comes to us from www.newscience.com:

How to make cheap wine taste like a fine vintage

Take THAT Baron Rothschild!!

I have this image of a wine commercial a few years down the road.  I see Chinese people toasting each other and singing:

Zap! a-dee doo dah

Zap! a-dee ay

My oh my, what a great cabernet,

Plenty of pinot, comin' my way,

from vines to your table, three minutes away

Ken Berwitz

That title is what I would expect to hear from Ms. Kennedy's (actually Ms. Schlossberg's) husband, or her children, or some of her numerous relatives.  Fair enough.

But from a NEWS REPORTER?????

Here are the particulars from Kyle Drennan, writing for www.newsbusters.org:

CBS’s Chen: Leave Caroline Kennedy Alone, Criticism ‘Unfair’

Are you kidding me? 

According to her CBS News write-up, "Ms. Chen has been an anchor of The Early Show, CBS News' weekday morning broadcast, since October 2002".  

It leaves out the fact that The Early Show is a ratings stinkbomb which doesn't come near Today or Good Morning America.  In the 2007-2008 season so far, Today averages 5,690,000 viewers, Good Morning America is at 4,760,000 and The Early Show registers a puny 2,890,000.

Don't you find it surprising that Julie Chen would last so long with such poor results?  Don't you wonder why she would be kept on?

Well, the write-up also notes that "Chen lives in New York and Los Angeles with her husband", but leaves out his name.  Maybe the fact that her husband is Les Moonves, the President and CEO of CBS Corporation, has something to do with this.

But, then again, why should it even be mentioned? 

It's so unfair.  I mean, look, the system is set up the way it's set up and Hubby Moonves decides and that's it.  Leave her alone, everyone.

Ken Berwitz

Here, without commentary (it doesn't need any) is Ron Radosh's column on President Bush and Jews:

December 17th, 2008 10:55 am

Bush and the Jews

On Monday night, my wife and I attended President George W. Bush’s annual Chanukah party at the White House.  Although other Presidents have held menorah lighting ceremonies, President Bush and his wife were the first to hold a party to celebrate the occasion.  And it was quite a party-600 people replete with traditional Chanukah fare including potato latkes and jelly donuts and music to fit the occasion. The President said in the statement he released, “This year, as Jewish families light the menorah, the flame reminds us that light triumphs over darkness, faith conquers despair, and the desire for freedom burns inside every man, woman and child.”   The President ended his statement by saying that “the forces of intolerance may seek to suppress the menorah, but they can never extinguish its light.”

When President Bush spoke before Israel’s Knesset on May 15, 2008- the day of the 60^th Anniversary of Israel’s creation as a Jewish State-he gave an inspirational speech reflecting on what Israel meant to him, and what its existence means to the United States as a nation. One can say that it was certainly the most pro-Israel speech ever given by an American President.

Bush noted that the fight against terror and extremism was not just a clash of arms, but “a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle.” And he explained how Israel was a necessary ally in that fight, and why the United States could not capitulate to the demands of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. And, perhaps most important of all, he told the Israelis: “America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.” Israel, he assured them, “can always count on the United States of America to be at your side.”

George W. Bush’s commitment to Israel and his solidarity with the world’s Jews led me to reflect on a great irony. Within the United States, a high percentage of Jews, who are overwhelmingly Democrats, have been opposed to the policies of the Bush administration and bear an animus to Bush personally.  

When I returned home from the party, a friend had e-mailed me two statements that address this issue. The first came from the head of America’s Reform Jewish congregations, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffe, who delivered his remarks as a sermon at the Union Board Services in Tampa, Florida on December 12^th.  Reform Jews are as a whole the most liberal politically of all Jewish religious bodies in our country. On various issues, especially social ones, they stand firmly opposed to the Republican Party political agenda. Whether it is gay rights, stem cell research, the fight of a woman to have an abortion if they choose, and questions pertaining to civil liberties in the fight against terrorism, they stand on the liberal side.

Rabbi Yoffe’s remarks were largely a meditation on our current crisis, and the hopes that American Jews shared for the success of the coming Obama Presidency, and their desire for the new President’s success in his endeavors to serve our country. He was particularly concerned for the creation of universal health care, and he urged President-elect Obama not to put its attainment off because of the serious economic issues confronting us.

It was a surprise, therefore, to read these words of Rabbi Yoffe:

“And  what of the State of Israel?  When we look at Israel today, we see a strong state with a reasonably healthy economy. Much of the credit should go to President George W. Bush. He supported Israel’s security needs, provided much-needed military aid, and accepted no excuses for Palestinian terror. The President is under siege right now, but we in the Jewish community must not forget that he has been a good friend to the Jewish State and the Jewish people.”(my emphasis.)

Reform Jews who often participated in the veritable orgy of Bush hatred must have blanched as they heard these words, but it would not have come as a surprise to those Jews who knew the President.

An op-ed by Noam Neusner, a Jewish liaison for President Bush from 2002 to 2005, explained to his readers how seriously George W. Bush was in his commitment.  The Jews, Neusner writes, “really do matter to him.” It is not simply a case of pandering to a constituency, one he well knows does not support him politically.  “I saw his eyes well up,” Neusner writes, “while watching the Holocaust-themed movie “Paper Clips”…I know how moved he was by meeting with Soviet Jewish refuseniks, Holocaust survivors and the parents of slain journalist Daniel Pearl.” Neusner attended one meeting the President had with Jews from around the world, who now lived in America after years of torment in countries like Cuba, Uganda, Zimbabwe and other bastions of anti-Semitism.  As they told him how only in this nation did they find the right to live as Jews, Bush “walked out of the meeting shaking his head, appalled by the special hatred tyrants have reserved for the Jews.”

Neusner understands well that since Bush is a S