Ken Berwitz

I just came across this chart while scanning www.freerepublic.com .  It was published by the Washington Post.

Given how much has been made of President Obama's approval ratings, the data it contains should provide some much-needed perspective:

Presidential Job Approval: The Highs*

		Date	% saying "approve"	Events
George W. Bush		Oct. 9, 2001	92%	One month after the terrorist attacks of September 11, President Bush achieved the highest approval rating of any president since modern polling began.
George H.W. Bush		Mar. 4, 1991	90%	With the ground war in Iraq less than a week old, the public was near-unanimous in its support for the president.
Harry S. Truman		June 5, 1945	87%	Another president buoyed by wartime success, Truman reached a peak on the eve of V-E Day.
Franklin D. Roosevelt		Jan. 13 and 31, 1942	84%	FDR had widespread support in these Gallup polls, among the first conducted after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Lyndon Johnson		Mar. 5, 1964	80%	Johnson hit his highest approval rating in early 1964, but did not dip below 70 percent approval until a year later.
John F. Kennedy		Mar. 13, 1962	80%	After Kennedy took office, his popularity grew for more than a year, peaking in early 1962.
Dwight D. Eisenhower		Dec. 19, 1956	78%	Ike's approval peaked in the post-war good times of 1956, also Elvis Presley's breakthrough year.
Jimmy Carter		Mar. 21, 1977	75%	Carter earned his highest approval rating two months after taking office. After a late-March approval rating of 72 percent, he never again topped 70 percent.
Ronald Reagan		Mar. 31 and Apr. 22, 1981	73%	Reagan's approval rating also peaked shortly after taking office, though he nearly reached a high again in mid-1986.
Gerald R. Ford		Aug. 19, 1974	71%	Not long after this, the first measure of Ford's approval rating, he pardoned Nixon and disapproval of his job performance rose 25 percentage points.
Bill Clinton		Jan. 30, 1998	69%	About a week after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, Clinton's approval rating topped out.
Richard Nixon		Nov. 17, 1969 and Jan. 29, 1973	67%	Nixon notched his highest approval rating twice: in the first year of his term and as ceasefire was declared in Vietnam.

*Data on presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter are from Gallup. Data on presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush are from Washington Post-ABC News polling.

**For more on Carter's killer rabbit, click here .

By Jennifer Agiesta |  July 24, 2007; 9:26 AM ET Post Polls

You might want to show this to your Obama-supporting friends, the next time they swoon over how great his approval ratings are.

Ken Berwitz

I rooted hard for Benjamin Netanyahu to become Israel's next Prime Minister (which will happen -- he is forming a coalition government right now). 

There are a lot of reasons I preferred Mr. Netanyahu.  They include his personal brilliance, amazing life experience, as well as his knowledge of history and how it applies to Israel's current situation. 

Let me show you an example of why I feel this way.

Following is the transcript of an interview between Mr. Netanyahu and Martin Stanford of British Sky News, during Israel's action against hezbollah in south Lebanon.  Stanford made the mistake of asking one of the standard questions that are supposed to stop any Israeli dead in his tracks:

STANFORD:  Can I just ask you first of all, then, you'll be aware of the criticism, not just from British government ministers but from other people around the world, that Israel has made its point.  It is now overdoing it.  It is being too violent in what it is reaping on South Lebanon.  How do you respond to those criticisms?

NETANYAHU:  I think that it's a peculiar criticism coming from countries that know better.  Because when London was rocketed by V2's during the blitz, the response was, shall we say, 1,000 times greater?  No, I think it's probably 10,000 times greater.  When New York was rocketed by  makeshift rockets, basically improvised aircrafts used as rockets, the response was to go halfway across the world, wipe out the taliban regime and conquer Iraq.  And in both cases, British and American troops and the troops of other countries tried to ferret out the terrorists who are, as was the case with Lebanon, hiding in civilian areas.  So civilian casualties are accrued, because the terrorists, hezbollah terrorists, not only hide, not only target civilians but hide behind civilians.  And responsible governments, whether it's Britain, the United States, other governments that join them or Israel itself now, do not give immunity to terrorists simply because they hide among civilians.  You try to minimize civilian casualties.  Since Israel has received over 1,000 rockets, including in Haifa today, where more people were killed by these criminal assaults.  These were deliberate attacks on civilians.  They're not incidental attacks on civilians.  And I think that it's a great moral confusion to equate the civilian victims that are deliberately caused by hezbollah terrorists to the incidental civilian casualties that are, unfortunately, produced also by the hezbollah tactic of hiding in crowded neighborhoods.

Then, further on in the interview Mr. Netanyahu continued his lecture for the hapless Stanford:

NETANYAHU:  ...you know, in 1944 the British Royal Air Force went to target the gestapo headquarters in Copenhagen, a legitimate military target embedded in a civilian population.  The British pilots missed, and 83 children were horribly burned in a children's hospital right next to the gestapo headquarters.  That didn't make the British pilots terrorists.  It didn't make the British response disproportionate or wrong.  It was an accident of war that accompanies any war, and especially when your targets are embedded in civilian areas.  I think that to create a false symmetry...

At this point Stanford broke in and changed the subject.  Who could blame him?

You don't mess with with Benjamin Netanyahu.  He was educated at MIT and Harvard.  He has been a business executive, an Ambassador to the UN, a member of the Knesset (Israeli Parliament), Israel's finance minister, and served as its Prime Minister once before.  He is also a 6 year veteran of the Israeli army, specializing in reconnaissance. 

I don't know a lot about Mark Stanford, but somehow I doubt that his life experience matches up well against Benjamin Netanyahu's.  Let's just say that if he thought he could finesse Mr. Netanyahu with a leading question, he started up with the wrong guy.

Benjamin Netanyahu is exactly the kind of leader Israel needs today.  I hope he forms his coalition quickly and performs brilliantly as Prime Minister...again.

Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama's entire adult life has been spent in a succession of jobs where he was able to spend money that came from somewhere other than his own pocket.  That is what he has done and that is what he knows. 

Now he is the President of the United States.  And Mr. Obama is intent on applying the same constraints he learned during this time to the entire economy -- which is to say, none at all.

Wow!  I can spend trillions of dollars we don't have, mix in countless social programs that won't stimulate anything but entitlement and dependency, and blame it all on former President Bush.  Wheeeeeee, this is fun!

Mr. Obama's latest economic salvo is to make sure that "the rich" have to pay taxes on more of their charitable donations.  But not to worry;  his people have figured out that it is no problem at all for "the rich" or the charities. 

Think I'm kidding?  Then read this excerpt from an article in today's Washington Times:

"Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it's impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear - less philanthropic

"This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they've behaved in the past," he said. "We've already seen a drop in giving as a result of the economic collapse. On top of that, this will just reduce the amount of giving."

Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.

He disputed that giving would drop, and said an economic recovery will help charities, too.

My god, that's ingenius. 

Limit the deductions people can receive for charitable donations - while also raising their overall taxes, let's remember - and they'll just give every bit as much anyway. 

Plus, the government (with appropriate thank-you's to President Obama, of course) will distribute $100 million to nonprofits and charities.  Since the government's revenues come from taxes, this means that instead of "rich people" giving the money, it comes from everyone, rich and poor alike. 

That, folks, is the thinking of someone who never owned a business or met a payroll, and has spent his adult life spending other people's money.

I hope you enjoy it.  Because we're going to have to live with this mindset in the oval office for at least four years.

Ken Berwitz

These guys can't be serious......can they?

Read this Associated Press story and shake your head along with me:

Wanted since 1928: Cops aim to serve warrant

Document find prompts hunt for man accused of writing $30 bad check

ELIZABETHTON, Tenn. - The Carter County Sheriff's Department is trying to serve an 80-year-old warrant for the arrest of a man who wrote a $30 bad check, although officers are unsure if he is alive.

The warrant, issued in August 1928, calls for the arrest of J.A. Rowland. It says he owes $30 for the bad check, $2 for the arrest fee and 50 cents each for the affidavit and warrant.

Clerks at the Glynn County Sheriff's Office in Brunswick, Ga., recently found the warrant buried in a records storage room while cleaning and mailed it to Tennessee.

Current Carter County Sheriff Chris Mathes told The Elizabethton Star he is still under a legal obligation to find Rowland.

All I can say is that if the county sheriff has time for this, Elizabethton, Tennessee must be the safest place in the universe.

As for finding J.A. Rowland, he's either in the cemetery or the Guiness Book of World Records.

Ken Berwitz

Here, from www.cnbc.com,  is Larry Kudlow's take on President Obama's economic policies.  See if it makes as much sense to you as it does to me:

AP President Barack Obama

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.

The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.

Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.

Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.

There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.

Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?

Expect to see a lot more Kudlow-esque commentaries in the coming weeks.

Ken Berwitz

This will be my third blog about charles w. freeman jr., whom President Obama just selected to head our National Intelligence Council. 

The first two showed how much freeman hates Israel.  This one shows what he thinks of our responsibility (that's right, our responsibility) for 9/11.  It comes to us from John Hinderaker at www.powerlineblog.com.  I have put the 9/11 comments in bold print:

Freeman: Beyond the Pale

We wrote here and here about President Obama's appointment of Saudi shill Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council. Freeman's loyalty to Saudi Arabia and his outside-the-mainstream views on the Middle East make him a strange choice for the post, to say the least. But now even more explosive information about Freeman has emerged.

Check out this April 2002 program in which Freeman participated, sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Freeman's contributions included a tribute to the government of Saudi Arabia that began:

I urge anyone who has not done so to read the most profoundly self-reflective speech by a political leader that I have seen in the last quarter-century: Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah's December 2001 address to the Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Muscat.

Freeman went on:

Saudis and other Gulf Arabs were shocked by the level of ignorance and antipathy displayed by Americans toward them and toward Islam after September 11. The connection between Islam and suicide bombing is a false connection. Kamikaze pilots were not Muslims.

Freeman's fealty to the Saudis was so striking that when it came time for questions from the audience, Michael Stein of the Washington Institute said:

It has been a long time since I read Alice in Wonderland, but I must say there has been a through-the-looking-glass quality to some of the things we have heard here. The Saudis have eliminated 5 percent of their educational material. What of the other 95 percent? What of the Saudi-financed madrassas that teach hatred of the West? I read the newspapers avidly, and I have yet to see a report from an objective journalist coming out of Saudi Arabia. By the way, I served in the navy in World War II; I seem to recall that even kamikaze pilots attacked military targets, not civilians. Perhaps I am not reading the program correctly; I wonder whether Ambassador Freeman was the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, or the Saudi ambassador to America. (Laughter.)

What was really shocking about Freeman's comments, however, were his references to the September 11, 2001 attacks:

And what of America's lack of introspection about September 11? Instead of asking what might have caused the attack, or questioning the propriety of the national response to it, there is an ugly mood of chauvinism. Before Americans call on others to examine themselves, we should examine ourselves.
***
[I]t is very difficult for me as an American to go to the region and hear such high levels of skepticism about the facts of September 11. I have a lot of confidence, more confidence than Hassan, in our institutions, and I accept that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden almost certainly perpetrated the September 11 attacks. Fifteen of the hijackers probably were recruited in Saudi Arabia. I accept that, but I can tell you, it is not accepted in the Arab region. The polls show that overwhelming numbers of people do not accept the official U.S. explanation of September 11.

I'm not sure whether Freeman's approval requires Senate confirmation or not. If so, one would hope that Republican Senators will ask him whether he still believes the September 11 attacks should have been an occasion for self-examination to determine "what might have caused the attack," and what "cause" he had in mind. Further, he should be asked whether it is still his view that al Qaeda "almost certainly" perpetrated the attack, what grounds for doubt he is aware of, and the identity of those, other than al Qaeda, whom he considers possible suspects.

