Ken Berwitz

From Scott Johnson of www.powerlineblog.com, via Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online:

Obama pays his union dues, first installment

The New York Times reports that President Obama signed three executive orders pleasing to unions. The Times quotes Obama directly addressing the union officials at the White House ceremony: "Welcome back to the White House." The Times summarized the substance of the orders in one paragraph:

The orders Mr. Obama signed, which union officials say will undo Bush administration policies that tilted toward employers, make it more difficult for federal contractors to discourage union activities. And when a federal contract changes hands, the new contractor will be required to offer jobs to workers who were employed by the earlier contractor.

And that's that, as far as the Times is concerned. It seems highly doubtful that Times reporter David Stout has bothered to read the orders or ask anyone what kind of sense they make. Interested readers will have to look elsewhere for addtional information.

The orders have been posted here by Carter Wood at the Manhattan Institute's PointofLaw.com site. Wood's Saturday morning update notes:

Judging by the metadata of one file, one of the regulations was written by the SEIU's legal counsel, or associate general counsel, Craig Becker -- although he may have gone to work for the Administration. (See this Shopfloor.org post.) Remember all those headlines from eight years ago along the lines of "White House lets business lobbyists write the law?"

What sense do these orders make? The Times frames the story as Obama taking a swipe at Bush, consistent with Obama presentation of them at the White House ceremony. Times reporter David Stout is discreetly silent about Obama's debt to organized labor. The orders are Obama's downpayment on the debt.

The orders are couched in terms of government economy. Unions are of course well known for their contribution to economic efficiency. Mickey Kaus actually took the trouble to track down the text of the order requiring a contractor to retain the old workers when a federal contract changes hands, to borrow the Times's formulation. Kaus quotes from the order:

The Federal Government's procurement interests in economy and efficiency are served when the successor contractor hires the predecessor's employees. A carryover work force reduces disruption to the delivery of services during the period of transition between contractors and provides the Federal Government the benefits of an experienced and trained work force that is familiar with the Federal Government's personnel, facilities, and requirements.

Kaus displays a bad attitude toward the order. You might say he doesn't take it at face value:

[W]hat if the contract got switched because the previous work force, you know, sucked? ... P.S.: For example, the Obama administration itself can be seen as having won a new contract to perform the same Federal services, at the same location, as the previous contractor, the Bush Administration. Did Obama keep all of Bush's employees in order to reduce "disruption" and enjoy "the benefits of an experienced and trained work force that is familiar with the Federal Governments ... facilities"? I don't think so! ...

Kaus aptly calls the orders "the labor payoff of the day." It's a point that seems to have escaped the Times.

Do you think this is the end of Barack Obama's payoff to the unions? 

Don't bet your wages and benefits on it.

Ken Berwitz

How it must gall keith olbermann, rachel maddow and their kindred "thinkers" at MSNBC that this is on the network's home page:

Iraq election hailed as 'great success'

No reports of major violence as 14,000 candidates fight for 440 seats

msnbc.com news services

Thank you, U.S. military. 

Thank you very especially, former President George Bush.

And keith, rachel and co.?  Sorry about that.  Maybe next time there will be riots and terrorism to gloat about and attack Bush for......oh, wait, that would be under President Obama's watch. 

I guess you're just shut out.

Ken Berwitz

Here is an important editorial from yesterday's Investors Business Daily about CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations:

Beware Of CAIR

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Homeland Security: You'd think the Council on American-Islamic Relations would be savoring the results of an election that favors its agenda. Instead, it's having to do major damage control.

Over the past several months, the Washington-based pressure group has suffered a series of punishing blows to its reputation as a self-proclaimed "moderate" voice for Muslim-Americans. In the latest setback, a "Dear Colleague" letter sent out to every House member warns lawmakers and their staffs to "think twice" about meeting with CAIR officials.

"The FBI has cut ties with them," the letter says. "There are indications" CAIR has links to Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group.

The letter, signed by five Republicans, including the head of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, is attached to an article by a homeland-security news service. It reports that the FBI has been canceling outreach events across the country with CAIR, following a recent directive from headquarters to cut ties with the group.

It's a major policy shift at the FBI, which has appeased the notoriously litigious CAIR since 9/11. The group aggressively attacks critics with threats of boycotts and discrimination lawsuits.

The marginalization of CAIR, which has enjoyed astonishing access to official Washington, comes after the successful prosecution of leaders of a U.S. Muslim charity that funneled millions to Hamas terrorists. CAIR and its co-founder Omar Ahmed were named unindicted co-conspirators in that Holy Land Foundation case.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, moreover, was caught on tape participating in a meeting with Hamas leaders to disguise payments as charity. During the trial, the FBI described CAIR as a front group for Islamic extremists.

It just gets worse for CAIR. Former clients of the group are suing it for fraud. The Muslims say CAIR, which claims to be an advocate for Muslim rights, extorted thousands of dollars from them in a scam in which CAIR said it would help them get U.S. citizenship.

According to the federal lawsuit, CAIR directed an unlicensed lawyer to handle their immigration cases. The phony lawyer shook them down for their life savings and bungled their paperwork. When the victims said they would go to the media, the suit charges, CAIR's board threatened to sue them and forced them to sign releases.

Such aggressive tactics are typical of CAIR. The group has threatened CEOs who don't kowtow to its demands to Islamize the workplace and airlines trying to protect passengers from terrorism. It's bullied, as well, scores of critics on TV and talk radio, even getting some hosts fired. Thankfully, the threats are no longer working.

It is about time that members of congress spoke up about this terrorist-sympathizing front group.  But why is it only Republicans? And how come they're only speaking up now that there is a Democratic administration.

Let's face facts:  BOTH sides of the aisle have played politics with this group.  And for way, way too long (one day would be too long - they've done it for years).

What I (and, I'm sure, many others) would like to see is a stand - a bipartisan stand - against CAIR and any other front groups that sympathize with the people who hate us, hate our culture, and want us all either under shari'a law or dead.

When will that happen?  Today would be a good day to start.

Ken Berwitz

From Warner Todd Huston, writing for www.newsbusters.org:

CNN Sells Obama T-Shirts, Propagandizing for The One

Suppose that Fox News Channel put out a series of T-shirts in 2004 celebrating George Bush's re-election?  What do you think CNN would have had to say about it?

However, Fox never has done anything like that.  CNN is the one.  Incredibly, this is just fine and dandy if it is on behalf of the Democrat, Barack Obama.

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

Ken Berwitz

From London's Guardian:

UK: Convert and Misunderstander of Islam gets life sentence for botched jihad attack

No virgins for you

He was upset about the "war on Islam." Now where did he get the idea that blowing up some infidels would be the best response to that? Mohamed Abdulaziz Rashid Saeed-Alim Update: "Life sentence for inept bomber who targeted restaurant," by Owen Bowcott for The Guardian, January 31 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A Muslim convert described as the "least cunning" terrorist ever to come before a British court was yesterday sentenced to a minimum of 18 years in prison for a bungled suicide nail bombing.

Nicky Reilly - who changed his name to Mohamed Saeed-Alim - accidentally detonated his homemade device in the toilets of the crowded Giraffe restaurant in Exeter, injuring only himself.

The 22-year-old was given a life sentence at the Old Bailey after pleading guilty to attempted murder and preparing an act of terrorism last May. The court was told that he acted alone, though he had been in contact over the internet with two jihad supporters who had urged him to attack military rather than civilian targets.

After the case Debbie Simpson, the assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, said efforts were being made to trace the al-Qaida sympathisers. "We are in contact ... with the Pakistani authorities. We believe there is an association," she said. [...]

A suicide note left in his bedroom described how he was motivated by the "disgusting" behaviour of people in Britain as well as the "war on Islam".

I guess the spirit was willing, but the flush was weak.

I I were the investigators at Old Bailey, I'd be on the lookout for two other guys who have recently inquired about the durability of toilet bowls in military barracks.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the first part of an article in the Washington Post, that tells us there is at least one military judge with the cajones to stare down Obama and his merry men during their quest for a kinder, gentler outlook towards the enemy combatants imprisoned at Guantanamo:

Guantanamo Judge Denies Obama's Request for Delay

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 30, 2009; A14

A military judge threw a wrench yesterday into the Obama administration's plan to suspend legal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, denying the government's request to delay the case of a detainee accused of planning the 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

To halt proceedings for 120 days -- as Obama wants in order to conduct a review -- the Pentagon may be forced to temporarily withdraw charges against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and possibly 20 other detainees facing trial in military commissions, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The administration, which expected military judges to agree to its motions seeking suspension, was taken aback by yesterday's decision. Judges in other cases, including one involving five Sept. 11 defendants, had quickly agreed to the government's request.

"We just learned of the ruling here . . . and we are consulting with the Pentagon and the Department of Justice to explore our options in that case," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. Asked at a news conference whether the decision would hamper the administration's ability to evaluate detainees' cases, Gibbs replied: "Not at all."

Nashiri, a Saudi citizen of Yemeni descent, is facing arraignment Feb. 9 on capital charges relating to the al-Qaeda strike on the Cole in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. service members and injured 50 others in October 2000.

The chief military judge at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Army Col. James Pohl, said that he found the government's arguments "unpersuasive" and that the case will go ahead because "the public interest in a speedy trial will be harmed by the delay in the arraignment."

The administration had argued that the "interests of justice" would be served by a delay that would allow the government to review the approximately 245 prisoners at Guantanamo to figure out who should be prosecuted and how, and who can be released.

"The Commission is unaware of how conducting an arraignment would preclude any option by the administration," Pohl wrote in an opinion obtained by The Washington Post. "Congress passed the military commissions act, which remains in effect. The Commission is bound by the law as it currently exists, not as it may change in the future."

The decision was lauded by some survivors of the attack on the Cole, who said it illustrated the independence of the military judiciary at Guantanamo.

"I'm absolutely delighted," said Navy Cmdr. Kirk Lippold, the former skipper of the Cole. "It proves the military commissions work without undue command influence, and this decision puts us back on track to see an accounting for al-Nashiri's terrorist acts."

But human rights activists said the administration should now withdraw charges, something it had seemed reluctant to do, to allow the option of preserving or reforming military commissions, albeit at a new location.

"Given that the Guantanamo order was issued on day two of the new administration, the president was clearly trying to make the immediate decisions needed while giving himself the flexibility to deal with the rest down the road," said Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. "That said, the only sure way to ensure that the commissions process is brought to a halt is to now withdraw the charges."

Why does Mr. Obama want these trials stopped?  What is he hoping to accomplish? 

What does Mr. Obama want to do with khalid sheik-mohammed, abd al-rahim al-nashiri and the other 20 prisoners?  Why aren't their trials proceeding as quickly and expeditously as possible?  What is he hoping to acomplish?

Why does Jennifer Daskal of Human Right Watch not want these people to be tried, and evidence heard, in a perfectly legal proceeding?  What is she trying to accomplish?

I'm sure that Mr. Obama and Ms. Daskal are wowing 'em at moveon.org and code pink.  But I can't help thinking that most of the rest of us want these prisoners tried, wish it had already been done, and do not want to wait months more, so that some genius can try to come up with a legal end-around for them.

Do you?

Ken Berwitz

Charles Rangel is the long time house member from upper Manhattan (and a tiny sliver of Queens), New York.  He also appears to be one of the most corrupt congresspeople anywhere (no small accomplishment).

In just the past year, we have learned that Rangel leases four apartments at the highly desirable Lenox Terrace apartment complex in his district - all at rents that are about half the current going rate.  Legally, he can only lease one of them.  That stinks.

Then we have Mr. Rangel's resort condo in Punta del Cana, Dominican Republic, which he rents out, makes a very nice profit from, and somehow forgot to pay taxes on for years.

If that weren't enough, in September of this year, after being pressured to open his books, a number of other major accounting discrepancies were found - in his favor, of course - related to property he owned in Washington DC and Sunny Isles, Florida.

If Charles Rangel were a Republican, he would be out of office and either in court room or a jail cell by now.

But Charles Rangel is a Democrat, so he remains chairman of... the House Ways & Means Committee!!!  This tax cheat is in charge of a committee that oversees the writing of taxes!!!

I mention all this as a prelude to the following story, written by Jim Meyers at www.newsmax.com.  It should give you insight into just how concerned Mr. Rangel is that he will ever be held to account for any of his actions:

Rangel, Other Reps, Party in Caribbean With Citi Funds

Friday, January 30, 2009 12:04 PM By: Jim Meyers

Six Democratic members of Congress enjoyed a Caribbean junket sponsored by Citigroup after Congress had approved the $700 billion bailout of financial services firms in October. The National Legal and Policy Center, a watchdog group, has asked Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, for a formal review of the Citigroup’s sponsorship of the trip by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel and five others. The NLPC says the trip violated House rules. The purported purpose of the Nov. 6-9 junket was to attend the Caribbean Multi-Cultural Business Conference on the island of St. Maarten, but “the primary purpose of attending for most participants appeared to be to take a vacation,” according to the NLPC, which had a representative at the event. The NLPC said in a statement: “The ‘lead sponsor’ was Citigroup, which contributed $100,000. Citigroup was certainly aware that it would be a major recipient of bailout funds. It was also aware that its fortunes had become increasingly reliant on Congressional actions. “Citigroup should have also been aware that corporate sponsorship of such an event was banned by House rules adopted on March 1, 2007, in response to the [lobbyist Jack] Abramoff scandal and the infamous golf trip to Scotland.” In addition to Rangel, other members of Congress who attended were Donald Payne of New Jersey, Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Michigan, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, and Donna Christensen, the delegate to the House from the United States Virgin Islands.

Unbelievable. 

With all that on his head, Rangel goes on a junket, largely paid for by Citigroup, which a) is flat on it's butt money-wise, b) is taking billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars in bailouts and c) has business before the committee that Rangel chairs. 

This is the same Citigroup that, just this week, accepted receipt of a brand new, state-of-the-art $50,000,000 corporate jet.  Thanks Mr. & Mrs. Sucker...er, Taxpayer, we'll enjoy it. 

There is only one way that Charles Rangel (and his junket buddies - all Democrats) could ever have accepted this.  It is with the certainty that he, and the rest of them, will not be held to account for it.

And why shouldn't Rangel have this certainty?  Has he been held to account for his dissolute, corrupt activities until now?

Maybe if we still had two-party government there would be a loud enough outcry to do something about this.  But we don't, do we?  Democrats run every part of government, with plenty of a majority to spare.

So you can count on Mr. Rangel enjoying the "perks" of his office, ethical or otherwise, to his heart's content. 

We voters created this situation, and it is ours for the next two years.  Then we can do something about it. 

Will we?

Ken Berwitz

Here is the single funniest quote of 2009 - so far:

“I didn’t come here to be partisan. I didn’t come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest.:  Nancy Pelosi

You can count on there being competition for this title as the year goes on.  Lots of it.

Ken Berwitz

When it comes to Friends of Barak, the Israel and Jew hating just doesn't seem to end.  We have:

-jeremiah wright, who calls Israel "a dirty word" (one of his nicer descriptions). 

-william ayers, who has hated Israel for decades. 

-louis farrakhan, who loves Barack Obama and sees him as a messiah.  When Obama's church gave farrakhan a lifetime achievement award, he didn't have one bad word to say about it

-rashid khalidi, Israel-hating activist and professor who Mr. Obama so glowingly complimented at a dinner in his honor, and described as a frequent dinner companion.

-susan power and robert malley, who I've already blogged about today (not to mention all the other Israel-haters who worked on the Obama campaign).

And now we have ali abunimah.  Who is he?  Just read the excerpts below, which come from an article by Aaron Klein  writing for www.worldnewsdaily.com.

The hatred is abunimah's.  The bold print is mine:

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Obama 'friend': End of Israel 'within reach'
Activist boasts 'Western support, complicity' starting to crack

Posted: January 30, 2009
12:20 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

In the last election, 78% of Jews voted for Barack Obama.  Presumably, most of them support Israel.

I hope they're happy with what they got.  Speaking as one of the other 22%, I can assure you I'm not.

Ken Berwitz

What an interesting war is in progress between the CBS Early Show and NBC's Today Show.

Let's start with the obvious fact that, since these two shows are on at the same time and compete for the same audience, there is always a war of sorts between them. 

But in the last couple of weeks it has escalated significantly. 

Remember when Ann Coulter was suddenly dumped from a book-promoting appearance on the Today Show, because NBC didn't like her criticism of the network (as if this latest book was the first time she nailed NBC)?  The Early Show immediately contacted her and did an interview the next morning -- after which NBC suddenly had a change of heart and put her on the morning after that.

This, friends, was just round one.

Over the last couple of days, the Today Show has aired a series of warm-and-fuzzy stories about the octuplets who were born to a Los Angeles mother this week.  Evidently that didn't go over so well with the CBS Early Show crowd (presumably because the stories drew a segment of its already-meager viewership and delivered it to Today).

So CBS has reacted.  How?  By exposing the negative side of this Octuplet birth.  And, yes, there very definitely is a negative side.

Here are excerpts from the CBS article which, I'm sure, will show you what I'm talking about:

Octuplets' Family Filed For Bankruptcy

Source: Also Abandoned A House; L.A. Times: Mom Had Embryos Implanted; Ethicist Blasts Clinic That Did

BELLFLOWER, Calif., Jan. 30, 2009

Those octuplets don't sound as warmy and fuzzy now, do they? 

I'd call that round two.  I wonder will happen next -- and whether Good Morning America is going to get into the act. 

Stay tuned.

Ken Berwitz

Since I've characterized samantha power as anti-Israel, I would like to back it up. 

To do so, I have enlisted the help of Paul Mirengoff, one of the three key writers at www.powerlineblog.com. 

Here is an enumeration of reasons he selected (I assume there are more) - all of them fully referenced - which he wrote about last February 28th:

In a 2002 interview, Power advocated investing billions of dollars to impose a Palestinian state. That investment would include the insertion of a mammoth" and explicitly "military" force into the disputed territory. In her present capacity as an adviser to a presidential candidate, Power describes this approach as "weird."

Along the same "weird" lines, Power appears to support slashing, if not eliminating, military aid to Israel (an ally surrounded by 300 million people who wish to destroy her) and giving it to the Palestinians, whose charters (whether the Hamas or Fatah version) advocate the destruction of Israel. Thus, Power has spoken sympathetically about the notion of "alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import [American Jews] and sacrificing...billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine."

Power has blamed deference to Israel and the "special interests" that support Israel for the U.S. intervention in Iraq. She does so in the face of evidence that Israel had no particular desire that we overthrow Saddam Hussein, and actually viewed that enterprise as a distraction from the more serious threat posed by Iran.

In the same interview, Power also blamed Israel for the tactics the U.S. has used in Iraq. She stated that our alleged "deference" to Israel has caused us "to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive." Power did not state what she thinks these tactics were, but she seems to have had in mind the bombing of civilians which caused an international outcry. In any case, Power provided no evidence that Israel is to blame for whatever U.S. tactics she finds objectionable.

Still on the subject of Lebanon, Power has expressed outrage at the way Israel has treated the U.N.'s faux peacekeepers in South Lebanon, the ones who stood by while Hezbollah gained a dominant position and used it to commit aggression against Israel. In this connection, Power quotes (with no disapproval) the statement of Sergio Vieira De Mello, the subject of her hagiography, that the Israelis are "bastards." Power also attributes Israel's incursion into South Lebanon not to the terrorism launched against it from that area, but to the existence of dispossessed Palestinians and Israeli "insecurity."

Power criticized the New York Times, which had promoted the bogus Jenin "massacre" story, for attempting to set the record straight through a headline that said "Human Rights Reports Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin. Power thought the headline should have been about alleged "Israeli war crimes."

Any questions?