Is this the man you want in charge of our national intelligence estimates?  Is this the man you want in charge of anything with the word intelligence in it?  Is this the man you want in charge of anything at all?

Well, enjoy him, because he's our guy.  Thank you Barack Obama, and thank you to all the folks - dupes and non-dupes alike - who put Mr. Obama in charge so that he could elevate this pathetic swine to a position of importance.

Ken Berwitz

In 2007, President Bush became convinced that a troop surge would be greatly beneficial to our effort in Iraq.  At that time, Barack Obama stated that he was not persuaded it would help at all, and believed it would have an opposite effect.  His exact, complete statement was:

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops is going to solve the violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

"I think it is fair to say that the President has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that we've been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American people and our troops."

"We can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

President Bush did not take the advice of General Obama.  He ordered the surge anyway.  And, as just about everyone now agrees (including Mr. Obama), it was immensely successful.  That success has continued and grown right up to the present.

Largely because of how successful the surge was, we are no longer fighting a war in Iraq at all. 

Do you see any news in the paper or on the networks about battles being fought?  Of soldiers being engaged in more than sporadic, minor skirmishes? 

Most of our wonderful "neutral" media have not reported it as such, but these days we are far more involved in the continued training of Iraqi forces and in maintaining what we have accomplished than we are in fighting of any kind.

What a great opportunity for President Barack Obama!

Remember, it was then-candidate Obama who pledged that if he were elected President he would remove all troops from Iraq in 16 months.  He said it very specifically and repeated it over and over again to anyone who would listen. 

Well, now he's President, and the country is almost completely pacified.  So it's a piece of cake to remove those troops, right?

Er, if you just agreed with that last sentence I urge you to read this article by Steven Thomma of the McClatchey newspaper chain:.

Obama to extend Iraq withdrawal timetable; 50,000 troops to stay

What did President Bush say he would do?  He said that, as Iraqi forces became more capable of securing the country, he would draw down troops to a much lower level.  He said that eventually we would have a residual force there, with the Iraqi army predominantly in charge of military responsibilities.

Does that sound anything like what President Obama is now proposing?  Like exactly, precisely and totally the same thing?

No wonder the left is in such an uproar.  Apparently Barack Obama doesn't want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  So, at least as of now, he is operating from the Bush blueprint - which, you can bet, he will try to take credit for as time goes on.

Who would have thought it.  Maybe we should start calling him Barack Bush.

Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of Brad Wilmouth at www.newsbusters.org, is another of the countless demonstrations that keith olbermann - and janeane garafalo - are unhinged, hate-filled losers:

Olbermann & Garofalo See ‘Self-Loathing’ ‘Black Guy’ Michael Steele, Limbaugh Compared to Hitler

Pathetically, this is what passes for intelligent political dialogue at MSNBC.  Believe me, olbermann's hateful, smallminded intolerance is hardly unique to the network.

Maybe it is why, after all these years, olbermann still can't come close to the viewership achieved by Bill O'Reilly, the man he hates most of all.  And maybe it is why janeane garafalo was such a flop as a talk show host. 

Playing can-you-top-this with sickening, race-based vomit may wow 'em at moveon.org, the dailykos.com, crooksandliars.com, buzzflash.com and some of the regulars at the local Democratic club.  But to most people, it's just sickening race-based vomit, period. 

And they're right.

Ken Berwitz

This Associated Press article says it all:

Mayor who sent watermelon e-mail says he'll resign

2 hours ago

LOS ALAMITOS, Calif. (AP) — The mayor of a small Southern California city says he will resign after being criticized for sharing an e-mail picture depicting the White House lawn planted with watermelons under the title "No Easter egg hunt this year."

Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose issued a statement Thursday saying he is sorry and will step down as mayor at Monday's City Council meeting.

Grose came under fire for sending the picture to what he called "a small group of friends." One of the recipients, a local businesswoman and city volunteer, publicly scolded the mayor for his actions.

Grose says he accepts that the e-mail was in poor taste and has affected his ability to lead the city. Grose said he didn't mean to offend anyone and claimed he was unaware of the racial stereotype linking black people with eating watermelons.

Located in Orange County, Los Alamitos is a 2 1/4-square-mile city of around 12,000 people.

dean grose was unaware of the racial stereotype linking Black people with eating watermelons?  Unaware?  Yeah, ok.

The term "racist" is tossed around a lot these days; sometimes for ridiculous reasons.  Sadly, however, there are many times when it fits 100%.  And this is one of them.

I'm glad dean grose had enough after-the-fact sense to apologize.  But, much more importantly, I'm relieved that he resigned as mayor.  To paraphrase that great Ray Charles song:

"Hit the road, dean, and dontcha come back no more, no more, no more, no more....."

Ken Berwitz

This comes to us from Marcia Kramer of wcbstv news in New York City:

Jewish Leaders Blast Clinton Over Israel Criticism

Zuckerman, Lawmakers, Local Jews Say Secretary Of State Not The Hillary Clinton They Used To Know

Hillary Pressuring Israel To Speed Up Aid To Gaza

NEW YORK (CBS) ―

I've asked this many times before, and it bears repeating now:  Why in the world would any intelligent person believe a word Hillary Clinton says?  How could anyone be taken in, when her history of lying is so pervasive?

And why would anyone believe the man who appointed her, Barack Obama, when he lied to supporters of Israel ongoingly throughout his entire election campaign? 

Even as Mr. Obama was assuring us of his undying support, he was stacking his campaign staff with virulent Israel haters.  I've written a dozen or more blogs about them over the past year.  They include Robert Malley, Merrill "Tony" McPeak, Samantha Power, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Joseph Cirincione, etc. etc. etc.