Ken Berwitz

This one, from www.littlegreenfootballs.com, is for the 78% of Jewish voters - most of them supporters of Israel, I presume - who voted for Barack Obama last November:

Fired Obama Adviser Hired by Obama

Politics | Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:06:32 pm PST

Anti-Israel “progressive” academic Samantha Power, who was forced to resign from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign last spring after calling Hillary Clinton “a monster,” is back out from under the bus. Campaign’s over, nobody’s left to fool with phony resignations and dismissals.

power is not alone, either.  She joins robert malley, another anti-Israel part of the Obama campaign who was forced out when his long history of anti-Israel activity came to light.  At that time the Obama people assured us that he never really had anything to do with Obama's campaign anyway (which was ludicrous on its face, but would you have really expected media to say so?  This is Obama we're talking about).  

Now, however, Mr. Obama is President.  So, presto-change-o:  malley and power are both part of the administration.

And the news media?  Are they on this story?  Well, as you can see, I got it from littlegreenfootballs.com - not the NY Times, or the network news shows, or....you get the idea.

I hope the 78% are happy with what they put into the White House.  As one of the 22% who voted against Obama, I can assure you I'm not.

Ken Berwitz

Sorry for that title; I don't know how to put up a heart symbol.  But you get the idea.

Fox must love Obama.  Because since he became President its ratings, already the highest in cable news, have flown upwards.

Here are the latest data, from www.drudgereport.com - which got them from Neilsen media research:

OBAMA BOOM AT FOXNEWS... RATINGS SOAR... NIGHT OF 1/28/09... VIEWERS...

FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,891,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,034,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,306,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,299,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,155,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,581,000
CNN COOPER 1,559,000
CNN BLITZER 1,490,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,435,000
CNN KING 1,420,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,398,000

As you can see, every Fox show beats every other show.  First there is Fox, then there is et cetera.

If I were Roger Ailes, the guy who runs Fox, I'd treat Barack Obama to a steak dinner. 

Wagyu steak, of course.

 Ken Berwitz

This beautiful, poignant letter was sent to me by my sister, and is shown in its entirety below.  Despite its accompanying e-mail address, I cannot know for sure that it was written by a real soldier.  But what it says rings so true and so important that, frankly, it doesn't matter.

Here it is:

An Open Letter to A citizen Of Gaza:
I Am the Soldier Who Slept In Your Home:
By: Yishai G (reserve soldier)
ygoldflam@gmail.com
[Originally published in Hebrew in Maariv]

Hello,

While the world watches the ruins in Gaza, you return to your home which remains standing. However, I am sure that it is clear to you that someone was in your home while you were away.

I am that someone.

I spent long hours imagining how you would react when you walked into your home. How you would feel when you understood that IDF soldiers had slept on your mattresses and used your blankets to keep warm.

I knew that it would make you angry and sad and that you would feel this violation of the most intimate areas of your life by those defined as your enemies, with stinging humiliation. I am convinced that you hate me with unbridled hatred, and you do not have even the tiniest desire to hear what I have to say. At the same time, it is important for me to say the following in the hope that there is even the minutest chance that you will hear me.

I spent many days in your home. You and your family's presence was felt in every corner. I saw your family portraits on the wall, and I thought of my family. I saw your wife's perfume bottles on the bureau, and I thought of my wife. I saw your children's toys and their English language schoolbooks. I saw your personal computer and how you set up the modem and wireless phone next to the screen, just as I do.

I wanted you to know that despite the immense disorder you found in your  house that was created during a search for explosives and tunnels (which were indeed found in other homes), we did our best to treat your possessions with respect. When I moved the computer table, I disconnected the cables and lay them down neatly on the floor, as I would do with my own computer. I even covered the computer from dust with a piece of cloth. I tried to put back the clothes that fell when we moved the closet although not the same as you would have done, but at least in such a way that nothing would get lost.

I know that the devastation, the bullet holes in your walls and the destruction of those homes near you place my descriptions in a ridiculous light. Still, I need you to understand me, us, and hope that you will channel your anger and criticism to the right places.

I decided to write you this letter specifically because I stayed in your home.

I can surmise that you are intelligent and educated and there are those in your household that are university students. Your children learn English, and you are connected to the Internet. You are not ignorant; you know what is going on around you.

Therefore, I am sure you know that Qassam rockets were launched from your neighborhood into Israeli towns and cities.

How could you see these weekly launches and not think that one day we would say "enough"?! Did you ever consider that it is perhaps wrong to  launch rockets at innocent civilians trying to lead a normal life, much like you? How long did you think we would sit back without reacting?

I can hear you saying "it's not me, it's Hamas". My intuition tells me you are not their most avid supporter. If you look closely at the sad reality in which your people live, and you do not try to deceive yourself or make excuses about "occupation", you must certainly reach the conclusion that the Hamas is your real enemy.

The reality is so simple, even a seven year old can understand: Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip, removing military bases and its citizens from Gush Katif. Nonetheless, we continued to provide you with electricity, water, and goods (and this I know very well as during my reserve duty I guarded the border crossings more than once, and witnessed hundreds of trucks full of goods entering a blockade-free Gaza every day).

Despite all this, for reasons that cannot be understood and with a lack of any rational logic, Hamas launched missiles on Israeli towns. For three years we clenched our teeth and restrained ourselves. In the end, we could not take it anymore and entered the Gaza strip, into your neighborhood, in order to remove those who want to kill us. A reality that is painful but very easy to explain.

As soon as you agree with me that Hamas is your enemy and because of them, your people are miserable, you will also understand that the change must come from within. I am acutely aware of the fact that what I say is easier to write than to do, but I do not see any other way. You, who are connected to the world and concerned about your children's education, must lead, together with your friends, a civil uprising against Hamas.

I swear to you, that if the citizens of Gaza were busy paving roads, building schools, opening factories and cultural institutions instead of dwelling in self pity, arms smuggling and nurturing a hatred to your Israeli neighbors, your homes would not be in ruins right now. If your leaders were not corrupt and motivated by hatred, your home would not have been harmed.   If someone would have stood up and shouted that there is no point in launching missiles on innocent civilians, I would not have to stand in your kitchen as a soldier.

You don't have money, you tell me? You have more than you can imagine.

Even before Hamas took control of Gaza, during the time of Yasser Arafat, millions if not billions of dollars donated by the world community to the Palestinians was used for purchasing arms or taken directly to your leaders bank accounts. Gulf States, the emirates - your brothers, your flesh and blood, are some of the richest nations in the world. If there was even a small feeling of solidarity between Arab nations, if these nations had but the smallest interest in reconstructing the Palestinian people - your situation would be very different.

You must be familiar with Singapore. The land mass there is not much larger than the Gaza strip and it is considered to be the second most populated country in the world. Yet, Singapore is a successful, prospering, and well managed country. Why not the same for you?

My friend, I would like to call you by name, but I will not do so publicly. I want you to know that I am 100% at peace with what my country did, what my army did, and what I did. However, I feel your pain. I am sorry for the destruction you are finding in your neighborhood at this moment. On a personal level, I did what I could to minimize the damage to your home as much as possible.

In my opinion, we have a lot more in common than you might imagine. I am a civilian, not a soldier, and in my private life I have nothing to do with the military. However, I have an obligation to leave my home, put on a uniform, and protect my family every time we are attacked. I have no desire to be in your home wearing a uniform again and I would be more than happy to sit with you as a guest on your beautiful balcony, drinking sweet tea seasoned with the sage growing in your garden.

The only person who could make that dream a reality is you. Take responsibility for yourself, your family, your people, and start to take control of your destiny. How? I do not know. Maybe there is something to be learned from the Jewish people who rose up from the most destructive human tragedy of the 20th century, and instead of sinking into self-pity, built a flourishing and prospering country. It is possible, and it is in your hands.

I am ready to be there to provide a shoulder of support and help to you.

But only you can move the wheels of history."

Regards,
Yishai, (Reserve Soldier)

.

Ken Berwitz

Here, from Victoria McGrane of www.politico.com, is John Kerry's position on two-party government.  As you read it, remember that he could have been President..

Kerry: Ignore Republicans if they'll vote no anyway By VICTORIA MCGRANE | 1/29/09 12:51 PM EST  Updated: 1/29/09 4:20 PM

Sen. John Kerry says Democrats should ignore Republicans' demands about the stimulus plan if they're going to vote against it anyway. Reacting to Wednesday night's vote in the House - where not a single GOP member supported the stimulus package - Kerry told Politico that "if Republicans aren't prepared to vote for it, I don't think we should be giving up things, where I think the money can be spent more effectively." "If they're not going to vote for it, let's go with a plan that we think is going to work." The Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate suggested tossing some of the tax provisions in the stimulus that the GOP requested. "Those aren't job creators immediately, and even in the longer term they're not necessarily. We've seen that policy for the last eight years," he said.  Although Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) voted in favor of the tax provisions in the stimulus plan that cleared that Senate Finance Committee, it's not clear whether she or other Republican senators will support the package when it gets to the Senate floor. "We'll see what evolves in the next hours," Kerry said. Meanwhile, Kerry - who once served on the Senate Banking Committee - believes lawmakers need to move quickly to establish a "comprehensive" plan to deal with the ongoing instability in the financial system, restoring banks to solvency, getting toxic assets off their books and halting the wave of foreclosures that threatens to create even more toxic assets. "We've got to think of this holistically and not piecemeal - and that the sooner, the faster we get at the root causes, the more impact we're going to have at turning it around," he said. Kerry's preference is to have the Federal Reserve set up a program requiring banks to write down these toxic assets to their true value. Where the value is unknown, the banks should write them down to zero, he said. In exchange for this, the Fed would recapitalize the banks, Kerry said. Other lawmakers are pushing the idea of creating a so-called bad bank, a separate entity that would purchase the toxic assets from financial institutions, freeing the system of their burden. Kerry would not oppose such a plan but believes it would lead to the government overpaying for some assets. While Kerry believes the Fed could pay for recapitalizing the banks by selling debt rather than asking Congress for more money, he also predicts the Obama administration will be coming for more taxpayer money sooner or later as it fights to save the economy. "I believe it's inevitable," he said.

There you have it.  The government should essentially take over the banks, then raise your taxes.  And if Republicans don't like it, if they have alternative ideas?  Who cares - just ignore them. 

This is one-party government at its finest, folks.  And we, the voters, inflicted it on ourselves. 

We have two years to realize the damage we've done.

Ken Berwitz

MSNBC's on air "talent" has a near-pathological obsession with Fox News, often deriding its claim of being fair and balanced.

With that in mind, I would like to show you the transcript of a segment from Norah O'Donnell's afternoon show yesterday, with guests John Feehery and Morris Reid.  See how you think they make out in the fair and balanced category:

NORAH O'DONNELL: Also, some news today about former Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. Because she's actually headed to Washington this weekend. That's right, she says she's going to lobby for some stimulus funds for her home state of Alaska. But perhaps, more interesting, is that she is slate to attend a high profile dinner where she could run into President Obama. That's right. There's also big questions about whether she is setting her sights on a White House run in 2012?

SARAH PALIN: No. Not at all. Not at all. No. But now we'll have an available source of funds so that we're not coming close to any ethical line.

O'DONNELL: Joining us now is Democratic strategist Morris Reid and Republican strategist John Feehery. Alright, great to have both of you on. What about this, John? Sarah Palin is coming to D.C. she ran as a maverick this whole campaign, wanted nothing to do with people in Washington, the anti-establishment candidate, and now she's coming to the most exclusive dinner in Washington, to hobnob with perhaps the president, ambassadors, senators, all the people she derided during the campaign. What's up with that?

JOHN FEEHERY: I can't wait, Norah. What excitement for everybody.

[ O'DONNELL LAUGHS]

FEEHERY: You know, the big news is she didn't get $11 million for that book contract. I think that's the thing that people are really worried about. That's a lot of money for a book contract and she didn't get it. So that's good news. You know, Norah, on this whole thing on the Gridiron or Alfalfa, whichever club this is-

O'DONNELL: Alfalfa.

FEEHREY: You know, if she didn't come in and she was invited, that would be a controversy, too. Sarah Palin makes news wherever she goes. And that's the part of Sarah Palin that you all love about her.

O'DONNELL: Well, I want to play what she said yesterday. Because she did talk to reporters for about eight minutes. Specifically, it's the second sound bite we have here and it is about this dinner. Because she was asked if, in fact, she was heading to this dinner. And the reason it's interesting is because her staff denied to reporters, like myself, that she was actually going to this dinner. And then, she came out and revealed it. Listen to what she had to say about why she wanted to come here to Washington for this dinner.

PALIN: Alfalfa dinner, yes. In fact, that's because President Obama is scheduled to be there. And how often will I have an opportunity to have dinner with the president. I will take up that offer to do so, yeah.

O'DONNELL: Morris, didn't she call him a terrorist on the campaign trail?

MORRIS REID: Well, I think she called him a terrorist among other things. But listen, the woman's hungry. She's got to eat, Norah. We got to feed the woman, don't we.

[ O'DONNELL LAUGHS LOUDLY THROUGHOUT]

REID: You know, she lives in public housing, we got to feed her on the public doll. She got a bridge to nowhere. We love Sarah Palin on the Democratic side. We can't get enough of her.

FEEHREY: You know, Norah, there's nothing like having dinner with 2,000 of your closest friends and the president. So it's going to be a small intimate dinner.

O'DONNELL: However, it is not 2,000 people.

REID: I think -- I don't think she knew -- I think she -- Norah, I think she thought it was just her, and Buckwheat, and Alfalfa, with the president at dinner. She's just clueless, it's ridiculous.

O'DONNELL: Well, she is meeting also with a number of senators, including the Republican leader in the Senate Mitch McConnell, as well as, I think, some -- Senator Snow, there's going to be a private dinner for her at Fred Malik's house. So she is doing a little bit of courting. Many people think that could mean she's gearing up for 2012. Morris Reid, John Feehery, great to talk to both of you. Thanks so much.

Those sarcasms, personal insults and lies were from O'Donnell, who clearly hates Sarah Palin's guts (thus is a middle-of-the-roader at MSNBC) and Reid, who was happy to jump on the insult/lie bandwagon and do a 2-on-1 against the Republican.

For the record, Sarah Palin never called Barack Obama a terrorist.  She said he "palled around" with terrorists (what do you call william ayers and bernardine dohrn?  How many bombs did they have to set off at US government and military installations before they earned the title?).  That was either ignorance or dishonesty.

And if a Republican ever tossed in that "Buckwheat" reference for an event in Washington DC, he/she would be tagged as a racist in two seconds flat.  

Ken Berwitz

You know you're dealing with Fox derangement syndrome when someone who hates Fox realizes it is the single most balanced cable news venue - and then insults the network anyway.

Here is "kos (Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of www.dailykos.com) complaining that Republicans are getting too much coverage on the cable networks compared to Democrats.  But please note the passage I've put in bold print:

Networks abet continued GOP dominance of the airways

I can't speak for that chart's accuracy.  But if "kos" thinks it is correct, then he has to conclude that Fox is providing the most balanced coverage of the cable news networks. 

And he does. 

So why, if Fox is the only one giving Democrats a fair shake, does he then have to insult the network with that childish, whiney sarcasm?  Why not just admit what is in front of his eyes and let it go at that?

It's FDS.  An advanced case.  

Ken Berwitz

This bizarre little story, which comes to us from CBS4 Denver, is about  Mayor John Hickenloopey...er, looper and the connection he seems to be making between homelessness and pajamas (????):

Hickenlooper Wears PJs To Fight Homelessness

DENVER (AP) ― Denver's mayor and workers at about a dozen businesses are wearing pajamas to work Thursday to raise awareness about homelessness.

The city is holding what it calls "PJ Day," a day to wear fuzzy slippers or pajamas to raise attention to homelessness.

Mayor John Hickenlooper is attending a pajama party later Thursday to raise money for Denver's Road Home charity. The party includes a bedtime story read by the mayor himself.

Hickenlooper says the charity event will raise $500,000 for homelessness prevention. Denver's mayor and workers at about a dozen businesses are wearing pajamas to work Thursday to raise awareness about homelessness.

Pajamas and a bedtime story to prevent homelessness? 

Tell you what:  the next time you're walking down the street and see a homeless person in pj's and slippers, do let me know.

And definitely tell me if Hickenloopey ever decides to do a fundraiser on safe sex.  You bring the chips; I'll bring the camera.

Ken Berwitz

Michelle Malkin is angry about Barack Obama's dinner last night.

But before you shake your head in bewilderment or disgust that she would care about something so trivial, please read why:

Seems to me, she's got a point.  Wouldn't you say?

Look, I'm not in love with jumping on Mr. Obama for something like this so early in his administration.  But, dammit, where is his brain?  What is he thinking?  The country is hovering between recession and depression, and he's using our tax money for $100-a-serving steak dinners?

That's what mugabe would do in Zimbabwe.  That's what tinhorn dictators do. 

I guess you can take the politician out of Chicago, but you can't take Chicago out of the politician.

Besides, I'll bet Sasha and Malia would have preferred McDonald's happy meals over wagyu steak 100 times out of 100.  And you can get those for only a few bucks - drink and fries included.

Ken Berwitz

Everyone knows we tortured those poor innocent souls at Guantanamo.

We did, didn't we?  One of them was put on a leash like a dog.  Another one was told to cavort around naked.  One of them had women's panties on his head.  And in all of three instances, inmates were subjected to "waterboarding", which scares the excrement out of them but doesn't put them in any physical jeopardy.

Oh, the humanity!

People all around the world revile and despise us for these depraved acts.  (Except maybe at college fraternities, where this is called hazing).

Now that we've discussed Guantanamo, I'd like to show you a story from www.frontpagemag.com, written by Mxolisi Ncube, a Zimbabwean exile living in neighboring South Africa.  It talks about the torture suffered at the hands of robert mugabe's thugs. 

Here it is.  See if you can find any difference between Zimbabwe and Guantanamo:

Johannesburg – Zimbabwe ’s President Robert Mugabe has been on the warpath since the formation of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party in 1999. Mugabe alleges the group is a Western front aimed at toppling him. Key among Mugabe’s strategies to decimate MDC has been the deployment of state security agents to brutalize and torture opposition officials, journalists and civil rights activists.

In her affidavit to the Harare High Court late last month, abducted and now incarcerated human rights defender Jestina Mukoko, 54, describes her first 19 days in the hands of state security agents last December as hell. On December 1, 2008, Mukoko was seized at gunpoint from her home in the dormitory town of Norton, 40 kilometers west of Harare, by 15 armed men suspected to be members of the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO), Mugabe’s main torture machine.

Like those arrested before her, the former newscaster for the government-controlled Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC), who is currently the national director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project (ZPP), is facing charges of plotting to topple Mugabe. She recounts that she was blindfolded, beaten, and denied medication, while being forced to confess before television cameras that she had sent people to neighboring Botswana to train as bandits who would later remove Mugabe from power.

I was tortured. At first I was assaulted under my feet with a rubber-like object while seated on the floor. Later I was asked to raise my feet on a table and the other people in the room started to assault me...and that lasted at least five minutes. They took a break and then continued with the beatings after a few hours. They were all visibly drunk and some had bottles of liquor.

After continuing to deny the charges, she said, “I was ordered to pull up my clothes and kneel on the gravel. The interrogation continued while I was lying on the gravel."

Emmanuel Chris Dhlamini, the MDC director of security, also among the 32 alleged plotters of acts of banditry, was abducted in Harare on November 25 by six armed men. They shoved him into the back seat of a small black car – blindfolded and handcuffed from the back, and took him to a bushy area, where he was tortured.

“I was told to lie on my stomach, with my hands now cuffed in front, and I was severely assaulted by many individuals who took turns to beat me on my back and all over my body non-stop,” says Dhlamini. “The soles of my feet were also beaten with hard objects - falanga style.”

His captors told him to say something about who was paying the bandits, and how and where the training was being conducted. Later, they shifted the subject of the interrogation and started questioning him on alleged bombings of police stations. Again he denied any knowledge. He recounts how his torture continued:

I then, still blindfolded, had my legs tied together, my hands were cuffed behind my back, and I was suspended from a considerable height. The first time I was hung upright and subjected to further assaults, including further beatings on the soles of my feet. If I did not provide information, I would hear something like a tin with stones in it being swung round and round making a lot of noise, before I was assaulted with this all over my body. The second time I was hung upside down, and fell or was dropped from this height to the ground, sustaining injuries on my upper forehead and below my nose. I was bleeding profusely over my face and shirt. This, together with the severity of the assaults, led me to lose consciousness at least twice. Each time, I was revived by a woman (I could see a little underneath my blindfold, which had been loosened when I fell to the ground) who would spray water on my face.

He was then taken to a cell for some time where he was left alone.  Dhlamini says he was told to repeat the information about the alleged training which he had supplied when they interrogated him in the field. Sometimes he would be told direct statements to add to his so-called confession while on camera, including implicating MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

“After I was filmed, I was hurriedly removed from the room, and heard that the individuals were in a rush to finish the video as it had to be taken for use at the talks (between ZANU PF and MDC) in South Africa,” he said.

Dhlamini says the following day, which he believed was November 30, he was again blindfolded and taken to a large outdoor cement sink.

“I was lifted up and my head was submerged in the sink and held there for long periods by someone, in a mock drowning...This mock drowning went on and on, until I felt that I was on the verge of dying.” The mock drowning went on even during times he admitted to having committed the bombing incidents. After those ordeals, he was returned to his cell where he remained in solitary confinement until December 22, 2008.

There he was nearly starved to death. “Each day, I was given a 2-litre bottle of water which I was told was my breakfast and lunch. Each afternoon at around 16:00 hours, I was given a small plate of plain pap.”

On December 22, he was taken to Hatfield Police Station where a police officer identified as Assistant Inspector Mudarichira took custody of him while he was still blindfolded. The following day, he was taken to Harare Central Police’s Homicide section where a statement was recorded from him on the alleged bombing of police stations.

Ishmael Kauzani and Solomon Chikohwero, tortured in 2000, say that the same methods were used on them and other MDC activists and human rights defenders, the less fortunate of whom have been found dead. Some of those who have died have been found strangled with shoe laces, riddled with bullets, decapitated or drowned in dams.

With the power-sharing agreement signed between Zimbabwe’s rival political parties on September 15 looking certain to fail, these gross human rights violations are set to continue.

African leaders are doing very little to help in the Zimbabwean crisis by failing to condemn the 84-year-old Mugabe, who boasts that they are not brave enough to challenge his legitimacy. He may be right; cruelty alone may be enough to keep him in power.

Ken Berwitz

This story, from US News, via www.littlegreenfootballs.com, needs nothing at all from me.  It speaks for itself.  Eloquently:

'Innocent' Gitmo Detainee Suddenly Becomes Jihadi Warrior

US News | Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:29:25 am PST

When Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi was imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, he loudly, continually protested his innocence. He claimed he was on his way to Pakistan to help refugees, out of the kindness of his heart.

Now that he’s resurfaced in Yemen as an Al Qaeda fighter, suddenly his story has changed: Former Gitmo Detainee Hailed as ‘Fomenter of War’.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico —  Before he was released from Guantanamo, a Saudi detainee insisted he had only wanted to help refugees and was not a fighter. Now, as an Al Qaeda field commander sporting a bandolier of bullets, he is threatening the United States and has been hailed by a militant Web site as a veteran guerrilla and “a fomenter of war.”

The story of Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi underscores the dilemma Barack Obama’s administration finds itself in: Keeping men locked up without trials invites global criticism but releasing them without a fair and diligent process to distinguish enemies from noncombatants exposes the U.S. and its allies to danger. It also shows how hard it is to separate truth from lies.

“Hard to separate truth from lies?” Oh yeah, it’s incredibly difficult. Who would have imagined that Islamic terrorists might actually lie?

.

Ken Berwitz

The Las Vegas Star-Tribune is running a piece by Bill Wilson today. 

It is pretty clear that Mr. Wilson is not a fan of hapless harry reid (as you can tell by that nickname and the fact that I don't capitalize his name, neither am I).  So the question becomes whether we have good reasons for feeling as we do. 

Well, read what Mr. Wilson has to say and judge for yourself.  The bold print is mine:

Harry Reid's dictatorship of bad ideas

By BILL WILSON
SPECIAL TO THE REVIEW-JOURNAL

This, of course, is the same hapless harry reid who, on April 19, 2007, declared that the war in Iraq was lost.  Do I exaggerate?  His exact words were:

''I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense, and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - [know] this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,''

We have seen almost nothing but success in Iraq since then.

And this is also the harry reid who complained that tourists who visit the Capitol smell.  No joke, no exaggeration.  His exact words were:

"My staff tells me not to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway," said Reid in his remarks. In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it's true."

It is bad enough that we have a loser-mentality, insulting idiot as senate majority leader.  Does he have to be a dictator too?

If we had a media that cared one bit about neutral reporting or the value of a two-party system, this joke on legs would continually be exposed for what he is.  But we don't - not when Democrats are running the show -  so he isn't. 

Thank you Bill Wilson for the breath of fresh air.

Ken Berwitz

NOTE:  This blog was originally posted two days ago.  A few moments ago,  while trying to do something else, I accidentally erased it.  So I'm putting it up again now.  Sorry about that.

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

Weeks ago, when the bernard madoff scandal broke, I wrote that it did more for anti-Semitism than 100 david dukes could do in their entire lifetimes. 

The reason was that it confirmed just about every anti-Semitic stereotype of a Jew there was - right down to madoff's rich Jewish clients and his lawyer talking a brain-dead judge into letting him be under "house arrest" in his luxurious multi-million dollar Park Avenue condo; a condo which, no doubt, was paid for with the money he stole. 

Plus, as an extra added disgrace, madoff's wife, brother and children, all of them completely involved in his businesses, are walking free.

What a treasure trove for Jew-haters!

Well, here are excerpts from an investigative report written by Raquel Rutledge of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, that "confirm" every negative stereotype a hater of Black people could ever come up with.  The women in this article, aside from being morally and ethically nonexistent, are every kkk recruiter's wet dream and then some. 

Read Ms. Rutledge's findings below - and keep a barf bag handy, because you might need it:

Sisters get $540,000 from state mostly for watching each other's kids, and it's perfectly legal

By Raquel Rutledge of the Journal Sentinel

The two-story house on 17th St. looks typical of the working-class homes on Racine’s west side. Three bedrooms, one bath. Assessed by the city at $122,000.

Yet inside, a young woman has tapped into a home-based money-making operation that netted her and her three sisters more than half a million in taxpayer dollars since 2006.

And they did it with the blessing of the state.

All four had been in-home child-care providers. Collectively they have 17 children. For years, the government has paid them to stay home and care for each other's children.

Nothing illegal about it under the rules of Wisconsin Shares, the decade-old child-care assistance program designed alongside Wisconsin's welfare-to-work program.

"It's a loophole," said Laurice Lincoln, administrative coordinator for child care with the Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services. "Do we have concerns about it? Yes, it can be a problem. But if it's allowed, it's allowed. We really can't dispute it."

The Journal Sentinel spent four months investigating the $340 million taxpayer-supported program and uncovered an array of costly problems - including fraud. But the investigation also revealed a system rife with lax regulations that have paved the way for abuse by parents and providers.

Consider:

• Sisters or other relatives can stay home, swap kids and receive taxpayer dollars. The four Racine sisters took in as much as $540,000 in taxpayer dollars in less than three years, mostly to watch each other's kids.

• Rules allow parents to be employed by child-care providers and enroll their children at the same place. At some centers, children of employees make up the majority of kids in day care. In one Milwaukee location, an employer and parents are accused of teaming up to bilk the system out of more than $360,000.

• Child-care subsidy recipients have been allowed to work for almost any type of business. Payments were made when moms claimed to work ironing a man's shirts, drying fruit and selling artwork they made during art class.

• The government pays for child care while parents sleep. Counties have no way to monitor whether parents are actually sleeping while their kids are in day care.

"We're not being good stewards of taxpayer dollars," said state Rep. Robin Vos (R-Racine) who introduced legislation in 2007 to try to crack down on child-care related fraud. "We have a system where there's a whole lot of finger-pointing going on and in between, a whole lot of fraud happens."

The state published new rules in November - a month after the Journal Sentinel began asking questions - yet three of the five counties with the majority of Wisconsin Shares cases were unaware of the new requirements until contacted by the newspaper.

Caring for family

Torneshia Simmons, a 28-year-old single mother of five, sat at her dining room table at her 17th St. house in December surrounded by her children - all under the age of 9. The younger ones climbed on her and tried to snatch the hat off her head as she explained how she and her three sisters have been caring for each other's kids for years.

"I've been doing child care for my family since I was like 14," she said. "I've been watching their kids before I had kids, after I had kids . . . I've been watching all my friends and family's kids."

Simmons first became an approved provider and received Wisconsin Shares money in 2002. Her sister Shanta McKinney first received child-care subsidies in 2003. Other sisters Tumina Ransom and Temeshe Brown got into the business in 2006 and 2007, according to state regulators.

For a while, Simmons took care of Ransom's and Brown's kids, she said. Then last summer her 2-year-old son was found wandering around outside unsupervised. The county shut down her child-care operation.

She said she now has another job that keeps her qualified for government-supported child care.

But when asked for details about her work, the answers got fuzzy.

First she said she worked at a clothing store called Get Fitted, Family Owned on Washington Ave. She said she worked second and third shift. A few minutes later she said she worked part time and the store was simply called Family Owned.

It's unclear what she would be doing working third shift at a retail clothing store.

And when the Journal Sentinel contacted the co-owner of Get Fitted, Carey Collins, he said Torneshia Simmons doesn't work there and never has. He didn't recognize Simmons' name. And his store closes at 8 p.m.

The Journal Sentinel could find no record of a clothing store called Family Owned. The Racine Area Manufacturers and Commerce and the state Department of Financial Institutions couldn't either. Simmons didn't list an address or phone number on documents filed with Racine County. Nor did the documents contain a federal tax identification number - all facts that should have raised the suspicion of Racine county workers.

Yet workers approved funding for Simmons' kids to be in her sisters' care 75 hours per week, costing taxpayers a weekly total of $1,283.

Simmons, who filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2007, claims her children now go from McKinney's Racine house to Brown's house in Kenosha at about 11 p.m. McKinney, who has three young children of her own, and Brown, who has five, drop off or pick up the kids, she said.

But rules prevent providers from caring for more than six children at a time - depending on their ages - so for Brown to care for Simmons' five children, she would have to take her own kids elsewhere at 11 p.m.

Documents show Ransom is authorized to take care of Brown's kids.

Ransom, McKinney and Brown declined to comment or didn't respond to attempts to contact them.

Simmons said she's not concerned that the arrangement could interfere with her children's sleep. They go to bed whenever they want anyway - usually around 11:30 p.m. or midnight, she said.

State officials say such a situation is out of their control.

"Even though it might not appear to be in the best interest of the children, we don't have any authority to regulate that," said Jim Bates, a program analyst for Wisconsin Shares.

The government spends $66,716 a year on child care for Simmons' kids. That's 75% more than the average Wisconsin worker earned in 2007.

The full extent of the caregiving relationships is unclear in records, but it appears the sisters frequently change the arrangements.

If you asked a group of stone cold racists - real kkk types - to assess Black people, virtually every stereotype they would come up with is embodied here.  Four women with 17 children, no husband in sight, no skills, no jobs, wholly reliant on taxpayers for everything --- and they concocted a way to "earn" a half million more taxpayer dollars by watching each other's kids instead of their own. 

Add in a welfare system that shrugs and says "gee, we don't know what to do about this", and you've got that wet dream I mentioned earlier.

"Congratulations" to tomeshia, shanta, tumina and temeshe.  Even after we elect a Black President, it is people like you who can reharden every stereotype and set racial equality back another generation.

Ken Berwitz

The following comes to us from an obviously grudging New York Times, via a justifiably bitter Steve Gilbert at www.sweetness-light.com:

They Are Voting In Iraq – Anybody Notice?

January 28th, 2009

Amazing, isn't it?  When things were going badly in Iraq media - most definitely including the New York Times - couldn't wait to fill their front pages and lead stories with it.

But now that our actions there have resulted in a budding democracy, which is currently engaged in free elections that are virtually unheard of anywhere else in the region (except for Afghanistan, President Bush's other military action)?  It is barely news at all.

If the New York Times had applied this standard to VE Day, it would have been lucky to make the news section.

What a disgrace.  What unbelievable anti-Bush, anti-US bias.

Ken Berwitz

Dick Armey, Republican, is the former Texas congressman and majority leader of the house.

Joan Walsh, most assuredly not a Republican, is editor-in-chief of the leftward web site www.salon.com.

You might wonder how these two would interact if they were put together on the same show.

Well, wonder no more.  Here is a transcript, courtesy of Mark Finkelstein at www.newsbusters.org, that should give you the answer:

'I'm So Damn Glad You Could Never Be My Wife'

Wow.  Maybe they should have renamed last night's Hardball show "The Bickersons Go Cable".

I don't know about you, but I would love to see these two on a regular basis.  It would certainly be better than watching Rachel Maddow and every like-minded guest of hers (which is to say virtually every guest she has) nod agreement and smirk at each other.

Ken Berwitz

When he was President, George Bush was once ridiculed as an idiot for trying to open a door that turned out to be locked. 

But at least he knew it was a door.

Now we have Barack Obama trying to walk through what he apparently thought was a door.  But it was not a door, locked or otherwise.  It was a window. 

And while I grant you he's only lived there for a week, this occurred not in some foreign embassy or exotic locale, but at his residence - otherwise known as the White House.

Here are the particulars, from The New York Daily News:

Hey Bam, that's not the door!

By LIISA O'NEILL
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, January 28th 2009, 3:07 PM

Brack/Pool

Obama approaches a window of the Oval Office, instead of the door, shown to the right.

Dharapak/AP

Bush tries to open a locked door.

It looks like President Obama hasn't gotten acquainted to his White House surroundings. On the way back to the Oval Office Tuesday, the President approached a paned window, instead of the actual door -- located a few feet to his right.

Doors didn't open automatically for Obama’s predecessor either. While making a hasty exit from a 2005 press conference in Beijing, former President George W. Bush tugged on the handles of a door, only to find it locked.

Bush laughed off the blunder, but the pictures still live on as part of Bush's lame duck legacy. However, there was little note taken of Obama's rookie mistake.

Obama, who was returning from meeting with Congressional leaders, may have been distracted by Republicans' icy reception to his $825 billion stimulus package, which is poised to pass on Wednesday even without a groundswell of Republican support.

 

So, do you think Mr. Obama will be portrayed as an idiot for this, as George Bush was when he tried to open a locked door? 

 

Don't bet on it.

Oh, by the way, don't you love that amazing little disclaimer at the end of the story?  The reason Barack Obama almost walked through a window is....because those rascally Republicans distracted him.  And how did they do it?  Why, they had an "icy reception" to legislation he and his party are proposing.

Using that logic, Democrats are directly responsible for everything that George Bush did wrong for 8 years.

Ken Berwitz

So far today you have gotten my initial comments about the Democrats' "stimulus package", and then a far more detailed account. via the first half of Jeff Jacoby's two-part piece on how impossibly bad it is.

Well, I just read the Wall Street Journal's writeup.  And so far, it is the most comprehensive - and devastating - of them all:

A 40-Year Wish List

You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

AP

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.

This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.

What a pathetic joke.  How contemptuous President Obama, his Democratic majority and his media butt-boys must be of the people, to think they can make fools of us with this phony "stimulus".

But, tragically, they can, and will make fools of some of us.  Maybe enough to push this insultingly ridiculous legislation through - after which every success will be credited to Obama, while every failure will be placed on the retroactive Bush ledger sheet.

We are in for some bad times, folks.  And this "stimulus package" is the blueprint for them.

Ken Berwitz

Remember that truce?  The one which took hold after years of bombings from Gaza finally provoked Israel to go in and destroy as many smuggling tunnels as they could find, along with much of what passes for infrastructure there?

Well, here, courtesy of www.mywaynews.com, is how things are currently working out.  The bold print is mine:

Israeli warplanes pound Gaza smuggling tunnels
Jan 28, 6:37 AM (ET)

By STEVE WEIZMAN

Ken Berwitz

You don't need any explanation from me on this one.  Here it is, from the Indo-Asian News Service, via www.yahoo.com:

Protests against 'Slumdog Millionaire' continue in Bihar capital

I would hope that India's slumdwellers can find something more productive to do than protest the use of a colloquial adjective in a movie title.  But apparently at least some of these folks cannot.

Maybe they can come up with a better use of their time soon. 

Ken Berwitz

In the previous blog I promised a series detailing elements of the "stimulus package" foisted on us by President Obama and his merry cadre of majority-Democrats in both houses.  But maybe I don't need to do this after all. 

Jeff Jacoby, the wonderful columnist of the Boston Globe (owned by the New York Times, so it is a wonder they let him write there), is doing this in two parts, the first of which is in today's edition.  You can read it below -- and please pay special attention to the paragraph I've put in bold print:

An over-optimistic stimulus plan

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
January 28, 2009

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/3256/an-over-optimistic-stimulus-plan

First of two columns

RONALD REAGAN loved to tell the story of the unfailingly cheerful little boy who wakes up on Christmas morning to find, instead of presents, an immense pile of manure. Undaunted, he grabs a shovel and starts digging. “With all this manure,” he says excitedly, “there must be a pony in here someplace!”

Is there a pony somewhere in the $825 billion “stimulus” plan that Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives hope to bring to a vote today? Last week, the Congressional Budget Office started digging into this immense pile of -- uh, deficit spending, and what it found would discourage even a Reagan-caliber optimist.

According to the CBO, less than half of the $355 billion the bill allocates to infrastructure and other “discretionary” projects would actually be spent by the end of 2010; of that, a mere $26 billion would be spent in the current fiscal year. “The rest would come in future years,” the Washington Post reported, “long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended.” (After Congressional Democrats expressed displeasure with the CBO’s findings, the report was mysterious yanked off the internet. A new version appeared yesterday with -- presto! -- numbers more to the Democrats’ liking.)

Wasn’t the whole point of turbocharging this stimulus bill -- recall that President Obama had originally hoped it would be ready for his signature on Inauguration Day -- that there is no time to waste in pumping these funds into the economy? “If we do not act boldly and swiftly,” the president warned in his weekly address on Saturday, “a bad situation could become dramatically worse.”

Yet of the $30 billion the House bill allots for highway projects, less than $4 billion would be spent before 2011, according to the CBO’s original calculcations. Of $18.5 billion earmarked for renewable energy, less than $3 billion would make it through the pipeline within two years. Of $14 billion for school construction, only half would be used by the end of next year. The administration claims that vast fiscal intervention is urgently required to “save or create” as many as 4 million jobs by the end of next year. Even if you buy the Keynesian argument that mammoth deficit spending will jump-start economic growth, it’s tough to see how it does so by the end of next year if most of the outlays only occur thereafter.

In truth there are compelling reasons not to buy the whole spending-equals-stimulus line of reasoning. Echoing Richard Nixon, Time magazine recently proclaimed that “we all really do seem to be Keynesians now” and that “just about every expert agrees that pumping $1 trillion into a moribund economy” is the way to “rev up” aggregate demand and stimulate economic activity. Time clearly didn’t check with George Mason University economist Russell Roberts, who wrote on Monday: “As far as I know, no prominent market-oriented economist has come out in favor of a trillion-dollar increase in government spending as a way to improve the economy.”

One such prominent market-oriented economist, Nobel laureate Gary Becker, wrote last week that some of the spending projects in the Democratic stimulus plan “may be very worthwhile . . . but however merited, it is difficult to believe that they would provide much of a stimulus to the economy.” Budget analyst Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation points out that “mountains of academic studies show how government expansions reduce economic growth.” A 1997 study in Public Finance Review, for example, concluded that “higher total government expenditure, no matter how financed, is associated with a lower growth rate.” In the Journal of Macroeconomics, another study found that “a 1% increase in government size decreases the rate of economic growth by 0.143%.”