Then there was that stirring speech to AIPAC (The American Israeli Political Action Committee) in which Mr. Obama guaranteed an undivided Jerusalem -- but then said the exact opposite one day later.  Here are his verbatim quotes:

To AIPAC on Wednesday, June 4:  “Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”.

To CNN on Thursday, June 5, upon being asked if his comments meant Arabs had no claim to any part of Jerusalem:  “Well, obviously it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues...my belief is that, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute” 

Twenty Four hours, 180 degree turnaround. 

But because a) Mr. Obama had the fawning adoration of so many people, very much including supporters of Israel and b) our wonderful "neutral" media carefully downplayed this obvious reversal, it somehow didn't count.

Well, does it count now?  Does it count when, through Hillary Clinton, President Obama is attacking Israel and demanding that it facilitate the rebuilding and resupplying of people sworn to destroy it?

According to the exit polls, about 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.  And that goes double for Hillary Clinton.

Ken Berwitz

On February 19th I blogged about Barack Obama's apparent selection of Charles W. Freeman Jr. as head of the National Intelligence Council. 

I pointed out that Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia,  is a Palestinian Arab apologist who blames all problems in the Middle East on Israel.  He also feels that hostility toward/condemnation of hamas is "unreasoning".  (That's right, it is irrational to feel that way about terrorist murderers).

Well now, according to Paul Mirengoff at www.powerlineblog.com, it is official.  Freeman has been appointed:

It's official

Charles Freeman, the "Saudi-Manchurian candidate," will chair the National Intelligence Council which is responsible for producing National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs). The selection of Freeman is shocking -- as much as I distrust Obama on issues pertaining to Israel, I would never have predicted this.

How much impact Freeman will have remains to be seen. It's clear now that Obama does not consider the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis -- that American Jews have a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress, and use it to advance Israeli interests at the expense of those of the U.S. -- beyond the pale. But then he didn't consider Rev. Wright's views beyond the pale either; he just thought they were "controversial."

The administration clearly contains voices that potentially can counterbalance Freeman. But supporters of Israel, and indeed anyone who disfavors an American foreign policy that tilts strongly towards Saudi Arabian interests, plainly have cause for concern.

Freeman's appointment should also represent "strike three" on National Intelligence Estimates. Strike one was when an NIE concluded that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed WMD. Strke two occurred when the NIE was hijacked by those who wanted to pretend that Iran stopped its work on developing nuclear weapons. (This may actually have counted as two strikes -- the NIE's conclusion was so far-fetched and policy-driven that even President Obama has always assumed in his public utterances that it is not true).

Now that the NIEs fall under the jurisdiction of a Saudi financed apologist, and an apologist for the Tiananmen Square massacre to boot, they will have zero credibility. This is probably a good thing. If so, it's the only good thing associated with the Freeman appointment.

I'll end here the same way I ended the first blog about Freeman:

To the 78% of Jews, most of whom presumably support Israel:  I hope you're happy with this, because you helped make it happen.

As one of the other 22% I can assure you I'm not.

Ken Berwitz

I don't know if I was the first person to call President Obama's chief of staff Seedy Rahm (I originally used the pun on December 12 for this blog). 

But I know that it fit then.  And it fits now.

Here's why, courtesy of Dick Morris and (his wife) Eileen McGann:

At the end of the column Mr. Morris asks "Is this the change we can depend on?". 

Between Emanuel, and Geithner, and Daschle, and Richardson, etc., the answer appears to be yes.

In "The Color Purple", Miss Celie Johnson said "the more things change, the more they stay the same".  Who knew that she was a futurist channeling the Obama administration?

Ken Berwitz

This comes to us from Fox News, which got it from The Sun.  I post it without further commentary:

Man, 28, Dies After 'Guzzling' Viagra During 12-Hour Romp

Thursday, February 26, 2009 

.

Ken Berwitz

Geert Wilders is a marked man.  I would not at all be surprised if he was assassinated one day in the near future.

I do not want this to happen, I assure. you.  But he has taken so strong a stand against radical Islam that, like his countryman Theo Van Gogh, it is very possibly how he will wind up.

Wilders is the man who produced "Fitna", a 15 minute lesson in what radical Islam is, what it wants and why it is so dangerous.  I have twice put it up in this blog, so regular readers have seen it.  But for anyone else, you can just click here.

On September 25 of last year, Mr. Wilders gave a speech at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York.  I do not agree with everything he said.  But I agree with most of it -- enough so that I feel it should be posted in its entirety. 

Here it is.  Make of it what you will:

America as the last man standing

Ken Berwitz

This slot in the Darwin Award finals goes not to an individual, but to the Colorado State Patrol.  Read the following Associated Press report and you'll see why:

Injured good Samaritan ticketed for jaywalking

Hey, why stop there.  Toss the old broads in the clink too, and make sure they both get a cavity search.

Are these people NUTS????? 

If ever there were jaywalking tickets that should not have been written, these are the ones. 

So to the Colorado State Patrol, and Trooper Sullivan, who wouldn't let the men's intentions or Jim Moffett's injuries get in the way of mindlessly "going by the book", congratulations.  You have earned a place of honor at the awards dinner. 

And you better make damn sure you drive the speed limit on your way there. 

Ken Berwitz

In the previous blog I mentioned that Jackass Joe Biden didn't even understand the job he was running for.  I have been challenged to prove that. 

So I will.

Here, straight from their debate, is the verbatim transcript of Sarah Palin and Joe Biden answering questions about the duties of the Vice President.  In order to demonstrate that everything is 100% in context, I am posting the entire exchange, even its extraneous commentary.  I have put the key passages in bold print: 

IFILL: Everybody gets extra credit tonight. We're going to move on to the next question. Governor, you said in July that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. You, senator, said you would not be vice president under any circumstances. Now maybe this was just what was going on at the time. But tell us now, looking forward, what it is you think the vice presidency is worth now.