Real-world evidence of the inefficacy of pump-priming abounds. For starters, there was last year’s massive increase in federal spending, including $105 billion in tax rebates and more than $300 billion in “emergency” spending, not to mention passage of the $700 billion financial-sector bailout. None of it revived the economy. In the 1990s, Japan tried without success to deficit-spend its way out of recession, enacting 10 “stimulus” bills in eight years and spending trillions of yen on public infrastructure. Yet unemployment grew worse, the economy remained anemic, and Japan was left with the largest national debt in the industrialized world: 170 percent of GDP.

Will we follow Japan’s lead? US government spending is at record-busting levels, budget deficits have never been greater, and the national debt is closing in on a once-unimaginable $11 trillion. We are in over our collective head in debt, and our economy is reeling. Borrowing even more heavily will not make things better.

In the 1946 classic "It's A Wonderful Life" (an all time favorite of my wife's), there is a run on the bank.  Mr. Potter, the heartless scrooge-like character of the movie, offers to buy people's accounts for 50 cents on the dollar. 

Lots of them are about to do it.  But George Bailey, the good guy of the movie, warns them that Mr. Potter is not helping them out, he is taking their money.  And the only reason they are receptive to his offer is that they are panicking.  Then he assures them that, in a panic, they are vulnerable to just about anything - even a very bad choice.

That movie may be 63 years old, but it has as good a description of how the so-called "stimulus package" is being foisted on us as I've seen so far.

Ken Berwitz

This is the first in a series of blogs.,  Each will detail another part of what is in the Obama "stimulus package" which Democrats are going to ramrod through congress because they have majorities in both houses.  It comes to us from www.newsmax.com:

Obama’s Bill Hands ACORN $5.2 Billion Bailout

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:06 PM By: David A. Patten

A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud. Most of the money is secreted away under an item in the now $836 billion package titled “Neighborhood Stabilization Programs.” Ordinarily, neighborhood stabilization funds are distributed to local governments. But revised language in the stimulus bill would make the funds available directly to non-profit entities such as ACORN, the low-income housing organization whose pro-Democrat voter-registration activities have been blasted by Republicans. ACORN is cited by some for tipping the scales in the Democrats' favor in November. According to Fox news, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., could appear to be a “payoff” for community groups’ partisan political activities in the last election cycle.

Please assume that I am ignorant.  Please assume that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to understand why the economy will benefit if we lavish billions of taxpayer dollars on ACORN, which is in legal trouble in over a dozen states due to voter frau...er, excuse me, massive mistakes registering voters, which only occur in vastly Democratic areas.

Will this stimulate the economy?  Or will it prop up a corrupt left wing organization dedicated to electing Democrats by any means necessary, legal or otherwise?

That is part of the "stimulus package".  How do you like it.

Ken Berwitz

Democrats have literally started waging a war against free speech. 

Think I'm kidding?  I'm not. 

Here's one facet of that war:  the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched a petition drive against......Rush Limbaugh.

It seems the DCCC has taken offense at Mr. Limbaugh's statement that he wants Barack Obama to fail.  Its petition drive even includes a 19 second swatch of his voice saying this.  Here it is, along with the plea to sign the DCCC's petition:

Last week, Rush Limbaugh actually said that he "hopes" President Obama fails to meet America’s challenges.

Jobs, health care, our place in the world — the stakes for our nation are high and every American needs President Obama to succeed.

Stand strong against Rush Limbaugh’s Attacks — sign our petition, telling Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama. We’ll send Limbaugh your comments.

Let's start with the obvious.  If Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Barack Obama to fail, so what?  Do these people have a problem with freedom of speech?  Is Limbaugh not entitled to feel that way and say so?  Did Democrats root for George Bush to succeed or fail for the last eight years?  Why did the rules change on January 20, 2009?

Now let's go to the less than obvious.  The reason the DCCC only played a 19 second piece is because it intentionally left out the context of what Limbaugh said and, by so doing, changed its meaning.

Let me prove that.  Here, straight from the verbatim transcript of his show, is what the DCCC parsed out to us --- but with what he said beforehand and afterwards, which explains it:

I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half.  I know what his politics are.  I know what his plans are, as he has stated them.  I don't want them to succeed.  

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down.  And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him.  Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care.  I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work.  So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at?  See, here's the point.  Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say.  Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that."  Why not?  Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails?  Liberalism is our problem.  Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here.  Why do I want more of it? 

Well, well, well.  When we see what Mr. Limbaugh said IN CONTEXT, we find out that he strongly disagrees with Barack Obama's ideas about growing government.  Thus the failure he is rooting for is a failure to implement policies that, in his opinion, will damage the country.  It has nothing at all to do with Barack Obama personally.

That's just a bit different than the cherry-picked, out-of-context 19 seconds the DCCC was nice enough to try miseducating you with.  Like 180 degrees different.

The bottom line here is that these people are terrified of dissent.  They are terrified that someone with a large listener base will dispute what they are trying to do. 

And it isn't only the DCCC.  Their boss, President Obama himself, personally attacked Limbaugh while speaking to Republican congressional leaders earlier this week.

In other words, they are terrified of free speech.  And they are going to war against it.

Can the unbelievably misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" be far behind?

Ken Berwitz

In recent months I've had a lot of fun, often at the Associated Press' expense, exposing the fact that when a Democratic politician is either accused, charged or convicted of wrongdoing his/her party is not mentioned. 

In fairness, I should also show you when it is. 

Here is the beginning of an AP story about the mayor of Hartford, Connecticut:

Hartford, Conn., mayor arrested on bribery charges

By DAVE COLLINS – 1 hour ago

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Hartford's mayor turned himself in Tuesday on charges of having a city contractor do $40,000 in work at his home and paying for it only after being confronted by investigators.

Eddie A. Perez, a native of Puerto Rico and the first Hispanic mayor in the city's history, called his conduct inappropriate but said he did not commit a crime. He pledged to remain in office.

"I should never have used a city contractor to have done improvements on my home," Perez said Tuesday. "It was inappropriate and inexcusable. I should never have allowed the perception of impropriety to color my administration."

Perez, the Democratic mayor of Connecticut's capital city since 2001, was charged with receiving a bribe and falsifying evidence.

The story continues, but there's no need to post it.  As you can see, the AP did identify Mr. Perez' party affiliation.

I would love to think that my series on "Guess That Party!" has something to do with this.  But I doubt it.  I assume that bigger, louder voices than mine have caused the AP's turnaround.

Regardless, it's good to see Democrats treated like Republicans this once.  May it continue.

Ken Berwitz

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?: The introductory paragraph at www.blackgenocide.org.

Are you aware that nancy pelosi has justified adding hundreds of millions of dollars for contraception to the stimulus package, on the grounds that lowering the birth rate will help the economy? 

Are you aware that about $200 million would go straight into the hands of Planned Parenthood which, as noted above, disproportionately terminates the pregnancies of Black women?

pelosi's remarkably stupid, ignorant, obtuse and, quite possibly, racist comment was made to George Stephanopoulous on ABC's Sunday morning "This Week" program.

I'm usually not one to quote Jack Cafferty of CNN, but he did a very professional, candid and even-handed report on this idiocy.  Here it is, as detailed by Matthew Balan of www.newsbusters. org. 

Please pay special attention to the viewer comment I've put in bold print:

CNN’s Jack Cafferty Compares Speaker Pelosi to Chinese Dictator Mao

For the record, nancy pelosi has five children and 7 grandchildren (so far).   I thought you might like to know that.

Now, what about the comment I put in bold print?  Given what we know about the disproportionate percentage of Black women comprising Planned Parenthood's clientele, does "Pete" have a valid point?  I would think the answer is yes.

Maybe we should start calling her nancy pelosi-sanger.  These two seem to have a great deal in common.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a classic little story from CNN, which comes to us via Steve Gilbert's www.sweetness-light.com.  It gives you a pretty good idea of where a good many people are, race-wise, as we begin the Obama presidency.  The bold print is Steve's:

CNN: Black Obama Faces Higher Standard

January 26th, 2009

Oh, brother.

Does this mean that, for the next four years, every time President Obama is criticized for anything, the criticism will be filtered through a racial prism?  Does this mean we can't say anything negative about our President's actions because he is a Black man? 

If so, where is the racism?  Where does it truly sit?  The answer is that it sits with the people who are pushing this utter BS on us.

Barack Obama was elected by a majority of voters, including a majority of the White vote.  But he can't be criticized by the same people who elected him without the criticism being seen as race-based stereotyping?  What a hot, steamy load.

And while we're on the subject of stereotypes, let's understand that, under some circumstances, they are not entirely unreasonable. 

Are you surprised I'd say that?  Well, don't be.  I'll show you what I mean.

Suppose a White or Pakistani family runs a convenience store.  Two Black kids, wearing reversed baseball caps and jeans down below their butts, walk in and start wandering through the store.  Will the owners watch them every second, out of fear that the kids might steal something?  You bet they will. 

But before you condemn this as racism, suppose the convenience store is owned by a Black family.  Do you have any doubt at all that these two kids will be watched closely?  I hope not, because you can bet the house, car and first-born that they will be watched every bit as closely by the Black owners.

Does this show that Black convenience store owners are racist?  No it does not, any more than it shows that the White and Pakistani owners are.

The reason for their scrutiny is that the two kids I described are just about the highest-risk "customers" a convenience store has.  Statistically, the likelihood of them stealing is dramatically greater than for almost any other group.  OF COURSE the store personnel will carefully watch them.

And the point of commonality between these store owners, whether White, Pakistani or Black, is that none of them wants to get robbed.  Not wanting to get robbed is 100% race-neutral.

Look at it this way;  suppose statistics showed that people who wore red hats were dramatically more likely to steal than anyone else.  If you owned a convenience store, would you carefully watch anyone who came into your store wearing a red hat? 

Sure you would.  Not because you were discriminating against people with red hats, but because you knew the probability that they would try to steal something was much higher.  The red hat itself is incidental. 

If statistics showed that people who wore blue hats stole more you'd watch them instead.  Or people who wore eyeglasses.  Or people who had receding hairlines.

Or young Black males, wearing reversed baseball caps and jeans down to their butts, who are wandering through your store.

See the point?

And the saddest part is that these losers cause so much stereotyping.

If a young Black male goes into a convenience store for no reason other than to buy milk and eggs for his mother, there is little doubt that the store owner, whether Black or non-Black, will keep an eye on him.  Not because the kid is doing anything wrong and not because the store owner is a racist, but because the store owner is acting on knowledge of the probabilities -- otherwise known as living in the real world.

It's not an easy issue, is it?

But here's a very easy one:  If Barack Obama screws up as President, every one of us, White, Black or otherwise, has a perfect right to notice that he did and say so.  None of us deserves to be admonished for honest criticism because some writer, or politician, or social critic decides to lecture us on how racist we are for doing so. 

Ken Berwitz

It certainly could have been one of the networks.  NBC, CBS and (though marginally less biased) ABC gave him pretty much everything they could throughout the campaign.

It certainly could have been CNN.

It most definitely could have been MSNBC, which did everything but pick furniture with him.

If his intent was that it be a foreign venue, it certainly could have been the BBC which, if it were legal, would run him for Prime Minister too.

It could even have been Israeli TV, given that Israel is one of the most loyal, and valuable (think mossad, think transfer of intelligence) allies we have in the world.

But it wasn't any of those.

Read below, and Jake Tapper of ABC will tell you which venue Barack Obama selected for his first TV interview as President:

President Obama Does First Formal TV Interview as President with Al-Arabiya

January 26, 2009 6:29 PM

As special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell heads off to the region to begin work on negotiating a cease fire between Israel and the Palestinians, President Obama has sat for his first formal TV interview with the Arabic cable TV network Al-Arabiya, ABC News has learned.

The interview was taped this evening and is set to air at 11 pm ET, as Mitchell is in the air and on his way to the region.

Based in Dubai, Al-Arabiya estimates that it has a potential audience exceeding 23 million in the Gulf region.

But that's not all.  Mr. Obama has preceded the al-Arabiyah interview with several statements from him and his people that we are going to rethink our Mid Eastern policies.

Does this mean we are going to rethink our strong support of Israel over the hamas government of Gaza - which wants Israel gone and its Jews dead - and the fatah government of the west bank - which wants Israel gone and its Jews dead? 

According to the exit polls, 78% of Jewish voters cast their ballot for Barack Obama.  Presumably, most of them support Israel.

I hope they're happy with what they got.

Ken Berwitz

They say a picture is worth 1,000 words.

Here is a cartoon from Gary Varvel of the Indianapolis Star that's worth 10,000.

 
Any questions?

Ken Berwitz

Let's start with a few seemingly obvious assumptions:

-Illinois politics is about as dirty as it gets.

-rod blagojevich is as dirty as dirty can be.

-He's got plenty of company.

The Democrats in Chicago, Illinois and, as of January 20, in Washington DC, must have prayed as hard as they could that blagojevich would just resign in disgrace and go away.

Well, if they did, their prayers weren't answered.  Here is the story from NBC Chicago:

Among 43 subpoenas released by the Blagojevich administration Friday, one from Dec. 8 seeks notes, calendars, correspondence and any other data that relate to some of Obama's top advisors.

Sweeping federal subpoenas of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration include requests for records involving David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, senior advisers to President Barack Obama.

Evidently, blagojevich's attitude is that, if he's going down, he's taking people with him. 

Illinois politics being what it is, I have absolutely no doubt that he can make things exceedingly uncomfortable, maybe even untenable, for some pretty highly placed Democrats.  And don't discount the possibility that this includes one or two who operate out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue these days. 

Or, put another way, why would you doubt that blagojevich has the goods on people like Axelrod, Jarrett, Emanuel and others?  Because Obama's staff says a bunch of Chicago politicians are clean?

That's like believing your 4 year old when he tells you he wasn't going to eat the cookie you just caught him removing from the cookie jar.

Ken Berwitz

Here are three good rules in life:  Don't kick anything immovable, don't fry food barechested, and don't pick a fight with someone who is dramatically smarter and more savvy than you are.

I don't know if Matt Damon has learned the first two rules.  But he clearly hasn't learned the third, as the following article from www.bighollywood.breitbart.com shows:

Iraq War Showdown: Bill Kristol Agrees to Debate Matt Damon After Actor’s “Idiot” Slam

by Andrew Breitbart

On Sunday afternoon Weekly Standard editor and New York Times columnist Bill Kristol — in an email exchange with Big Hollywood — agreed to debate Matt Damon on his Hollywood home turf after being informed the 38-year old actor ridiculed Kristol in an interview in the Miami Herald.

“He’s an idiot — he wrote that we should be grateful to George Bush because he won the Iraq war. We! Won! The! War!”

As the sponsor of the event, Big Hollywood is offering $100,000 to Damon (or to the charity or carbon credit of his choice) to publicly debate Kristol at a mutually agreed upon time, date and venue.

During the last election cycle the liberal activist Damon — who briefly attended Harvard University — also heaped scorn on John McCain’s vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin:

“You do the actuary tables, there’s a one out of three chance, if not more, that McCain doesn’t survive his first term, and it’ll be President Palin…. It’s like a really bad Disney movie, ‘The Hockey Mom.’ Oh, I’m just a hockey mom from Alaska, and she’s president. She’s facing down Vladimir Putin and using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink. It’s absurd.”

Damon is no stranger to left-wing politics. His Oscar-nominated screenplay, “Good Will Hunting,” co-written with Ben Affleck, was inspired by anarchist Boston University historian, Howard Zinn.

According to Wikipedia:

Damon included a reference to A People’s History in his film Good Will Hunting. In a confrontation with his psychologist, played by Robin Williams, Damon’s character tells him: “If you want to read a real history book, read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. That book will knock you on your ass.” Damon also read the latter half of People’s History for an audiobook released February 1, 2003.

If Damon agrees to participate, Big Hollywood will work with both parties to secure mutually agreed upon the parameters of the debate (e.g., Did We Win the War in Iraq?)

I'd say the lines are drawn, wouldn't you?

I don't always agree with Bill Kristol.  But he is one helluva smart political thinker.  And in the last two national elections, he just about nailed what was happening before the votes were counted.  Watching the results come in was almost like watching a recap.

By contrast, while Matt Damon is far from stupid, he seems terminally affected by a very common ailment of successful actors:  IamahollywoodstarsoIknoweverything-itis. 

Trust me, that's a bad ailment to have when you're debating Mr. Kristol.

If Damon is anywhere near as smart as he thinks he is, now would be a good time to start thinking about a graceful, or even not so graceful, retreat.

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

FYI:  For the past year Kristol has written a once-a-week column for the New York Times. 

At the bottom of today's column there is a note:  "This is William Kristol's last column"  No elaboration of any kind.  Not one word regarding why he will no longer be published in the Times, no indication of who broke it off, no "The New York Times wishes Mr. Kristol well", nothing. 

I doubt that it will take long before there is news about this parting of the ways.

Ken Berwitz

As the UN, abetted by an ignorant or complicit media (often both) whine that Israel's attacks on Gaza "traumatize its children", I thought I would share some more photographs of those "traumatized" children with you.  As before, I got them from www.freerepublic.com.

Take a look, and see if they give you a different view of who is traumatizing the children of Gaza:

.

 

Ok, now tell me again, who is traumatizing the children of Gaza?

Is it Israel, or is it the proud parents who teach their children at the earliest age they can, to either take a gun and start killing or just blow themselves up?

Maybe the UN would like to look at these pictures.  Then we can remind it that what hatred these children do not learn from their parents, they learn from their schoolteachers - in UN run and UN funded "schools".

Asking again:  Who is traumatizing the children of Gaza?

I could go on.  But I'm sure you get the point.  And anyone who doesn't get the point by now, never will.

Ken Berwitz

A very strong argument can be made that Norway is the single most anti-semitic country in Europe.  And, believe me, there is a lot of competition for the crown.

To give you a flavor of how far back this goes, here is an excerpt from Manfred Gerstenfeld's article in the December 13, Jerusalem Post (please read the entire article to get a sense of how much more there is and how it continues right to the present):

During the war, the Norwegians were the ones who rounded up Jews and robbed them before shipping them off to Auschwitz. After the war, emergency help was given to what the Norwegians called the two "hardest-hit groups" - fishermen and residents of the northern part of the country. The Jews, however, were robbed further by the Norwegian democrats. During the restitution process, they had to pay for the administration of those of their assets recovered from the looters. About 10 years ago a senior Norwegian Nazi official proudly told a Jewish visitor that he had no regrets, and still had paintings and furniture taken from Jews.

Sadly (and infuriatingly) this same level of Jew-hatred still seems to pervade Norway.  And the latest example is from a nondescript Norwegian diplomat in Saudi Arabia named trine lilleng. 

This genius equates Israel's attack in Gaza (which occurred only after three years of daily bombings from hamas) with the nazi attempt to exterminate all Jews, (which occurred for no reason other than that Hitler and his many likeminded pals just didn't want any Jews to be alive).

David Harris, who heads the American Jewish Committee, has written an excellent response to lillgen's sickness.  Here it is:

My only disgareement with Mr. Harris is his giving trine lilleng the respect of capitalizing her first and last name. 

I only wish I could say that, when it comes to Jew-hatred, she is an isolated case.  But I can't because she isn't.  Not by a long shot. 

Certainly not in Norway.

Ken Berwitz

How bad are things at the New York Times?  How close is it to going out of business altogether?

Here are key excerpts from a devastating article by Thomas Lifson of www.americanthinker.com, which tell the tale:

January 26, 2009

The Gray Lady turns a deathly shade of pale

By Thomas Lifson

Arthur Ochs "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. has driven the proudest institution in journalism to the doorstep of ruin, its corporate debt earning the humiliating label of "junk" from Moody's Investors Services. And it wasn't just a slide over the line, the company tumbled three steps below investment grade.

Even worse is Moody's negative expectation, meaning further downgrades are on the horizon in the next 12-18 months. Moody's has withdrawn its rating for NYTCo commercial paper, its unsecured corporate borrowing. Nobody in his right mind is going to loan the company money that way anymore.

The terms of the company's  $250 million loan from 2 companies controlled by Carlos Slim Helú, the Mexican billionaire the paper once scorned, force the Times to pay over 14% to borrow money. The added interest cost, especially the 11% that is paid in cash (the other 3% gets added to the debt balance, just like a credit card bill that can't be paid in full), is one factor in Moody's downgrade: 

Only recently has the company tightened some rather lavish expense account practices:

• News staff can no longer take each other out for drinks and charge it to the company! They had a great deal going there, going out with your colleagues for drinks and maybe dinner.
  
• New per meal expense limits: $50 for dinner, $30 for lunch, $15 for breakfast. The high end places are now out of bounds. Apparently earlier, they weren't.

And even after the memo announcing expense account cuts was issued, Maureen Dowd wrote a story about "spa guilt" among the rich, deducting the expenses she incurred at a luxury spa.

Only a miracle -- a sudden rebound in the economy, the end of the internet, and a brand new mindset in the leadership of the company -- can save the company now. And I wouldn't bet on that trifecta. A "negative outlook" says it all. The handwriting is not just on the wall, it is in the securities rating.

Look some of this was unavoidable.  Print media are in a world of trouble for reasons that go far beyond "Pinch" Sulzberger's bungling. 

But a lot could have been averted, or at least lessened in degree.  And apparently, at every turn, Mr. Sulzberger zigged when he should have zagged.

Think about this:

-The Times has spent two full administrations finding something wrong with everything that President Bush did, despite the fact that we have not been attacked by international terrorism since September of 2001, and Iraq and Afghanistan have turned into fledgling democracies. 

-None of that mattered to the Times.  Bush was nailed for everything he did wrong, everything he could be blamed for and even what he did right.

What if Sulzberger and Co. applied the same standards to their own actions and results?  What would they have editorialized about the New York Times' last 8 years...............

Ken Berwitz

Now that the attempt to steal Norm Coleman's senate seat has been successfully completed, we are in the period when Mr. Coleman attempts to reverse what has been done and retrieve it.

Scott Johnson of www.powerlineblog.com, who gave us invaluable information during the theft of Mr. Coleman's seat, is now providing equally invaluable information about the retrieval attempt. 

Here is his latest post:

An election contest preview

The election contest brought by Senator Coleman to determine the winner of his race against Al Franken for begins this afternoon in St. Paul before a panel of three judges. Star Tribune reporter Kevin Duchschere profiles the three judges here. Former Star Tribune reporter Jay Weiner previews the election contest here. Chris Cillizza and Paul Kane preview it here.

After the canvas tabulating the election result, Senator Coleman had apparently defeated Franken by 215 votes. The closeness of the margin required a recount under state law. Following the recount before the Canvassing Board, Senator Coleman lost his lead and now trails Franken by 225 votes.

How does Senator Coleman hope to recapture the lead in the election contest? He raises two principal issues. The first has to do with absentee ballots that were rejected by local officials on election night. More than 11,000 rejected absentee ballots remain uncounted. Senator Coleman seeks the inclusion of some of them as having been improperly rejected further seeks the treatment of all absentee ballots under a uniform standard. The Franken campaign incessantly demanded the inclusion of improperly rejected absentee ballots following the canvas in November.

The Coleman campaign has just released a video (above) with a medley of bygone calls by Franken campaign officials and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to count these rejected absentee ballots. The Franken campaign abandoned the call as soon as it found friendly local officials to identify approximately 1,200 improperly rejected absentee ballots in heavily Democratic counties. More than 900 were ultimately included in the recount and they ballooned Franken's lead from 49 votes to his current 225-vote margin.

Senator Coleman had no such luck with local officials in Republican counties. Senator Coleman identified more than 600 rejected absentee ballots that he claims (over the determination of local officials) were improperly rejected. He calls for their inclusion. He has also unsuccessfully called for the review of thousands of other rejected absentee ballots under the same standard applicalbe to previously rejected absentee ballots that were included in the recount.

On Friday Senator Coleman separately filed a "reverse class action" lawsuit regarding the 11,000 rejected absentee ballots. The Star Tribune reported developments through Fridyay here.

The rejected absentee ballots are critical to Senator Coleman's case for the same reason they were critical to Franken following the canvas. That's where the necessary votes are.

Whether or not their inclusion would propel Senator Coleman to victory is not clear to me. Franken apparently thinks they would. He has certainly lost any interest in counting every ballot. Rather, he wants to skip the contest entirely and be seated in the Senate. Franken accordingly brought a frivolous motion for Senator Coleman's contest of the election to be dismissed. Last week the election contest panel predictably denied Franken's motion.

The election contest will also address Senator Coleman's claim regarding the double counting of absentee ballots. Senator Coleman has asserted that at least 130 absentee ballots, tilting heavily to Franken, were double counted in certain precincts that reflected more votes than voters. He will have to persuade the election contest panel that the explanation for the discrepancy between votes and voters in these precincts is more likely than not attributable to the double counting of absentee ballots.

Finally, Senator Coleman asserts that the Canvassing Board improperly included missing votes in one Hennepin County precinct in the recount. Under Minnesota law, these votes should not have been included in the recount, but they would in any event properly be included in the contest. The evidence supporing the existence of the missing ballots is strong. Franken will win this issue.

The parties' pleadings and court orders in the election litigation are accessible online here. The parties' filings in the Minnesota Supreme Court and Supreme Court court orders are accessible online here.

Can Norm Coleman reverse this joke of a "recount"? 

Can he reverse a result in which there was no uniform standard for determining which votes were and were not valid, so the winner was the candidate whose operatives could most cleverly and deviously "game" the system?

We'll find out soon enough.

Ken Berwitz

We've discussed hamas' use of women and children as human shields a number of times during the past month.  But we have not yet talked about its theft of ambulances that transport injured Gazan civilians to where they could get care, maybe their lives would be saved.

Let's.

The following article is from Arutz Sheva.  It comes complete with a non-Israeli source and supporting video footage:

Gaza War Crimes: Hamas Terrorists Tried To Hijack Ambulances

(IsraelNN.com) Hamas - and not Israel - was the reason ambulances could not reach victims, a Gaza ambulance driver told the Sydney Morning Herald. He said that Hamas terrorists tried to hijack an entire fleet of Al-Quds ambulances during Operation Cast Lead.

Click here for YouTube video showng Hamas terrorists boarding a United Nations ambulance on May 11, 2004. 

Foreign media quoted Hamas officials and Gaza Arabs several times during the war that Israel blocked ambulances from reaching dying victims, but Mohammed Shriteh, a 30-year-old driver for the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, told the Australian newspaper Monday that the Israel Defense Forces actually worked with the Red Crescent.

Have you heard a word about this from the crocodile-tear specialists at the UN?  There's as much chance of that happening as there is of the Muslim brotherhood seeking a charter from B'nai B'rith.

You certainly won't hear about it from most Gazan civilians, who know that if they dare open their mouths they will be dead along with their families.

It has been said that when you sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas.  In Gaza, some of the people may finally be learning that when you elect murderous terrorists because you want them to kill Jews, you are just as vulnerable as the Jews are.

Nice job, folks.  Great voting decision.

Ken Berwitz

Following are excerpts from a stunningly tone-deaf Assocated Press article, which talks about the effect of Israel's attack on Gaza's children:

Israeli war against Hamas scars Gaza's children

AP – Saja Abed Rabbo, 5, stands amid the rubble of her devastated neighborhood in Jebaliya, northern gaza …

JEBALIYA, Gaza Strip – Surrounded by mountains of rubble that were once their homes, two dozen children sat on a rainbow-colored blanket and drew with crayons.

They quickly filled the pages passed around by trauma counselors with pictures of Israeli tanks, dead bodies and Palestinians firing assault rifles — scenes they saw when Israel's war on Hamas came into their neighborhood.

"We felt we will die soon," 11-year-old Sharif Abed Rabbo told the group, describing his family's escape. "And I am sad I lost my house."

Psychologists say Israel's three-week offensive inflicted more severe trauma than previous conflicts in Gaza because civilians in the crowded sliver of territory had no safe place to run. A wartime study among hundreds of Gaza children showed a rise in nightmares, bedwetting and other signs of trauma, said psychologist Fadel Abu Hein.

Counselors and aid workers fear that Gaza's children, who make up 56 percent of the 1.4 million people here, will grow up hating Israel and become easier prey for extremists.

"We are losing the next generation," said John Ging, the top U.N. aid official in Gaza. As a buffer against militancy, U.N. schools are launching human rights classes for their 200,000 students this week.

Children and teens were particularly vulnerable in Israel's military offensive, launched Dec. 27 to try to halt eight years of Hamas rocket fire on towns in southern Israel. The rocket attacks have frightened children there and frequently sent them running for cover.

Gaza's 221 U.N. schools are also trying to help the children cope. On Saturday, the first day of school, teachers asked students to share their stories.

The weekly human rights classes will include lessons about nonviolent ways of solving conflicts. Ging said the new program had been planned for awhile, but now has greater urgency.

"We have to stand with the mothers and fathers who want their children to grow up to be doctors, lawyers and civilized in their behavior and their thinking," Ging said. "But for sure, the circumstances here, day by day, are working against all of us who have that agenda."

For 14-year-old Zakariya Baroud, the trauma is still too real. He lost three classmates in an Israeli mortar attack that killed 42 people, most of them civilians, near a U.N. school in the Jebaliya refugee camp. Israel said at the time that troops were firing at a Palestinian rocket squad in the area.

Zakariya said he saw bodies strewn across the main road, including that of his best friend, Bashar Deeb, with a deep gash in his throat.

His father, Baker, spent eight years in Israeli prisons for activities in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a violent group. He said he'd like Zakariya to attend university, but wouldn't talk him out of taking up arms.

"He is seeing suffering right now," he said of his son. "For 22 days, we were not able to sleep. He has witnessed the events by himself, so he, by himself, hates Israel."

Unbelievable. 

I initially read this story at www.freerepublic.com.  And in its "comments" section people posted these pictures, among others.  Take a good look and remember that they were taken long before Israel acted:

.

So when the UN aid guy cries crocodile tears over "losing" the children of Gaza to hatred, he might want to consider where they were in the first place.

And about those "human rights" classes that the UN promises to launch?  Where were they for the last 40 years, during which UN-run schools have been allowing textbooks which do not recognize the existence of any part of Israel, proclaim that it must be vaporized for Islam, tell the children how glorious it will be if they are shaheed (martyrs) for this cause, and assure them that Jewish children were born of monkeys and apes? 

Where was the UN when all the children's shows on Gaza TV during this entire period were telling children exactly the same thing? 

Did the AP writer happen to notice the thousands of attacks which, for years, have been launched into Israel?   Those don't count? 

When Gazan children see rockets launched from where they live for the purpose of killing other human beings, they're not traumatized?

And the trauma inflicted upon Israeli children in Sderot and other cities and villages which those thousands of Gazan bombs were aimed at is not relevant?

If the AP and/or the UN think that Israel's attacks caused Gaza's children to be traumatized and to hate Israel, as though the trauma and hatred weren't indelibly ingrained in them already by their own people, they are brain dead.

Ken Berwitz

The following global warming update comes to us from The National, an English-language publication of the United Arab Emirates.  Please read it for the latest insight regarding the scourge of global warming:

This is the frozen north ... of the UAE

Anna Zacharias

• Last Updated: January 25. 2009 5:59PM UAE / January 25. 2009 1:59PM GMT

RAS AL KHAIMAH // Snow covered the Jebel Jais area for only the second time in recorded history yesterday.

So rare was the event that one lifelong resident said the local dialect had no word for it.

According to the RAK Government, temperatures on Jebel Jais dropped to -3°C on Friday night. On Saturday, the area had reached 1°C.

Major Saeed Rashid al Yamahi, a helicopter pilot and the manager of the Air Wing of RAK Police, said the snow covered an area of five kilometres and was 10cm deep.

“The sight up there this morning was totally unbelievable, with the snow-capped mountain and the entire area covered with fresh, dazzling white snow,” Major al Yamahi said.

“The snowfall started at 3pm Friday, and heavy snowing began at 8pm and continued till midnight, covering the entire area in a thick blanket of snow. Much of the snow was still there even when we flew back from the mountain this afternoon. It is still freezing cold up there and there are chances that it might snow again tonight.”

Aisha al Hebsy, a woman in her 50s who has lived in the mountains near Jebel Jais all her life, said snowfall in the area was so unheard of the local dialect does not even have a word for it. Hail is known as bared, which literally translates as cold. “Twenty years ago we had lots of hail,” said Ms al Hebsy. “Last night was like this. At four in the morning we came out and the ground was white.”

Jebel Jais was dusted in snow on Dec 28, 2004, the first snowfall in living memory for Ras al Khaimah residents.

“I had flown there in 2004 when it snowed, but this time it was much bigger and the snowing lasted longer as well,” said Major al Yamahi.

At the base of the mountains, residents also reported severe hail on Friday night. “We had hail. Last night was very cold, but there can only be snow on Jebel Jais because it’s the tallest,” said Fatima al Ali, 30, a resident of a village beneath the mountains.

In Ras al Khaimah City, 25km from Jebel Jais, sheet lightning and thunder shook houses.

Main roads from Qusaidat to Nakheel were still badly flooded on Saturday, while temperatures at the RAK International Airport fluctuated between 10 and 22°C.

M Varghese, an observer at the RAK Airport Meteorological Office, told of the storms that hit the emirate on Friday night.

“We had thunderstorms with rain for more than 12 hours and we had around 18mm rain,” Mr Varghese said. “The rain, along with the cold easterly winds and low-lying clouds, could have bought the temperatures further down on the mountains.”

Giorgio Alessio, a meteorologist at the Dubai meteorology office, said: “In thunderstorms, the rain comes down very rapidly from higher levels, and the rain that usually forms can reach the ground in some places as snow. In the next few days the weather regime is completely different and will return to normal for the season, with a maximum temperature of 23°C or 24°C.

“The night might cool down in the desert below 10°C. There is variability in the weather from year to year but it hasn’t shown a trend in getting colder or getting warmer.”

The RAK Government plans to transform the 1,740m Jebel Jais into the UAE’s first outdoor ski resort, using Australian technology that will allow tourists to ski in temperatures up to 35°C.

Abu Dhabi and Dubai also had heavy rain on Friday night.

If I could, I would send Al Gore to Jebel Jais wearing nothing but a speedo, and have him walk through a couple of villages selling sunblocker and carbon offsets. 

I would ask that he be joined by some of the (usually well-meaning) folks who have swallowed his BS whole, and no longer feel the need to think about whether facts on the ground show any of it to be true.

If ever a leader and his followers need a dose of cold reality, these are the ones.

Ken Berwitz

From today's New York Post (which, pretty obviously, is relishing this catfight):

KENNEDYS LIVID AS GOV ASKED CAROLINE TO 'LIE'

On the one side you have a dimwitted, incompetent joke of a "Governor" who is in office only because his predecessor thought he could get away with anything - and was wrong.

On the other side you have a media-anointed "Princess" with a horribly bruised ego, and her enormously powerful family that thinks it can get away with anything - and is usually right.

Somehow, I think I know which side is going to win.............

Ken Berwitz

What a difference a change of administration makes.

Here, from Steve Gilbert's invaluable web site, www.sweetness-light.com, is an Associated Press report on military action the US has taken in Afghanistan:

AP Now Notices Afghans Lie About Civilians

January 24th, 2009

Wow.  It's magic.  Barack Obama takes over and suddenly we're justified in attacking and killing "women and children". 

Hey, these people are LIARS.  They're using the women and children as HUMAN SHIELDS while they attack us.  We are JUSTIFIED in our actions.

I wonder how long it will take for the AP to see the light about Iraq too.

It better be fast:  Saint Barack is an impatient man.

Ken Berwitz

Following is a blog by Noel Sheppard of www.newsbusters.org. It talks about Campbell Brown's disgust with President Obama's hypocrisy regarding governmental transparency. 

Appreciate Ms. Brown's words; because you won't see much of this from the adoring cadres in mainstream media, who are still writing the Obama hagiography instead of reporting what he does:

Brown Bashes Obama: Don't Make Ethics Rules You Won't Follow

"Do as I say, not as I do" is an old story.  But ignoring what was said the next day?  That's pretty special.  It demonstrates an integrity quotient that hovers right at ground level.

Good for Ms. Brown.  It is a pleasure - and hardly an expected one - to find a mainstream news person not so completely mesmerized by Barack Obama that she can't see what is in front of her eyes.

Please keep your eyes open.  Based on this sorry episode I have little doubt that there will be plenty more to see.

Ken Berwitz

Like I said yesterday, it is a lot easier to sign a piece of paper that ends someone else's policy than it is to sign one that implements an alternative.

Monday-morning quarterbacking is easy.  Barack Obama did it for an entire campaign.  Well, now he's got the ball.  And god help us if he drops it, especially as it relates to the war on terror - the war that Mr. Obama seems to think is nonexistent.

Close Guantanamo, Mr. President?  Ok, you signed the piece of paper.  Congratulations.  Now read this, which comes from Agence France-Presse.  Especially the parts I've put in bold print:

Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video

17 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Two men released from the US "war on terror" prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.

One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.

Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333.

A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information.

"We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure," said Gordon.

"We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose," he said.

On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for," al-Shihri was quoted as saying.

Al-Shiri was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia in 2007, the US counter-terrorism official said.

The other men in the video are identified as Commander Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi and Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi (also known as Abu Hureira al-Sana'ani).

The Defense Department has said as many as 61 former Guantanamo detainees -- about 11 percent of 520 detainees transferred from the detention center and released -- are believed to have returned to the fight.

The latest case highlights the risk the new US administration faces as it moves to empty Guantanamo of its remaining 245 prisoners and close the controversial detention camp within a year.

President Obama:  Did you read that article?  In it, did you see any quote that gave you the impression these "people" were innocents who should not have been detained?  That all they want is to go back to their homes and families to resume their peaceful lives? 

Or did you see words that communicate "I'm a terrorist and now that I'm out I'm even more determined to be a terrorist"?

Well, you signed the executive order closing Guantanamo.  Just like you would sign a credit card slip after paying for lunch at TGI Friday's.  Easy as easy can be.

Now:  What the hell are you going to do to protect us?  Where are you going to send the hundreds of Guantanamo detainees you've just declared homeless?  

And who is going to advise you on it?  code pink?  moveon.org?  nancy pelosi?  al sharpton?

This is for real now, Mr. President.  Start acting like what you were elected to be.

Ken Berwitz

Do yourself a favor, and don't cut off a sushi chef. 

That is the moral of the following story from New York's Channel 2 News, which definitely earns a hallowed place in the "You can't make this stuff up" file:

SUSHI RAGE: Chef Accused Of Going Knife Wild

Traffic Dispute Gets Out Of Hand As Victim Gets 100 Stitches To Head, Tells CBS 2 HD: 'I Thought I Was Dying'

Is it just me, or does this sound like a John Belushi SNL skit ?

Maybe the guy belonged to an Asian version of that Saudi Arabian group:  The Wasabi sect.

Lucky the driver didn't wind up doing a California rollover.

Ok, that's my contribution.  Now its your turn.

Ken Berwitz

It's time for another round of GUESS THAT POLITICAL PARTY!!

Here is a story about a retired New York State senator who has just been indicted on federal corruption charges.   

Read it through.  Every word.  Then.....GUESS THAT POLITICAL PARTY!!

You see, Mr. Bruno's party affiliation is identified in the first paragraph.  In the first sentence.

Did you have any doubt at all that he was a Republican?

Of course you didn't.  Republicans are the ones immediately identified by party affiliation.  Not Democrats, only Republicans.  That is the ongoing policy of our wonderful "neutral" media.

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

Ken Berwitz

If you like political theater it doesn't get much better than this:   A Governor-by-accident attacking a "Princess"-by-birthright.

The New York Post gives us the details:

GOV SAYS CAROLINE TURNED 'NASTY'

Posted: 1:55 am
January 24, 2009

Gov. Paterson rapped Caroline Kennedy at a private event the night before he tapped Kirsten Gillibrand for the Senate, telling guests Kennedy had been "nasty" to him and shown "disrespect" with how she bowed out, attendees told The Post.