PALIN: In my comment there, it was a lame attempt at a joke and yours was a lame attempt at a joke, too, I guess, because nobody got it. Of course we know what a vice president does.

BIDEN: They didn't get yours or mine? Which one didn't they get?

PALIN: No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are. John McCain and I have had good conversations about where I would lead with his agenda. That is energy independence in America and reform of government over all, and then working with families of children with special needs. That's near and dear to my heart also. In those arenas, John McCain has already tapped me and said, that's where I want you, I want you to lead. I said, I can't wait to get and there go to work with you.

IFILL: Senator?

BIDEN: Gwen, I hope we'll get back to education because I don't know any government program that John is supporting, not early education, more money for it. The reason No Child Left Behind was left behind, the money was left behind, we didn't fund it. We can get back to that I assume.

With regard to the role of vice president, I had a long talk, as I'm sure the governor did with her principal, in my case with Barack. Let me tell you what Barack asked me to do. I have a history of getting things done in the United States Senate. John McCain would acknowledge that. My record shows that on controversial issues.

I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration. I would also, when asked if I wanted a portfolio, my response was, no. But Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he'll be making, I'll be sitting in the room to give my best advice. He's president, not me, I'll give my best advice.

And one of the things he said early on when he was choosing, he said he picked someone who had an independent judgment and wouldn't be afraid to tell him if he disagreed. That is sort of my reputation, as you know. I look forward to working with Barack and playing a very constructive role in his presidency, bringing about the kind of change this country needs.

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.

IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?

BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

To summarize:

-Sarah Palin said the Vice President's job was to preside over the Senate and that there was flexibility for the President to expand a Vice President's role - i.e. give him/her additional duties.  That is correct.

-Joe Biden said Article I of the constitution defines the role of the Vice President and that is the executive branch.  Dead wrong.  Article I of the constitution defines the LEGISTLATIVE duties, just as Cheney said they did.  Look it up and see for yourself.

Biden then said that the Vice President presides over the senate only in time of a tie vote.  Dead wrong.  The Vice President always presides over the senate (though he/she doesn't have to be there all the time) and only votes in case of a tie.

-Biden finishes up by saying that the only legislative authority a Vice President has is to vote in case of a tie.  Since the Vice President also presides over the senate, obviously that's dead wrong too.

How ironic that Sarah Palin, who was out of Alaska about 36 days, knew far better what job she was running for than Joe Biden, who was in Washington for 36 years.

And how telling that our wonderful "neutral" media nailed Palin, not Biden, as being an ignoramus.

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

Oh, one other question:  If Dick Cheney was "bizarre" for thinking that the Vice President's duties were in the legislative branch -- and he was right and Joe Biden was wrong - what does that make Joe Biden?

Just asking.......

Ken Berwitz

How many times does Jackass Joe Biden have to be wrong before mainstream media start nailing him?  Or is that -D after his name so much of a protective shield that it doesn't matter what he says?

I suppose I should know better than to think our wonderful "neutral" media will treat Vice President Biden with anything but kid gloves.  Not after it largely gave him a pass during the Vice President debate, when he completely misstated the responsibilities of the office he was running for.  But, silly me, I keep thinking that somehow, somewhere, media will start holding him to account.

Mr. Biden's latest display of abject ignorance concerns the job situation in Louisiana.  I'll let Fred Childers of www.ksla.com tell you all about it:

Reality check for Vice President Joe Biden
Posted: Feb 25, 2009 07:19 PM EST

Updated: Feb 26, 2009 11:38 AM EST

Translation:  Biden is flat-out wrong.  He doesn't know what he's talking about.  And, so far, mainstream media are giving him a free pass on both his big mouth and his ignorance.

Why would they be that deferential to Jackass Joe?  Who do they think he is?  Nancy Pelosi?

Ken Berwitz

Shortly after Barack Obama won the presidential election, his chief-of-staff-to-be, Rahm Emanuel, told a conference of business executives that "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste".

This is probably the best explanation for what Barack Obama is doing that you will come across.

We are in a serious economic crisis (not the most serious one since the great depression, that's just a lie to scare people).  Based on the Emanuel philosophy, it gives President Obama a great window of opportunity to push through legislation he'd never be able to sell under other circumstances and blame it all on the previous administration - as if President Bush caused the sub-prime meltdown intead of trying to prevent it and being stopped by Democrats.

To accomplish this, President Obama first scared the excrement out of people by assuring them there will be catastrophic consequences if we don't act immediately.  Democrats then proposed a huge "stimulus package", rushed it through the congress they dominate, and put it out for a vote without any member of the house or senate being given enough time to so much as read it, let alone digest and think about its contents. 

And, again taking Emanuel's philosophy into account, Democrats overloaded the package with funding for an entire social agenda, much of which won't do a thing to stimulate the economy any time soon (if ever). 

How could he do this?  Nothing to it, really.  Just keep scaring people and blaming Bush.

The result?  Last week our Democratic congress and Democratic President saddled us with an $800 billion dollar or so "stimulus package". 

But why stop there?  You don't waste a serious crisis, remember?  So, yesterday, Democrats passed a $410 billion dollar spending bill, laden with earmarks for every harebrained waste of taxpayer money they could think of.  And now President Obama tells us he needs another $750 billion in additional bank bailout money. 

Current estimates are that this will result in a deficit of $1.75 TRILLION dollars for 2009 - and I'm betting it will be a lot more.

To sum up:  Democrats are running headlong to socialize the USA, while ringing up impossibly insane deficits which they will blame on former President Bush.  (Bush, you may recall, is the guy who wanted to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac years before the bottom fell out, but was stopped by some of the same Democrats who are now blaming him for their collapse). 

It certainly won't be the fault of Saint Barack.

The good news is that some people are finally starting to realize how badly they're being suckered.  Mr. Obama's approval ratings, while still strongly positive, have dropped significantly - more than the normal falloff when the "honeymoon period" for a new President wears off.  The bad news is that it's too late and he - along with his left wing cohorts - are running the show through 2010.