The governor's attack came just hours after his office issued a statement wishing her well and disavowing quotes from a source close to him who had told The Post Kennedy had never been in true contention for the seat and was "mired" in personal issues.

And the gripes came a day after Kennedy pulled out of the race on the heels of hours of tit-for-tat between the two sides.

Asked at the event about what had happened with Kennedy, Paterson told the group that he was put off by how the neophyte politician handled her withdrawal from the race for Hillary Clinton's seat.

Much of the issue was "about respect," said one guest.

Paterson said that Kennedy had called him to say she was having second thoughts and "he asked her to wait a day and he thought she had agreed," another attendee recalled.

Then, he said, he couldn't get her on the phone for hours.

"He was absolutely frustrated that he couldn't reach her," the guest said of how Paterson described the scene. "He thought maybe she was sick. He felt she was being nasty to him, that she showed great disrespect."

Kennedy's six-week political career was marked by a string of miscues as she faired poorly in interviews and was hit by criticism and questions about whether she was up to the job.

As for Paterson on Thursday, a source close to him said Kennedy was never in true contention because of issues over taxes, a nanny and questions about her marriage.

Later in the day, the governor's statement insisted nothing that came up in the vetting process had been disqualifying.

Paterson told the group Thursday night he didn't believe she'd left the race because of "any of those issues," one of the guests said, but added the governor didn't know what the reason was.

Kennedy's team insists she "became aware of a personal issue" midday Wednesday, called to drop out, and the governor asked her to give it 24 hours to think about it. Then, after going back and forth, she threw in the towel.

But her side claims she'd been led to believe she was likely to get the nod.

After dining in Midtown last night, Kennedy said of Gillibrand:

"I wish her well and I wish her good luck."

A Kennedy aide who was asked about Paterson's remarks, replied the governor was going "nuclear" because "he doesn't want it to look like Gillibrand was his second choice."

The governor's office had no comment.

In terms of performance and follow-through, it is hard to determine who comes out looking worse here, Paterson or Kennedy.

But in the fallout department there is no issue at all:

-Few people think very much of David Paterson (and that's perfectly reasonable, given that his accomplishments could fit on the head of a pin, and there would still be room for Nancy Pelosi's bipartisanship, Barney Frank's honesty...and MSNBC'S journalistic standards).  His image, therefore, can't take much of a hit.

-By contrast, Caroline Kennedy has spent her entire lifetime as an object of love, adoration and sympathy.  Her formerly pristine image is now severely, maybe irreparably, damaged.

Look, I admit that a public catfight is fun in a perverse, tabloidal sort of way.  Even so, I genuinely hope that it ends quickly; the sooner the better.  This isn't doing anyone any good.

But while it is still ongoing?  Hooboy, what next? 

Maybe Caroline's uncle Teddy and Dave's dad Basil can duke it out on ESPN.

Ken Berwitz

Here is Linda Chavez' latest column.  It is about closing Guantanamo, and it is loaded with common sense.  I hope President Obama takes time out from signing executive orders to read it:

Closing Guantanamo

Linda Chavez
Friday, January 23, 2009

President Obama is learning it is a lot easier to reverse unpopular positions of his predecessor than it is to come up with better ones of his own. On Thursday, he signed executive orders aimed at shutting down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, which houses some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. His orders also restricted interrogation methods that can be used by the CIA to elicit information from suspects and eliminated secret overseas detention facilities run by the CIA. Earlier, he suspended military commission hearings that were established to hear cases against those held at Guantanamo, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

Now he has to decide what to do with the 245 men held at Guantanamo. And, if he is lucky enough to see Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri captured on his watch, he'll have to decide what to do with them. Ensure they're read their Miranda rights and appointed taxpayer-funded legal counsel, perhaps?

It's no joke. The philosophical shift between treating accused terrorists captured on foreign soil as enemy combatants or simply heinous criminals is an important distinction. The Clinton administration dealt with those responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 as the latter. (In fairness, no one knew at the time that the perpetrators were involved in more than a criminal conspiracy.) But Mohammed Atta and his 18 fellow soldiers made sure we understood on Sept. 11, 2001, that their attacks were acts of war against the United States.

It is tempting to believe that the worst is over -- that we won't be hit again, maybe even harder than we were just eight years ago. Some Democrats are sure that nothing George W. Bush did made us safer, and many of them would argue Bush sacrificed important constitutional guarantees without gaining any measure of security. But I think it is highly implausible that pure luck has protected us. Waterboarding may be nasty business, but if the technique indeed forced KSM to reveal details in 2003 of planned attacks and thus saved lives -- as Bush officials have asserted -- is it responsible to say that there are no circumstances, ever, in which it might be used again? And would the Obama administration go further, as Attorney General nominee Eric Holder hinted in his confirmation hearings, and seek to prosecute those who ordered or carried out waterboarding?

So what will the Obama administration do with KSM and the others at Guantanamo? If the military commission established to try these men will no longer do so, will they be turned over to criminal courts in the U.S.? If so, it is likely that many would be acquitted on the basis of "tainted evidence" and lack of due process alone. Then what? Do we put them on airplanes and ship them home? Or will human rights groups protest that countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt might torture these men so we must not send them there? Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero has offered his support and help in closing Guantanamo to President Obama, but is he willing to take any of those prisoners deemed too dangerous to release and put them in Spanish jails?

In his inaugural address, President Obama promised "for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." But actions speak louder than words. We'll see if he means it. As President Obama no doubt has figured out, closing Guantanamo while preserving national security will take more than a stroke of the pen. He risks alienating the leftwing base of his party if the barbed wire doesn't come down immediately. But the stakes are much higher if he lets terrorists loose on the world.

Signing executive orders is easy.  Saying "you made a mistake, look at what went wrong" is easy. 

But coming up with an alternative plan that improves things?  That's not so easy. 

EVERY program, EVERY effort, is going have weaknesses.  And whenever something goes wrong, the easiest thing in the world to do is finger-point and tell the architect of the program what a dumbbell he/she is. 

But there's one thing that no one can argue about.  It has been over 7 years since the USA was attacked by the people who want to end our civilization and replace it with shari'a law. 

Now that, with a few strokes of the pen, Mr. Obama has undone most of the policies in place during those 7-plus years, he had damn well better have another way of keeping us safe that is as good as, or better than, what was there.

Does he? 

Do yourself a favor and think for a few minutes about what Mr. Obama has said he will do to keep us safe.  Can you think of anything, or can you think only of what he is undoing? 

Will chatting with the Iranian lunatic ahmadinejad - no preconditions, of course - make us safer? 

Will assuring terrorists around the world that we'll hold out our hand if they unclench their fists make us safer?  How many bin laden-types do you figure will be emotionally touched by the Obama Outreach Initiative?

Will they suddenly lay down their weapons and break into a chorus of Kumbaya with the President?  Or will they laugh at what a hopelessly naive sap he is and start exploiting the latitudes his executive orders have given them?

The bottom-line question is:  Are Barack Obama's executive orders making us safer, as safe or less safe?

Draw your own conclusions.  I've already got mine.

Ken Berwitz

What do you do with a police "Public Relations Officer" who justifies the police arresting a goat and charging it with car theft? 

You make him a Darwin award finalist, that's what.

Here is the story, from Nigeria's "Vanguard" newspaper, via www.sweetness-light.com:

Nigerian Police Hold Goat - For Car Theft

January 24th, 2009

From one of Nigeria’s two principle newspapers, the Vanguard:

The goat "robbery suspect"

Police parade goat as robbery suspect

Written by Demola Akinyemi  
Friday, 23 January 2009

For attempting to ‘steal’ a Mazda car

It was a shocking sight yesterday as men of the Kwara State Police Command paraded a goat as an armed robbery suspect.

The goat "suspect" is being detained over an alleged attempt to snatch a Mazda car. The mysterious goat, according to the Police Public Relations Officer, Mr. Tunde Mohammed, while briefing bewildered journalists at the Force headquarters, is an armed robber who attempted to snatch the said car, Wednesday night, and later transformed into the goat in a bid to escape arrest.

He explained that men of a vigilance group in Anifowose Ipata/Oloje areas of the state capital had chased two armed robbery suspects who wanted to demobilise the Mazda car with the intention of stealing it, and "while one of them escaped, the other was about to be apprehended by the team when he turned his back on the wall and turned to this goat. They quickly grabbed the goat and here it is.’’ Mohammed said.

The police spokesman said the goat "armed robbery suspect" will not be left off the hook until investigations into the case are concluded.

He also said that no fewer than five stolen vehicles have been recovered by the state Police Command while some suspects were also arrested. Among those arrested, he said was one Idowu Oni of Araromi area of Akure who escaped from Akure Prison.

He added that the escaped convict was arrested in Ilorin after stealing a Mazda 323 car belonging to Mrs. Henrietta Ayijesu.

He also said another armed robbery and rape suspect was in their custody, assuring that the suspects will soon appear in court.

And the goat isn't being cooperative either.  When they asked if he did it, the goat said "naaaaa-a-a-a-a-ahhhh"

Hello, Darwin Award Committee?

Ken Berwitz

Barney Frank, the circus clown posing as a congressperson, is at it again.

This is the same Barney Frank who championed the subprime loans that collapsed our economy.

This is the same Barney Frank who told investors in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac that both entities were "solid going forward" just months before they collapsed, which caused those those same investors to lose their shirts. 

This the same Barney Frank who went on Bill O'Reilly's show and whined that it was everyone else's fault, which (justifiably) enraged O'Reilly.  What a spectacle:  a supposedly learned, capable congressperson caught red-handed in his dishonesty and incompetence, who then has an on-air hissy-fit and blames everyone but himself for it.

But do you think this Bozo wannabe is finished?  Not by a long shot.  Not until the voters of Newton Massachusetts grow a collective brain and conscience and remove him - which doesn't look like it will ever happen. 

Here is Bozo Barney's latest crapping-away of our money, courtesy of excerpts from a Wall Street Journal article.  Please pay special attention to the two paragraphs I've put in bold print.:

JANUARY 22, 2009, 2:45 P.M. ET

Political Interference Seen in Bank Bailout Decisions

Barney Frank Goes to Bat for Lender, and It Gets an InfusionBy DAMIAN PALETTA and DAVID ENRICH

Troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston didn't look much like a candidate for aid from the Treasury Department's bank bailout fund last fall.

The Treasury had said it would give money only to healthy banks, to jump-start lending. But OneUnited had seen most of its capital evaporate. Moreover, it was under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use.

Nonetheless, in December OneUnited got a $12 million injection from the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. One apparent factor: the intercession of Rep. Barney Frank, the powerful head of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Frank, by his own account, wrote into the TARP bill a provision specifically aimed at helping this particular home-state bank. And later, he acknowledges, he spoke to regulators urging that OneUnited be considered for a cash injection.

View Full Image

The Washington Times /Landov

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), seen here leaving a December news conference, urged regulators to consider TARP money for a local bank.

As President Barack Obama's team sets about revising the $700 billion TARP program, following last week's release of the second half of the money, among the issues it faces is widespread dissatisfaction with way the program has been implemented. Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner, testifying Wednesday at his Senate confirmation hearing, acknowledged "there are serious concerns about transparency and accountability...confusion about the goals of the program, and a deep skepticism about whether we are using the taxpayers' money wisely."

The economy is in near-disastrous shape.  We are bleeding debt.  People are being laid off wholesale.  Major companies are going out of business.  Banks are failing left and right.

So what does this circus clown do?  He personally pushes through a $12,000,000 infusion of TARP money to one of the worst-run, biggest offenders there is  - exactly the kind of bank that TARP money was not supposed to go to..  

And don't expect this arrogant, whining, excuse-making windbag to explain it to you either.  He's Barney Frank, that's good enough.  It's the right thing to do because Bozo says so.

And if anything goes wrong (like the Porsche breaking down for example), it's your fault.  It's the Republicans' fault.  It's global warming.  Watergate.  The teapot dome scandal.  Etc.

Anyone and anything but Bozo Barney Frank.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a fascinating attack by Brian Maloney of www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com on Rachel Maddow, who hosts the latest MSNBC hard-leftathon:

Rachel Maddow Bashes Network She Once Tried To Join

FOX-ED INTO A CORNER

Maddow's Sheltered Life Comes Back To Haunt Her


With a rapid rise accompanied by a generous helping of mainstream media fawning, it was only a matter of time before broadcast rookie Rachel Maddow began to trip over her own words. Isn't that how this kind of story always plays out?

Thanks to an unfortunate series of blunders and career mishaps, that's precisely what has occurred in a big way, all in the course of just a day or two.

At a dinner Thursday evening, for example, Maddow reportedly told hacks and flaks at a Television Critics Association gathering she's "never seen a show on Fox at any time, ever."

Isn't that a funny thing: just six months ago, before her debut as full-time MSNBC host, Maddow was pitching her services to the FOX News Channel, the very network she's now busy attacking in public. Looks like Rachel has just Fox-ed herself into a corner.


Earlier that same day, Air America Radio announced they were moving her talk show to mornings and cutting it to just one hour, raising speculation that it may be taped, given her evening MSNBC work and peculiar fear of taking live callers. Under previous AAR management, Maddow has already failed in morning drive.

When hosts are reduced to a single hour, by the way, it's usually a final stop on the way out of a station or network.


Finally, an overzealous producer also got Rachel into hot water, thanks to an embarrassing display at the site of last week's USAir crash into the Hudson River. Just as shaken, freezing passengers were being pulled from the frigid waters, they were solicited for appearances on Maddow's MSNBC program:

(Huffington Post) A man who was onboard the US Air flight that went down in New Yorks' Hudson River Thursday spoke to media shortly after being rescued, memorably telling interviewers he was "scared as s--t" as the plane was going down.

After his interview, as he was attempting to leave the scene, he was asked two very different questions (by two different people):

1. "Jeff, do you need to go to the hospital? Are you alright?"

2. "Jeff, are you interested in appearing on The Rachel Maddow Show tonight?"

Ouch.


At the meeting with television critics, Maddow followed up her Fox-free admission with some knee-slapping observations (see, she IS a comedian, just as the mainstream media claims, the humor is merely unintentional):

"The idea that there's any equivalency between us and Fox News..." she said. "Fox is a political experiment. Imagine them having somebody as liberal as Joe Scarborough is conservative doing their whole morning? It doesn't make sense."

Really, Rachel: MSNBC is fair and balanced thanks to Joe Scarborough's mushy moderate (and sometimes quite left-leaning) views? That's side-splitting.

Her hyper-partisan network boss followed up with some choice gems of his own, claiming MSNBC is "less political" than Fox. These guys are a laff riot!


Given what we know about Maddow's background, should any of this come as a real surprise? Between the extremism of the (off the deep end) East Bay, Western Massachusetts, Oxford and Manhattan, she's spent her entire life hiding from conservatives and their viewpoints (occasional on-air jousts with populist Pat Buchanan really don't count).

And one suspects that if she could get away with it, she'd retreat to the Berkshires for good and make jam, or play with cats. So what is this really all about?

Top that off with an aversion to televised viewpoints from the competition and a picture emerges of a talking head without a clear idea of what the other side truly believes. Because she beats the fossilized Larry King in the 25-54 demo, however, the New York Times would have you believe she's the next candidate for sainthood.

By contrast, conservative talk radio's top stars have spent their entire lives studying (and most certainly living amongst) the left. The massive audiences they've generated recognize this quality; it has been key to their success.

Forget the doctorate (which in political science is a bloody waste of time), with this Achilles heel, why should Rachel Maddow be taken seriously?

For the record, Ms. Maddow, who started like a house afire (for context, it should be noted that katie carwreck did too at CBS news), now runs behind both Fox and CNN on both her 9:00PM broadcast and her 11:00PM repeat.

With her (still considerable) numbers down from where they started, and her Air America radio show losing what's left of its (tiny to begin with) audience, maybe there's a little less reason for her trademark smirk, and a little more reason to start operating in a professional manner. 

Part of that might be to open her mind, and her mike, to points of view other than her own.

Then again, at MSNBC that's probably grounds for dismissal.

Ken Berwitz

Ok, ok, I'm sorry for the squirrel and I'm certainly sorry for the people who lost their trailers.  But, dammit, this is funny. And a definite candidate for the "you can't make this stuff up" file:

Officials: Flaming Squirrel Sparked Wildfire

Students Moved From Elementary To High School

So that's how you hot-wire a squirrel.....

Ray Charles could have done the theme song for this story:  "Hit the rodent, jack"

On a more somber note, I truly am sorry about the trailer people who were burned out.  And all because of a squirrel.

Maybe they should contact ACORN.

Ken Berwitz

New York's Governor-by-chance, David Paterson, has made his decision.

Mr. Paterson has selected Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Clinton as the senator from New York.

Who is Kirsten Gillibrand?  Fred Dicker of the New York Post can tell you better than I can, so here is his article:

DAVE PICKS GILLIBRAND AS LIBERAL DEMS HOWL

By FREDRIC U. DICKER State Editor

ALBANY - Gov. Paterson, defying the liberal wing of his Democratic Party, has chosen little-known, NRA-backed, upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as New York's junior senator, it was learned last night.

The surprising - and, for many Democrats shocking - decision to pick the conservative Gillibrand, 42, from Hudson in Columbia County, was disclosed by the governor in calls to party officials and some members of the state's congressional delegation, many of whom said they were unhappy with the selection, sources said.

MORE: Nasty Caroline War

MORE: Kirsten Has Big Goals - But Little Experience

GERSHMAN: Oh, The Shame: Blago Did Better

Gillibrand, a mother of two occasionally resented by colleagues for being an aggressive self-promoter, was strongly backed for the post by Charles Schumer, the state's senior senator, who said a woman and an upstater was needed on next year's ticket.

Paterson's decision - to be officially announced today at noon at the state Capitol - was made just 24 hours after Caroline Kennedy took herself out of the running.

The decision was a major rebuff to some of the state's best-known Democrats interested in Clinton's seat, including Attorney General and former federal Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo, for whom Gillibrand once worked as a junior lawyer; Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, and Reps. Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan and Steve Israel of Suffolk County.

Sources said "at least five" members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation called Paterson to protest the possibility of Gillibrand's selection. One, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of Nassau County, even threatened a primary challenge. Gillibrand faces a special election in 2010.

Democratic activists predicted that Cuomo, son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo, would also "seriously consider" challenging Paterson in a primary next year.

Calls were made from Paterson's office to leading Democrats and Republicans throughout the afternoon, inviting them to a special meeting room attached to the Capitol for "a major announcement."

The inclusion of several prominent Republicans among the invitees was an early sign to insiders that Paterson planned to pick an upstate Democrat.

Gillibrand has won two successive elections in one of the heaviest GOP districts in the state, first upsetting incumbent Rep. John Sweeney and, in November, defeating former state GOP chairman and multimillionaire Alexander Treadwell, in one of the most expensive races in the nation.

Liberal Democrats have been wary of her because she ran for re-election with the backing of the National Rifle Association, opposed the federal TARP program to rescue banks, and has been less than enthusiastic about gay marriage.

My take on this pick?  It's what you would expect from a political dimwit who no one ever vetted because no one ever expected him to be in the office.

Let's enumerate the reasons:

-Outside of Columbia County and environs, Ms.Gillibrand is a political unknown.  She therefore brings no political benefit to Mr. Paterson;

-Gillibrand is a centrist; in fact, by New York terms, she is to the right of center on many issues.  Incredible.

The liberal/left just cleaned everyone's clock in November.  Politically, New York is about as blue as the Carribean sky in July.  And given these conditions, Paterson picks someone whose positions are guaranteed to enrage the liberal left? 

Why would he do this?  I can think of only two good explanations:  1) out of principle because he believes what she believes (100% untrue) and 2) out of amazing political ignorance and tone-deafness (bingo!).

-Ms. Gillibrand, holds a congressional seat from a traditionally Republican district.  Now that district will have a special election to replace her.  Thus there is a very serious likelihood that the district will revert back to the Republican Party.

-Picking Gillison over Andrew Cuomo and Carolyn Maloney immediately makes political enemies of them both.  

These are two of the heaviest hitters in New York Democratic Politics.  About the last thing David Paterson needs is to be on either one's excrement list.  But now he's on both. 

Of course, it can be argued that if he picked either of these two he'd be on the other's list.  But by picking a third party - one with political views that are toxic to both Mr. Cuomo and Ms. Maloney to boot - he hits for the excremental daily double.

Bottom line:  By picking Kirsten Gillibrand, Governor Paterson has screwed the liberal/left base of his party (which is the lion's share of that party), made two of the worst political enemies he could make, and probably has given Republicans a house seat they'd never have gotten otherwise.

You can almost see the line of party operatives at Eliot Spitzer's condo door, begging him to reconsider that resignation.  Heck, they might even offer to pay for his hookers out of their own pockets.

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

UPDATE:  FYI, Scott Whitlock of  www.newsbusters.org claims that Gillibrand is a good deal more liberal than Fred Dicker thinks.  You can read his piece by clicking here.

Ken Berwitz

If you think that title is an exaggeration, read the following excerpt from today's article in the Financial Times:

I have a feeling that there is suddenly a segment of Israel supporters, Jew and non-Jew alike, who are starting to wonder if "The Invasion Of The Body Snatchers" wasn't a movie, but a documentary.

Can this be the same Barack Obama who said that he was unalterably suppportive of Israel?  The guy who said that if someone was attacking his wife and children he would do anything and everything to stop them?

Well, yes it can be, and it is.  The difference is that the election is over. 

So what is Mr. Obama saying now?

-"The outline of a durable peace is clear":  

Yes, it always has been.  Peaceful coexistence".  And????? 

Saying this is like saying the outline of a healthier economy is clear.  Spend only what has to be spent, cut out all the pork and no corruption.  The words are perfect.  Just let me know when saying it will make it happen.  I'll wait......

-"hamas must end it's rocket fire: 

And?????

You might as well tell a 1 month old not to soil his diaper.  hamas is committed, in writing, to obliterating Israel and killing every Jew there.  To this end, hamas fired literally thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel before Israel acted; until it couldn't rationalize looking the other way anymore and finally went in last month.  Again, just let me know when saying it will make it happen.  I'll wait.....

-"Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza": 

It did.  What's your point?

-"Our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that hamas cannot re-arm" (This one is my favorite):

Er, earth to obama:  hamas IS the regime.  Gaza ELECTED hamas to majority rule, and then hamas' murderous thugs finished the job by violently overthrowing what was left of the opposition.  Do you really think they give a damn whether or not you support them?

And since hamas is doing the smuggling, and isn't about to interdict itself, what do think your mouthings mean to them besides nothing?

Based on the above, Barack Obama is supporting (demanding?) that Israel open its borders, so the same people who want Israel obliterated and every Jew dead have access to the country in which they want to do it.  Otherwise, Mr. Obama reasons, aid and commerce will be denied to Gazans. 

In other words, Gaza's Egyptian border and its mediterranean ports are somehow not valid sources for aid and commerce; they can only come through Israel.  Thus the only way for Gaza to get what it needs is to put Israel and its people in mortal jeopardy.  Thanks Barack.  Great idea.  Very logical.

According to the exit polls, about 78% of all Jews voted for Barack Obama.  Presumably, a great many of them support Israel.

I hope they're happy with what they got.  Speaking as one of the other 22% , I can assure you I'm not. 

And the fact that, I suspect, we 22% are getting some worried new recruits from the 78% doesn't console me one little bit.  Where were they on November 4th?

Ken Berwitz

I just came across this piece from a web site called www.yidwithlid.com.

I gather that the writer is either an observant Jew whose "lid" is a yarmulke, or a secular guy looking for an open can.

In any event, his blog today is about Barney Frank - a man he and I have very similar feelings about.  It is so well researched that I thought I would show it to you here:

Friday, January 23, 2009

In my opinion, Barney Frank is a blowhard, an incompetent and a liar.  I think the people of Newton, MA make fools of themselves by re-electing this circus clown every two years.  If I haven't been clear enough in why I feel this way until now, maybe the blog you just read will fill in the blanks.

Ken Berwitz

Today's lead editorial in the New York Times is titled "The President Orders Transparency".  It hails President Obama for bringing this attribute to the white house where, in the Times' view, it has not existed for 8 years.

Oh yeah?

This is from www.politico.com.  It talks about the transparency of the Obama administration too.  See what you think:

Obama flashes irritation in press room By JONATHAN MARTIN & CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 1/22/09 6:43 PM EST  Updated: 1/23/09 7:20 AM EST

President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question. Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face. "Ahh, see," he said, "I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here." Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, William J. Lynn III, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter's shoulder and staring him in the eye. "Alright, come on" he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. "We will be having a press conference at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys - that's all I was trying to do."

Welcome to reality, Mr. Obama.  It's been a long time coming.

You're the President now.  If you walk into a room full of reporters, they are not going to bow down and jockey for position to kiss your ring.  They are going to ask questions.  And not all of them will be puff questions that celebrate how wonderful you are.  Some of them will be real questions. 

If this agitates you, if this irritates you, you're going to be one agitated, irritated man for the next four years.

What are you going to do about it?  Stick your middle finger out at them, the way you did at Hillary Clinton during the primary campaign?  The way you did at John McCain during the election campaign?  Your loving media didn't call you on either of those disgraceful, childish displays at at the time, because they were too invested in getting you elected. 

Well, now you are elected.  They don't have to look the other way any more.  Sure, a lot of them will still treat you like the god they created.  But a lot of them won't.  And they'll be asking questions too.

Folks, this is what you get from a rock star who knows little other than being surrounded by adoring starstruck sycophants. 

Last November we bought a pig in a poke.  Yesterday we got a quick look inside the poke.  It will be more than a little interesting to see what else is in there.

Ken Berwitz

Here, from the New York Times (and many other sources) is the beginning of a front page story in the New York Times, the day after President Obama, with great fanfare, pomp and pride, signed executive orders which largely dismantled President Bush's war against terror:

Freed by U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief

In this connection, I will also post from an analysis in today's Washington Post regarding what Mr. Obama has "accomplished" so far.  Here is how it starts:

Bush's 'war on terror' comes to a sudden end

Obama signals that America's reach in battling enemies will not be limitless

WASHINGTON - President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the "war on terror," as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.

While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

I have no doubt that Code Pink feels better.  And moveon.org.  And al qaeda, the taliban and hamas.

But do you feel safer?  As safe?

Think about it.

Ken Berwitz

Do you remember the Jenin massacre that wasn't?

In 2002, during the "second intifada", Israel determined that terrorist attacks were emanating from the Jenin area of the west bank, and went in to clean things up.  After they did, Palestinian Arabs claimed Israelis had massacred hundreds upon hundreds of innocent people.  The stories of Israel's outrageous atrocities went out via every news agency, and people across the world were outraged.

Except there was no massacre.  No one could produce video footage of it.  No one could produce the corpses. 

Eventually, the same people that made these claims had to suck it up and admit that only about 50 - 60 people people died -- most of them young men who were fighting the Israeli troops.

You'd think this would make these same news agencies a little gun-shy when reporting Palestinian Arab claims about Israelis killing innocent civilians in Gaza, wouldn't you?  Well, if so, you would be wrong. 

Read the following story from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, via Ha'aretz, and see for yourself.  Please pay special attention to the passages I've put in bold print:

Italian paper: Gazans say Hamas kept them in homes used by gunmen

By Haaretz Service

Palestinian civilians have accused Hamas of forcing them to stay in homes from which gunmen shot at Israeli soldiers during the recent hostilities in Gaza, the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported Thursday. More than 1,250 Palestinians were reportedly killed during Israel's offensive against Hamas in the coastal territory. Israel has been harshly criticized for the large number of civilians among the Palestinian dead, of whom they numbered more than half according Gaza officials. But the Italian paper also quoted a doctor at Gaza City's Shifa Hospital as disputing the number of Palestinians said to have been killed in the campaign. "It's possible that the death toll in Gaza was 500 or 600 at the most, mainly youths aged 17 to 23 who were enlisted by Hamas - who sent them to their deaths," he said. 13 Israelis were also killed during the 3-week operation, which was aimed at halting rocket fire on southern Israel and destroying Hamas' infrastructure. The Gaza doctor was further quoted as saying: "Perhaps it is like Jenin in 2002. At the beginning they spoke about 1,500 dead, and at the end it turned out to be only 54 - of whom 45 were militants." He was referring to the Israel Defense Forces battle with Palestinian militants in the West Bank town that took place during Operation Defensive Shield at the height of the second intifada. Top IDF officer: Hamas made 'monstrous' use of children during Gaza op The IDF Gaza Division Commander on Thursday, meanwhile, branded Hamas' use of women and children during the offensive in Gaza as "monstrous" and "inhumane." Brig. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg said the civilians were sent by Hamas to transfer weapons to gunmen during the offensive. He also accused the Islamist militant group of booby-trapping many of the civilians' homes. "Entire families in Gaza lived on top of a barrel of explosives for months without knowing," Eisenberg said. The officer asserted that despite international calls for investigations into alleged war crimes, the Israel Defense Forces soldiers adhered to moral principles while fighting in Gaza.

Do you smell another fraud here?  I sure do.

I remember the Jenin lie very well.  I remember that the news media came up with exactly one "eye witness" willing to be quoted, who claimed he personally saw elements of the massacre. 

His name?  So help me god he said he was Kamal Anis.  Google that name and you can still read his "account" of the alleged atrocities.

Now, do yourself a favor.  Say Kamal Anis out loud and accent the first syllable both times.  What do you hear?

Yep, you got it.  These "brilliant" journalists were sold a phony bill of goods by someone who actually used the name CAMEL ANUS.

I wonder how many camel anuses they're currently listening to in Gaza....

Ken Berwitz

The following story describes a scandal of unspeakable proportion.  It comes to us from the Associated Press, via www.news.yahoo.com.

Minnesota has not certified al franken or Norm Coleman as its senator.  There are legal issues pending in the Minnestota courts which may result in thousands of ballots being added to the vote total.  

NO ONE KNOWS WHO WON .

But hapless harry reid, the incompetent fool Democrats have installed as majority leader, has decided that the election is over -which it clearly is not.  And he has declared that no one doubts the election was on the up and up  - despite the fact that countless venues, including this blog, have chronicled how badly the recount stinks and how arbitrarily it was allowed to go forth, with no uniformity from district to district. 

The truth?  What you are seeing is a sickening attempt at dictatorial power by a man who thinks he and his party are above the law.   

This country voted for one-party governance.  And when you get one party governance, this is what happens. 

So settle back folks.  You have two years to "enjoy" the consequences before you can do something about it.   

Ken Berwitz

As regular readers are aware, I use the term "LAMB" to describe members of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade.  And LAMB's are certainly in ascendancy now that Barack Obama is President.

With that in mind, I thought I would show you the first looney-tune  theory of the new administration.  It comes to us from a truly classic LAMB web site, www.buzzflash.com:

Do you believe Justice Roberts bobbled the oath accidentally or was it intentional?

There you go.  Did Justice Roberts flub a couple of words on purpose on behalf of the "right wing" and to tweak a Senator who voted against him?  Or, put another way, did Justice Roberts intentionally make himself look bad in front of hundreds of millions of people around the world just to "get" Barack Obama?

This must be the first looney-tune theory, because it is about the first thing that happened when Mr. Obama became President.  So I congratulate Mark Karlin of www.buzzflash.com for being a true pacesetter. 

And, knowing what I know as a regular reader of his site, I have little doubt that there is plenty more to come.

Ken Berwitz

It's time for another round of GUESS THAT POLITICAL PARTY!!

Here is a story about a six term member of the Alabama state senate.  He was convicted on 48 (not a typo) counts of corruption. 

Read it through.  Every word.  Then.....GUESS THAT POLITICAL PARTY!!

Alabama senator convicted on all charges

This article was written by the Associated Press.  Do you see any mention of party affiliation for E. B. McClain?

No you do not.  Nor would you if you read the Birmingham News article (McClain represents the Birmingham area)).

Now the big question:  Do you have any doubt at all that he is a Democrat?

Of course you don't.  Democrats are the ones who get a free ride on party affiliation.  Not Republicans.  That is the ongoing policy of our wonderful "neutral" media.

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

Ken Berwitz

Question:  Now that Israel's attack on Gaza is (currently) ended and hamas is (currently) not firing the mortars and artillery at Israel which caused the attack, what wars will media report on?

Response:  Iraq and Afghanistan, of course, since those are the only other ones in progress.  Everybody knows that.  Why would you even ask that?  It's insulting.  We read the newspapers.  We watch the nightly news.  We're not ignorant.

Question:  Er, you really think those are the only two wars going on right now?

Response (with a sneer):  That's right.  If there were other ones, we'd be reading about them in the newspapers and seeing them on the network news.  What are you, a right wing tinfoil-hat nutjob?

Question (indulgently):  Well, if that's the case then what about these?

At this point I will post a compendium of some (not all) of the wars currently in progress.  I got it from, of all places, www.russiatoday.com.  See how many you've ever heard about from our wonderful "neutral" media:

Ongoing wars and conflicts around the world

Democratic Republic Of Congo

Kivu Conflict
2004 - Present
An armed conflict between the Military of the DR Congo and rebel forces of the National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP), led by Laurent Nkunda. Despite a peace deal signed in January 2008, the rebel forces have restarted the conflict. Nkunda says he is fighting to protect his Tutsi community from attack by Rwandan Hutu rebels in DR Congo. All sides are accused of committing atrocities against civilians, including mass rape. Since the fighting started officials state 5.4 million people have been killed, and some 45,000 continue to die each month. Children account for almost half of the deaths, many dying from disease and malnutrition as a result of the conflict.

Sudan

War in Dafur
2003 - Present
An ethnic and tribal conflict in the Dafur region of western Sudan. On the one side is the Sudanese Military and the militia group the Janjaweed. On the other side are rebel groups such as the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement. An accurate death toll has been difficult to state due to the government's attempts to cover up the conflict, but estimates state 450,000 deaths and 2.5 million people displaced. The UN Mission has accused Sudan's government of orchestrating "gross violations" and taking part in war crimes against the people in Dafur.

Chad

Civil War in Chad
2005 - Present
Ongoing conflict involving the Chadian government and rebel groups such as the United Front for Democratic Change. Because of the rebel group's affiliation with Janjaweed militias, the Chad War has largely become an extension of the conflict in Dafur. Sudan has been accused of involvement but denies allegations. Estimates of deaths and
casualties: over 400 Chadian forces and almost 700 rebel forces.

Somalia

Somali Civil War
1988 - Present

It began with an insurgency against the repressive regime of dictator Siad Barre, who was ousted from power in 1991. The situation soon spread to a humanitarian crisis and a state of anarchy. The conflict has since led to a number of self-declared autonomous states within Somalia and order has still not been restored. According to human rights groups the Islamist-led insurgency that began in early 2007 has killed almost 9,000.

Uganda

Lord's Resistance Army insurgency
1987 - Present
A Guerilla campaign by the Lord's Resistance Army waged against the Ugandan government. This is one of Africa's longest-running conflicts and has led to a severe humanitarian crisis, with the LRA accused of widespread human rights violations such as torture, rape, abduction of civilians, use of child soldiers and massacres. The estimated death toll is 12,000, with many more dying from disease and malnutrition as a direct result of the conflict.

Nigeria

Conflict in the Niger Delta
2004 - Present
Ongoing ethnic and political unrest. Nigeria's Delta region is home to vast oil reserves, making the country one of the world's largest oil exporters. Competition for oil wealth has fueled violence between a number of ethnic groups. Armed militia groups, such as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, are dedicated to the struggle against what they see as exploitation of the region. The favoured tactics of armed rebels are sabotaging oil production and kidnapping foreign workers for ransom. The death toll is unknown.

Algeria, Mauritania and Morocco

Insurgency in the Maghreb
2002 - Present
Conflict waged against the government by the Islamist militia group the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, which has allied itself with the Al Qaeda Organisation in the Islamic Maghreb. Insurgency is marked by terrorist attacks such as suicide bombings. Death toll 6,000 on both sides.

Sri Lanka

Sri Lankan Civil War
1983 - Present
Between the government and the Tamil Tigers, an armed separatist organisation which is fighting for the creation of an independent state named Tamil Eelam. It's one of the world's deadliest ongoing armed conflicts, killing 70,000 people since it began. 200,000 people have been displaced within the country.

Pakistan

The War in North-West Pakistan
2004 - Present
An armed conflict between the Pakistani Army and local Islamist militants the Taliban, as well as foreign extremists. The tensions stem from the Pakistani Army's search for members of Al Qaeda in the mountainous Waziristan area, which was met by armed resistance from local tribesmen. The death toll: 5,000 militants, over 5,500 civilians and 1,500 Pakistani soldiers.

Mexico

Mexican Drug War
2006 - Present
An ongoing armed conflict between rival drug cartels and government forces. Mexico is the main supply route of Colombian cocaine entering the United States. As a result of government crackdowns, many cartels have been left without leaders, but this has led to violent power struggles between potential new leaders. Around 14,000 have been killed on both sides.

Colombia

The Colombian Armed Conflict
1964 - Present
Ongoing guerrilla insurgency campaigns against successive Colombian governments ever since the organizations the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the National Liberation Army were founded in the 60's. Estimates suggest that the conflict has claimed the lives of over 34,000 combatants and over 18,000 civilians.

Philippines

Insurgency in the Philippines
1969 - Present
Double-sided insurgency against the government by both Islamist and Communist armed groups who carry out bombings, assassinations and abductions. The conflict has caused the deaths of over 160,000 since the start. Many of the militant groups are deemed "foreign terrorist organisations" by the US. Since the US launched Operation Enduring Freedom in 2002 (aimed at advising the Filipino army in combating
terrorism) just over 400 Filipino soldiers and almost 1,000 militants have been killed.

Turkey

The Turkey-Kurdistan Workers Party Conflict 1970s - Present A conflict between the Republic of Turkey and armed ethnic separatist group the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which says Turkey is denying Kurdish identity. Both the PKK and the Turkish army have been accused of committing human rights abuses throughout the conflict. According to the Turkish military, the conflict has resulted in the death of 32,000 PKK members, 6,482 soldiers, and 5,560 civilians.

India/Pakistan

Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir
1989 - Present
Ongoing violence mainly on the Indian side of the disputed territory of Kashmir, caused by confrontation between Kashmiri separatists.
Human rights groups have labeled Kashmir as the most volatile region in the world, with an average of 2,500 incidents of militancy every year. The death toll is estimated to be over 60,000 since the conflict began.

Thailand

South Thailand Insurgency
2004 - Present
A separatist campaign by Islamist rebels in Thailand's Southern provinces. There is almost daily violence including shootings and bombings, despite a massive military presence in the region. The true identity of the insurgents remains a mystery. Death toll: 3,500, including over 1,600 civilians.

Burma

Internal Conflict in Burma
1948 - Present
Low intensity armed conflict between the government and various ethnic groups who are against the military regime that has ruled the country since 1962. The uprisings began as soon as Burma gained independence from Great Britain in 1948. This is the oldest current conflict in the world. Over 7,000 people have been killed during anti-government uprisings.

.

Surprised?  You probably are.  And believe me, this isn't the full extent of things. 

Yet if you count on our media, all you know is that there is Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza (only because Israel, though justified in responding to hamas' attacks, disproportionately reacted to them and blew it into a real war.) 

Oh, and there is also the potential for an Israel/Iran confrontation, but Saint Barack can diffuse it just by chatting with ahmadinejad - no preconditions necessary. 

In other words, our wonderful "neutral" media have created the illusion that every war in the world is because of the USA and Israel.