From personal experience I have heard from Obama supporters both in and out of my family who think this is flat-out crazy.  One close relative, who couldn't find a thing wrong with Mr. Obama thoughout the election, told me that "we are spending money we don't have" and expressed his acute fear that it can take down the country.

We deserve this too.  A majority of voters elected Barack Obama and gave him a Democratic congress driven by hardline leftists.  What did they expect?  Nonpartisanship?  Moderation.

We have two years to live with this political atrocity before we can do something about it.  I hope that, by then, it won't be too late.

Ken Berwitz

Want to see what happens when someone with a big mouth is egged on by someone with a similarly big mouth, to talk about a subject she clearly is ignorant of? 

Ben Smith, from www.politico.com can help you on this one:

Pelosi's doubts

Nancy Pelosi signaled that Congressional Democrats may be reluctant to embrace Obama's slower withdrawal from Iraq than promised on the campaign:

MADDOW: Doesn't 50,000 seem like an awful lot of residual force?

PELOSI: It does, it does. I completely agree with that. And the president hasn't made a statement, so I don't know what he's going to say. I know that the rumor is-- and I don't know what the justification is for 50,000, at the present, the 50,000 troops in Iraq. I do think that there's a need for some. I don't know that all of them have to be in country. They can be platformed outside.

But I'll just be interested to see what the president has to say. But I do think that -- I would think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third, 15,000 or 20,000.

But again, I don't know what purpose he has in keeping them there, whether it is to fight terrorism, train the whatever -- the training of the Iraqis, which seems to have been going on forever. I don't know what the purpose of those are.

So we have to see what the purpose is, how it fits the mission of our national security, and why that number is important. But again, he hasn't said it yet, so I would love to see what he has to say. But I am pleased that we are, at long last, on a path to responsibly end the war. He said 19 months, but he said by 19 months -- so I would hope that it could be sooner than that.

Tra la la la....I think that sounds like too many troops, so here's how much I think it should be instead.  I have no idea of what they're doing there or how much troop strength is necessary for what they're doing, but here's the number I came up with, apropos of nothing. 

That, folks, is our speaker of the house.  An incompetent fool with a hardline agenda who admits she doesn't know what she's talking about but keeps talking anyway.   

Enjoy her for at least the next two years.

Ken Berwitz

Before President Obama's speech last night, my wife went out for dinner with "the girls".  So I called one of my fellow dinner-bachelors to see if he wanted to grab a bite with me.  As it turned out, he already had plans with one of his children. 

But during our call he angrily asked me whether I was "stimulated" by President Obama's so-called stimulus package.  He then went into a very unhappy riff about the fact that it didn't give small business owners like him (and me) a thing.

The interesting part is that my friend supported and voted for Barack Obama. 

I didn't ask how he now felt about that vote.  For all I know, if given the same choice today, he'd vote for Obama again.  But it's pretty clear that he is extremely displeased with the President's brushoff of small businesses.  And he's not the only one. 

Here is an article by Christopher Gunn of the American Small Business League, that gives chapter and verse of why ignoring small businesses is a very, very bad idea:

Obama's Speech Ignores 98 Percent of U.S. Firms

PETALUMA,  Calif. — As predicted by the American Small Business League (ASBL), President Barack Obama failed to make any reference of his plans to fix existing federal programs designed to direct federal infrastructure spending to America's 27 million small businesses during his address to Congress and the nation Tuesday night.

Top economic experts like Dr. Laura Tyson and Carly Fiorina have both acknowledged that directing federal infrastructure funds to small businesses would be the most effective way to stimulate our nation's failing economy and create jobs.  Tyson is the former Chair of the U.S. President's Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration and is currently an economic adviser to President Obama. Fiorina is the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and a former McCain campaign economic advisor.

According to the latest statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, 98 percent of all American firms have less than 100 employees, 90 percent of all firms in the U.S. have less than 20 employees and those firms are responsible for over 97 percent of all new jobs in America.  (http://cts.vresp.com/c/?AmericanSmallBusines/0697493556/fda4127aab/9c0b21736d

The stimulus bill signed last week by President Obama was designed primarily to create and preserve jobs. Yet not one line of the bill contains specific language to direct any of the stimulus bill's spending to the 98 percent of American firms that create over 97 percent of all new jobs.

In the absence of legislative language to specifically direct the billions of dollars in stimulus bill spending to small businesses, over 90 percent of all prime contracts from the stimulus bill will likely go to the top 2 percent of U.S. firms. This would seem to run contrary to the bill's stated mission of creating jobs.

Congress realized the vital role played by American small businesses when the Small Business Act was passed in 1953. Existing federal law, based on the Small Business Act, stipulates that a minimum of 23 percent of all federal contracts and subcontracts be awarded to small businesses.  The federal government is not meeting its goal of 23 percent and is inflating its small business contracting numbers by including contracts to some of the largest corporations in the world.

Since 2003, more than 15 federal investigations have been released which have uncovered the wholesale diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 corporations, their subsidiaries and other clearly large firms.  (http://cts.vresp.com/c/?AmericanSmallBusines/0697493556/fda4127aab/7abfe60923
ABC, CBS and CNN have aired stories on the investigations. (ABC,
http://cts.vresp.com/c/?AmericanSmallBusines/0697493556/fda4127aab/19c13782c1
CBS, http://cts.vresp.com/c/?AmericanSmallBusines/0697493556/fda4127aab/1b4c70c260
CNN, http://cts.vresp.com/c/?AmericanSmallBusines/0697493556/fda4127aab/dda9c93fe7/id=1170 )

"Dr. Laura Tyson needs to explain to President Obama, that if you want to stimulate the economy and create new jobs you have to direct federal infrastructure spending to the small businesses that create 97 percent of new jobs," ASBL President Lloyd Chapman said.