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

Ken Berwitz

Here is a video compilation by Bette Bentley, an intern working with www,gawker.com.  It shows Diane (hic) Sawyer after what appears to be a few too many trips to the open bar on (hic) inaugural night.

Is she drunk?  Watch it and judge for yourself:

(CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO)

Maybe it's just me, but I think that if you were judging whether Barack Obama was more inaugurated or Diane Sawyer was more inebriated, you'd come away with a tie.

Is Ms. Sawyer embarrassed by this performance?  Hmmm, what a sobering thought.......

Ken Berwitz

President Bush's term of office ended at noon on Tuesday.  His actions during the transition of power ro President Obama were exemplary from start to finish.

This, according to www.sfgate.com,  is his goodbye from Speaker of the House nancy pelosi:

Pelosi said one of her favorite moments from Inauguration Day was when Marine One lifted off the Capitol grounds, signifying former President George W. Bush's exit from Washington. "It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head," she said.

No, Ms. pelosi, the ten pound anvil is what's IN your head, you absolutely useless, nasty, vindictive, vituperative, incompetent loser.

George Bush has more grace and maturity in his pinky-toenail than you have in your entire life.

Ken Berwitz

The story of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's sudden withdrawal from consideration as a senate replacement for Hillary Clinton is now confirmed.

Not surprisingly, there are countless news sources for this story.  But the one I've decided to post below embodies what may be the key problem with Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg's candidacy.  It comes to us from Marcia Kramer of CBS News.  I have put the phrase that caused me to choose Ms. Kramer's story in bold print:

Kennedy Drops Senate Bid For 'Personal Reasons'

Despite Conflicting Reports, Princess Of Camelot Informs Gov. Paterson She Is Withdrawing From Consideration

Cuomo, Suozzi, Maloney, Israel Catapulted To Head Of Pack

The Question Now Is Why Caroline Has Withdrawn From Contention

NEW YORK (CBS) ―

From front runner to out of contention. That's the course Caroline Kennedy has taken overnight. The question Thursday morning is why the Princess of Camelot has withdrawn her name from the highly publicized Senate bid.

There was complete confusion Wednesday night over whether or not Kennedy had in fact dropped her bid for Hillary Clinton's U.S. Senate seat.

However, late Wednesday night Kennedy confirmed an earlier New York Post report by releasing a statement saying she is removing herself as a candidate for the now vacant New York Senate seat.

"I informed Gov. Paterson today that for personal reasons I am withdrawing my name from consideration for the United States Senate," Kennedy said in a statement obtained by CBS 2 HD.

This should put an end to confusion surrounding her status. It started with numerous reports of Kennedy's withdrawal that later turned into a lot of 11th-hour back-pedaling.

Two sources, including one very close to Kennedy, told CBS 2 HD late Wednesday that the Post's earlier story may have been a mistake.

It was only Tuesday that New York Gov. David Paterson offered praise for both Kennedy and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

There were reports Wednesday night from CBS News, The Associated Press, the New York Times and the Post saying Kennedy has decided to take herself out of contention for the position.

But then The AP story changed as sources told the wire service Kennedy had renewed her determination to take on the position. Initially she had misgivings about the job after her surviving uncle, Sen. Edward Kennedy, suffered a seizure on Inauguration Day, the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak for Kennedy.

But that, as it turned out, was just one in a long line of stories.

"It's a dramatic story … Caroline Kennedy out of the running we're told that Gov. Paterson had decided not to select her," said Fred Dicker, state editor of the New York Post.

The Post and Times offer different versions about why Kennedy reportedly decided to withdraw her name from consideration. The Times said it's concern over uncle Ted Kennedy's health. The Post's Dicker said it was because Gov. Paterson decided not to pick her.

"The governor got a lot of feedback from the political community and it was disappointing feedback about Caroline Kennedy," Dicker said.

Meanwhile sources tell CBS 2 HD that the governor apparently found something in Kennedy's background check that he didn't like. And members of the New York Congressional delegation told CBS 2 HD they complained to Paterson about Kennedy's lack of Washington chops.

Also Paterson emissaries apparently didn't get a good response when they asked if sitting congressmen would accept a non-elected official.

There are still many candidates on the governor's short list.

"Andrew Cuomo is clearly on the short list," Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told CBS 2 HD. "[Paterson] had indicated some favorable discussions toward Randi Weingarten. He's indicated to Congressman Israel, Congressman Maloney, so he had a long short list.

The list includes Rep. Steve Israel of Long Island and Rep. Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan and Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand of Hudson County, as well as Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi.

"The issue is who helps the Democrats in 2010 when all the Democrats -- newly empowered -- are up for election," political consultant Hank Sheinkopf said.

The governor is expected to announce his decision by Friday or Saturday.

As of this moment, we can only speculate about why Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg suddenly said "no".  But I suspect one reason that may have had a major impact involves that ridiculous "Princess of Camelot" line from the still-mesmerized Marcia Kramer.

Caroline Kennedy has always had an aura of tragedy and sympathy around her. People my age remember those beautiful pictures of her playing under the oval office desk while daddy JFK was tending to affairs of state.  She was a sweet, lovable little doll. 

Then the life she knew was tragically changed by the assassination of her father.  After that was the assassination of her Uncle Bobby, then her mother dying at an early age and, finally, her brother killed in an airplane crash.  Understandably, there was nothing but sympathy and well wishes from everyone.

Eventually Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg became an ivy league-educated lawyer.  She spent her adult years both raising a family and working for a variety of social causes.  Who could possibly have a bad word to say about that?

Now, however, Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg is a 51 year old woman who decided that, despite having no elective or appointive governmental experience, she wanted to be a US senator.  Out of nowhere. 

If Governor-by-chance David Paterson appointed her, it would be ahead of people like Andrew Cuomo, Carolyn Maloney and others who have worked long years in politics and paid their dues. 

Why would she want the US Senate, and be willing to leapfrog obviously more qualified people to get it?  Well, why not ?  Who ever said "no" to Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg about anything?  Who ever had a bad word to say about her?  Everything she has ever done has been with fawning adoration.  How could a move to the US Senate be any different?

And what could she offer Mr. Paterson?  Her family name and her limitless family fortune as resources for his 2010 election campaign, that's what.

Now for the bad news.

How did this look to the public?  It looked like the "Princess of Camelot" was buying her royal highness a senate seat she had no business getting.  Is this fair?  You tell me.........

Worse still, the people Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg was leapfrogging over had to be angry at her for doing so.  And, because they are experienced, connected politicians, they have plenty of pals in the media to use as outlets for expressing that anger. 

So suddenly, for the first time in her life, "Princess Caroline" was being attacked in the press.  I can't imagine this was easy to take.

Then her problems were exacerbated by the fact that she was refusing interviews.  There were comments that she avoided interviews because she couldn't handle them, and/or felt she would be embarrassed if asked to justify going straight into the senate from essentially nowhere.  Not good.  The pressure to be accessible to media became greater and greater.

So, because of that pressure  she did do interviews.  They were a disaster.  Next to Caroline, "y'know", Kennedy Schlossberg, Sarah Palin sounded like Eleanor Roosevelt incarnate.

At this point, I speculate, she realized that a lifetime of sympathy, deference and unconditional adoration was about to end.  Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg realized that she would not be hailed and heralded by a fawning media and loving voters, but rather snickered at as a rich lady who cynically, unfairly "bought" a political office. 

Maybe that is why she withdrew.  I certainly don't know for sure.  But I think it is a realistic possibility.  

What do you think?

Ken Berwitz

Is Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg withdrawing her name from consideration as New York's senate replacement for Hillary Clinton?

Here's what the New York Times just posted, less than ten minutes ago:

Considering this comes from the New York Times, I'll wait for confirmation. 

I'll also wait to find out if Ted Kennedy's health has anything to do with it - because I don't begin to understand why it would.  No one is expecting Ms. Kennedy-Schlossberg to tend to Senator Kennedy.  He's got a wife and more money than Croesus - plus, they don't live anywhere near each other and haven't for decades.

If the story is true, there is one excrement-load more to it than Uncle Ted.  You can take that to the bank.

Ken Berwitz

A couple of blog entries ago I discussed how women are treated under shari'a law.  While I tried to write it in something of a light tone, in truth it is pretty chilling.

But there are far worse facets of fundamentalist Islam.  And my good friend Bob just sent me a link to one of them.  Here are the key excerpts of an Associated Press article which provides the specifics --- and should scare you to the bone:

Taliban demands end to music on Pakistan buses

PESHAWAR, Pakistan – Bus drivers in northwest Pakistan have begun removing audio and video equipment from their vehicles after Taliban militants threatened suicide attacks against those who played music or movies for their passengers, an industry official said Tuesday.

Transport workers in Mardan town received letters this week from militants saying that buses offering such entertainment were guilty of spreading "vulgarity and obscenity," Walid Mir, general secretary of the town's transport union, told The Associated Press.

The militants said they would check the buses and that suicide attacks would be carried out against vehicles that still had audio and video equipment — prompting union members to act quickly, Mir said.

The Taliban letter complained that traveling in buses that provide audiovisual entertainment was a "source of mental agony for pious people," according to a text obtained by AP.

"It is obligatory on us to stop such violations. We request you to remove the vulgar systems ... otherwise suicide bombers are ready," the letter said.

Elsewhere in northwest Pakistan, extremists have targeted girls' schools, police posts and other symbols of authority.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime that was forced from power in late 2001 banned art, secular music and television, vandalized the national museum and destroyed artwork or statues deemed idolatrous or anti-Muslim.

Local police said they had no knowledge of the threat.

"We did not report it to police because it is a matter of human lives. What can the police can do? It involves the lives of hundreds of passengers, and we do not want to put them in danger," Mir said.

This is the world of radical Islam.  Listen to music, and be blown to smithereens by suicide bombers who are convinced that killing innocent people on a bus gets them a one-way ticket to Allah.

I wonder if any of these human drones think to ask why, if this is such a great path to eternal glory, the person who recruited them doesn't do it himself.   On the other hand, if they do, they'll probably be dispensed with right then and there.  Fundamentalists don't like questions, only submission.

In his inaugural speech President Obama said the following:

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West--know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

"...we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist".  That is a very clever turn of phrase. 

But does Mr.Obama seriously believe the lunatics described above are going to do that?  Would he be naive enough to believe them if they said they might? 

He damn well better think about those two questions, because they have a huge, even decisive, effect on our safety and well being.

Ken Berwitz

Does this look like a story right out of one of those supermarket tabloids, or what?

But it comes to us from the London Daiyl Mail and apparently is real.  Make of it what you will:

Former French President Chirac hospitalised after mauling by his clinically depressed poodle

By Ian Sparks
Last updated at 5:45 PM on 21st January 2009

Former French president Jacques Chirac was rushed to hospital after being mauled by his own 'clinically depressed' pet dog.

The 76-year-old statesman was savaged by his white Maltese dog - which suffers from frenzied fits and is being treated with anti-depressants.

The animal, named Sumo, had become increasingly violent over the past years and was prone to making 'vicious, unprovoked attacks', Chirac's wife Bernadette said.

Former French President Jacques Chirac pictured in his car with his pet, Sumo, the white Maltese Poodle (file photo). The president has been bitten by his dog

The former president, who ruled France for 12 years until 2007, was taken to hospital in Paris where he was treated as an outpatient and sent home, VSD magazine reported.

Mrs Chirac said: 'The dog went for him for no apparent reason.

'We were already aware the animal was unpredictable and is actually being treated with pills for depression.

'My husband was bitten quite badly, but he is certain to make a full recovery over the coming weeks.'

The former French First Lady did not reveal where on his body Chirac was bitten.

Maybe, in its depressed state, the poodle mistook Chirac for a large truffle.  Or a milk-bone.  Or maybe it thought chirac was shaped like one of the French Alpos.

I just wish I knew where Sumo sank his teeth....

Ken Berwitz

Periodically, I put up information from www.islamqa.com, a web site which answers questions posed by Muslims about shari'a (fundamentalist Islamic) law.  Anyone who wants real insight into what shari'a is all about would do well to read this site's questions and answers. 

Here is a q and a I read there just now.  See how you feel about it:

a quick glossary for you: 

mahram - a mahram is a blood relative or in-law who could not be married under Islamic law and with whom sexual relations would be considered incestuous.

hijab - the state of dress in which everything but the eyes are covered

haraam - forbidden under shari'a law

shaytaan:  The enemy, the devil.

So the learned opinion expressed here is that it is perfectly fine and dandy for your brother to marry a woman and keep her entirely hidden from you.  It's not extreme, Allah likes it that way.

Of course she can sit among her relatives --- provided that they aren't listening to songs, doing anything "forbidden" (your guess is as good as mine as to what the range of "forbidden" is), she is in full hijab (so you won't be seeing her anyway) and she doesn't speak softly (presumably because she might be offering some kind of come-on, I suppose). 

Please note that at no time does the woman have any say at all about this.

I also am intrigued by the line that "...what your brother has done should not have any effect on your relationship with him or on the relationship of your wives with his wife".  Wives?  As in plural?  Does that sound like gender equality to you?

Now there are people for whom shari'a law makes sense.  And if they want to live that way, that's their business. 

But I know I don't.  And I surely do not want any group of religious fanatics trying to end western civilization so they can force me to live that way. 

Do you agree? 

If you do, then you understand why we fight the taliban, al qaeda and their many kindred pals.

Ken Berwitz

Albert Dadon is many things.  He is executive chairman of the Ubertas Group, an Australian development company.  He created Le Concours des Vins du Victoria", a highly popular, successful competition of Australian and French wines.  He is an accomplished jazz guitarist, composer and producer. 

Mr. Dadon also is the founder and chairman of the Australia Israel Cultural Exchange (AICE).  It is in this capacity that he wrote the following about Israel's three week attack on Gaza. 

His commentary is so well worth reading that I thought I would post it here.  

The facts and logic are Mr. Dadon's.  The bold print is mine:

Albert Dadon

MANY friends have berated me about Israel's "crimes" in Gaza during the conflict between Hamas and Israel. I understand how they felt. When I saw the images of women and children, victims of that war, I couldn't help, still can't, but feel a profound sense of loss.

At the same time, however, my friends only saw the international media hysteria against Israel, which was predictably exactly the same as in past conflicts. But consider this: it was Hamas that formally declared all peace agreements with Israel null and void, which formally ended the ceasefire on December 19, 2008, after having violated it with the firing of thousands of rockets on the southern Israeli populations prior to Israel's invasion of Gaza.

I did not notice any media hysteria about these attacks on southern Israel, in fact, barely a mention. What country in the world would allow 3500 missiles to be fired during a 12-month period on its civilian populated areas and not retaliate?

Some commentators have said that the rockets fired by Hamas claimed only a few Israeli victims, as if this somehow justified the attacks.

I was in the southern Israeli town of Sderot last June when the Australia Israel Cultural Exchange screened the opening film of our annual Australian Film Festival there as a mark of solidarity with the local population.

Given its proximity to Gaza, Sderot had until recently been the main target for Hamas's rockets. The reality on the ground there is this: the population had stopped breathing for over a year. In order to protect civilian life from the Hamas rockets, extraordinary measures are taken. Shopping is planned like a military operation and taking kids to school becomes an operational nightmare.

The siren alarm system gives people less than 30 seconds to reach the nearest shelter. The people of Sderot, and now Ashkelon, Ashdod and Be'er Sheva, observe this rule with great discipline. This duty of care to protect civilian life by the Israeli state and their local civic leaders explains why there are so few casualties on the Israeli side.

The psychological trauma of living with the anticipation of the next rocket attack and the threat of danger, day in day out, is the real definition of the word "terror" for these people.

What is so galling and paradoxical to average Israelis, is the consistent call for Israel to be apologetic for the fact that it puts the welfare of its citizens first and seeks to minimise civilian casualties on both sides, despite the thousands of rockets hurled at its towns by Hamas. In contrast, Hamas's stated aim is to kill Israeli civilians, yet they are virtually exempt from criticism in regards to these acts. Some media outlets even go so far as to justify Hamas's targeting of civilians as a legitimate form of resistance.

Sure enough, some television programs did invite a token Israeli guest who tried to explain Israel's case. But the answers given seemed to be presented as propaganda, and the implication was that the only story to be believed was the Hamas narrative.

If Israel has learned the lessons of the 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas has learned from that war too. Hezbollah was able to use the southern Lebanese population as human shields, and get away with it.

You would think that such a crime would be denounced by humanitarian groups, by the UN and by Western media.

Alas, the strategy has worked for Hamas: it produced the images that screamed from the front pages of newspapers and TV screens, pushing the buttons of people across theworld.

Emotions cloud the context; the result is a circus. It is mind-boggling that barely any media outlet outside Israel has consistently denounced Hamas for using Palestinian women and children as human shields.

By forgetting the context, voluntarily or not, much of the Western commentators have implied this: it is permissible for terror groups to use civilians as human shields, but not for a legitimate country to mistakenly kill civilians in the course of battling enemy.

The latter is being portrayed as a crime against humanity. However harsh it is to lose civilians, this logic is absurd.

French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy said recently that you must not confuse the intentional act of shooting rockets on civilian populations with the clear intention of killing them (a crime against humanity) and the fire that is aimed at the enemy combatant that mistakenly kills civilians (however unacceptable and heartbreaking the loss of civilians always is).

After all, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Hamas has built an infrastructure of bunkers and tunnels that were located under the most populated areas of Gaza. These were not for the benefit of the civilian population, but for Hamas's own leaders to smuggle arms and hide.

The Hamas leadership had even taken refuge at the Shifa Hospital, the largest in Gaza, and at the UN Relief and Works Agency, which normally provides humanitarian and health services. There has been a lot of ranting by the UN regarding the attacks on UNRWA. It is interesting to note how the UN places the blame on Israel but does not place any responsibility on Hamas.

The rocket shootings against southern Israel take place from the buildings where civilians live. Mosques and schools are used as ammunition caches and arms depots. Hamas combatants had taken off their military fatigues from the start of the Israeli invasion and were wearing civilian clothes, surprising Israeli soldiers by mixing with civilians.

In such an environment, it is no wonder civilians were caught in the crossfire. The only surprise is the low number of civilian casualties in an area where 1.4 million Palestinians live. This is a result of the care with which Israel has operated.

Israel says 12 per cent of casualties are civilians, Hamas say 40 per cent. Whatever the percentage, it is a tragedy. But citing numbers and showing images while forgetting the context creates one more casualty: the truth.

Immediately after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unilaterally declared a ceasefire on Sunday, accepting the Egyptian plan, Hamas fired eight rockets on southern Israel.

That is the enemy Israel is confronted with; an enemy with the stated purpose of killing all Jews (civilians every bit as much as military) which uses its own women and children as shields in the course of trying to accomplish this purpose.

What kind of cowardly, sub-human scum would be so depraved?  Why, hamas.  And hezbollah.  That's who. 

I urge you to remember this when you watch or read coverage of what Israel did in Gaza.  Your memory will be very important, because it is unlikely these facts are going to be prominently featured.  Or even mentioned at all.

Ken Berwitz

Here's one that you won't see much in our wonderful "neutral" mainstream media.

The following video was just posted at www.littlegreenfootballs.com (and, I would think, many other places on the internet).  It shows an al-Arabiya TV reporter being advised that a missile was fired FROM THE BUILDING IT IS BROADCASTING FROM. 

Remarkable?  See it with your own eyes:

Video: Al Arabiya Studio Used As Rocket Launching Site

Middle East | Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:48:27 am PST

Al Arabiya reporter Hannan al-Masri is live on the air in Gaza when she is told that Hamas has just fired rockets from inside the Al Arabiya studio building, news which apparently strikes her as quite humorous.

(Turn on closed captions for English subtitles.)

As you can see and hear, the reporter finds this highly amusing.

I wonder how amused she would be if Israel fired back at the launch site - otherwise known as the building she was in.

And if Israel did, what would media say?  That Israel is systematically destroying Gaza's infrastructure and killing media which report favorably about hamas?

This is the problem Israel faces every time attacks are launched from "civilian" sites in Gaza (which is to say every day).  Israel either...

...do