Message to Mr. Obama and his cohorts:  The country is not comprised entirely of large corporations, union members, health care workers and the unemployed.  There are other groups out there.  And one of the most important is small businesses. 

What I'm wondering, sir, is not so much when you get around to helping them.  I haven't gotten that far yet.  Right now I'm wondering when you get around to noticing that they exist at all.

Ken Berwitz

Here's a little break from the political wars. 

Here, from www.thebabywebsite.com, is a list of names they (and I, and, I fully expect, you) will find very amusing: 

Silly Names

Next time you sign your name spare a thought for Justin Case, Barb Dwyer and Anna Sasin. The incredibly unfortunate names emerged in our study of the most bizarre names in Britain today. Other unlucky punters are also trying to lead normal lives despite being named Stan Still, Mary Christmas, Paige Turner, Chris Cross and Barry Cade. It might also be worth thanking your lucky stars you're not called Sonny Day, Rose Bush, Pearl Button or Hazel Nutt, who also make the list of 'The Most Unfortunate Names in Britain'. TheBabyWebsite recently carried out the search of names registered with phone numbers and names posted on the world wide web. When the parents of some of those people mentioned named their children, many probably didn’t even realise the implications at the time. However, we can’t help but smile when we imagine someone having to give their full name. There must be tremendous embarrassment every time they have to introduce themselves to anyone, especially to a crowd. Even their teachers must have had to hold back their smiles sometimes. On the positive side, anyone wanting to become well-known would have an added advantage… No-one would forget a name such as Justin Case, would they? Parents really do need to think carefully though when choosing names for their children. Their name will be with them for life and what may be quirky and fun for a toddler might be regretted terribly when that person becomes older or even a grandparent perhaps. Our month-long study scoured the world for real people who have their own unique crosses to bear. TheBabyWebsite.com also uncovered some other crackers such as the brilliantly-named Tim Burr, a speed-freak named Max Power and a man called Doug Hole. Teresa Green, Terry Bull, Helen Back, Lee King, Jo King and Ray Gunn also cropped up on the list. Wider afield America as you'd expect is a haven of weird and wonderful names including Anna Prentice, Annette Curtain, Bill Board and Carrie Oakey. A string of people have brilliant names linked to their professions including Dr Leslie Doctor and Dr Thoulton Surgeon, a vet in Connecticut, Dr Payne, a plastic surgeon in Sandusky, Ohio, Les Plack, a dentist in San Francisco and Priti Manek, a doctor in Florida. And one of the funniest, Dr Sumey in Fairmont is likely to invite more than his fair share of lawsuits from disgruntled patients. BRITAIN'S MOST BIZARRE NAMES Barb Dwyer Pearl Button Hazel Nutt Ray Gunn Helen Back Stan Still Jo King Lee King Terry Bull Mary Christmas Max Power Paige Turner Sonny Day Tim Burr Teresa Green Will Power Anna Sasin Chris Cross Doug Hole Justin Case Barry Cade AMERICA’S BIZARRE NAMES Anna Prentice Annette Curtain Bill Board Carrie Oakey Dr Leslie Doctor Dr Thoulton Surgeon Dr Payne Les Plack Priti Manek Dr Sumey

Yes, there are a couple that I'm still trying to figure out too (Thoulton Surgeon, for one).  But you have to admit that most of these are funny. 

And they're all real. Which is more than you can say for the politicians we talk about in here.

Ken Berwitz

Israel left Gaza in 2005.  Not one Israeli, soldier or civilian remained.

Gaza is entirely controlled by hamas, a terrorist group specifically committed to Israel's obliteration and the death of its Jews.

The Gazan population elected hamas to rule them.  A minority of the fatah party was also elected, but hamas violently removed fatah and is in 100% control.

For three years, there have been unrelenting attacks on Israel from Gaza.  Thousands of rounds of artilleryhave been fired on its cities and towns (estimates range as high as 6,000 - 8,000).

Finally, after three years of this, Israel attacked Gaza and did major damage - though a fraction of the damage it could have done. 

Now there is major damage to what passes for infrastructure in Gaza and shortages of just about everything.

So what does the Obama administration feel Israel should be doing?  Read these excerpts from today's article in the left wing paper Ha'aretz:

Clinton warns Israel over delays in Gaza aid

By Barak Ravid and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has relayed messages to Israel in the past week expressing anger at obstacles Israel is placing to the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. A leading political source in Jerusalem noted that senior Clinton aides have made it clear that the matter will be central to Clinton's planned visit to Israel next Tuesday. Ahead of Clinton's visit, special U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell is expected to issue a sharply worded protest on the same matter when he arrives here Thursday. "Israel is not making enough effort to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza," senior U.S. officials told Israeli counterparts last week, and reiterated Washington's view by saying that "the U.S. expects Israel to meet its commitments on this matter." Advertisement Two weeks ago, four senior European Union officials sent a letter to the prime minister, foreign minister, defense minister and Yitzhak Herzog, the minister charged with humanitarian aid transfers to the Gaza Strip, protesting delays in the flow of aid through the crossings into Gaza. The officials also demanded that Israel formulates a clear policy on this issue. In response, Israel explained that the delay stems, in part, from the uncertainty regarding the fate of abducted soldier Gilad Shalit, but also stressed that efforts are being made to improve the situation. Herzog also asked Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to hold a meeting in order to revaluate current policy on the delivery of aid to Gaza. Sources at the defense establishment confirmed last night that pressure is increasing on Israel to reopen the crossings to larger volumes of aid for the Gaza Strip. Defense sources said that Israel will find it increasingly difficult to counter the pressure, and may agree to more extensive use of the crossings for aid. Currently, fewer than 200 trucks carrying aid are allowed through daily. The U.S., the EU and the UN are demanding that at least 500 trucks carrying aid be allowed into the Strip daily.

Incredible.

The Obama administration demands that Israel, the victim of years of attacks from people who want it obliterated and its Jewish population dead, must allow, and facilitate, massive aid to the same people who have victimized it.  

What other country in the world would be expected to do this for a mortal enemy, unequivocally committed to its destruction?  Is that what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton mean by evenhandedness? 

Using this logic, US troops in Iraq should be supplying food and shelter to al-qaeda and the mahdi army. 

Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen -- although, now that I think of it, with Obama and Clinton there, you never know....

Ken Berwitz

The question raised in that title is hardly new.  I (and many, many others) have been talking about this for a long time - though you would barely know it from the dearth of media coverage this side of things has gotten.

Well here, via Noel Sheppard's blog at www.newsbusters.org, is the latest group of skeptics that is being ignored.  See if you're more impressed than our wonderful "neutral" media is:

Japanese Commission Challenges UN: Global Warming Not Man-made

Why is this not getting media coverage?  How can media call itself media and not report it? 

My answer is:  The same way it has not covered the literally hundreds of scientists who have come forward over the years, many of whom I have chronicled in this blog.

Al Gore gets richer and richer selling "carbon offsets" (while he personally gluttonizes energy for himself and his family).  Media, like the dutiful little lapdogs they are determined to be, look the other way.  Meanwhile, the mountain of evidence that Gore and his claims are both full of horse excrement gets bigger and bigger.

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

Ken Berwitz

Here, from The Army Times, via www.sweetness-light.com, is a glimpse - and the aroma - of what passes for transparency in the Obama administration:

Y'see, voters might not like the idea of gutting the military during a war on terrorism. But Mr. Obama has a very effective resolution to this problem.  Don't tell them. 

The theory is an old one:  Keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em.

This is what we elected.  Thus it is what we deserve. 

In two years there will be a national election in which we can evaluate the performance of Mr. Obama and his party .  I hope that's not too late.

Ken Berwitz

Credit where credit is due.

The Associated Press has put out a fact-check on President Obama's post-election campaign speech (what would you call it?) and nailed him on his repeated misinformation and dishonesty. 

Here it is:

FACT CHECK: Obama's words on home aid ring hollow
 Feb 25, 3:15 AM (ET)

By CALVIN WOODWARD and JIM KUHNHENN

Ken Berwitz

Taqqiyah is a concept that is found in the koran.  It is the act of lying to infidels for the benefit and advancement of Islam.

It is very important for infidels (like me) to understand that this concept exists and is acceptable to Islam.  It explains a lot of things that happen in the world.

One such thing is "Durban II", the second UN conference on racism (named after the city in South Africa where the first one took place).

Here is an article about Durban II by Patrick Goodenough of www.cnsnews.com.  See how much taqqiyah you can spot without my featuring it in bold print:

OIC Welcomes U.S. Shift on Durban II; Denies Anti-Semitic Intent
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s Jeddah-based secretary-general, has welcomed the U.S. decision to participate in preparatory talks for an upcoming U.N. racism conference. (Photo from OIC Web site)

 

(CNSNews.com) – Everyone should have the right to criticize breaches of human rights, and if Islamic states use an upcoming U.N. racism conference to criticize Israeli policies this “should neither be perceived nor portrayed as anti-Semitism,” according to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
 
Critics of the Durban Review Conference (“Durban II”) view the OIC -- whose members account for 57 of the U.N.’s 192 member states -- as the leading instigator of a campaign to use the gathering to attack Israel, Jews, Western counter-terrorism initiatives and freedom of expression. Those critics are calling on democracies to join Israel and Canada in boycotting the conference.
 
The Bush administration, which withdrew in protest from the original Durban conference in 2001, shunned the Durban II preparatory process, but left a decision on whether to participate in the April 20-24 conference to its successor.
 
The Obama administration says it shares the concerns. In a policy shift last week, it sent a delegation to four days of talks at the U.N. in Geneva, “to try to change the direction in which the Review Conference is heading.”
 
The State Department said in a statement afterward that the U.S. had yet to make a final decision on whether or not to participate, but that information from the week’s work would be important in that regard.
 
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s Jeddah-based secretary-general, has welcomed the U.S. decision to participate in the preparatory talks.
 
He said in a statement a decision to be represented at the Review Conference “would be widely perceived by the Muslim world as a credible signal of the new U.S. administration’s goodwill and desire to introduce a fresh, fair and objective approach to the issues related to human rights and Middle East peace process as well as to rejuvenate the United States’ positive image throughout the Muslim nations.”
 
Ihsanoglu then turned to some of the controversies surrounding the event.
 
Durban II, he said, “should not be perceived as a gathering of the U.N. member states to criticize specifically Israel [but] … rather be perceived as an expression of the global community’s growing concern over acts of discrimination, intolerance and incitement to hatred.”
 
It would be a setback, he said, if any country stayed away from the conference “because of some pre-conceived notion that the Review is directed against any particular country.”
 
Anti-Israel
 
A key criticism of the “outcome document” being drafted for Durban II is the singling out of Israel.
 
Still intact in the draft, in a section on the Middle East, is a reference to foreign occupation being “a contemporary form of apartheid.” The draft also takes issue with Israel’s “racially-based law of return” and refers to the “racial policies of the occupying power.”
 
The draft, currently 45 pages long, does not refer specifically to other conflict situations around the world where race is a factor.
 
Ihsanoglu said criticizing Israeli policies and practices that contravene human rights principles should not be seen as anti-Semitism.
 
“Anti-Semitism is a practice which neither originates within, nor belongs to the Muslim communities,” he said. “Therefore, anti-Semitism should not be associated either with the religion of Islam, or with the OIC member states.”
 
The question of “defamation of religion” is another controversial aspect of the Durban II process. The outcome document raises concerns about “Islamophobia” and condemns the association of Islam with terrorism, “including through publication of offensive caricatures and making of hate documentaries.”
 
In his statement, Ihsanoglu “emphasized the OIC’s firm commitment to freedom of expression which is a fundamental human right.”
 
“The OIC is not looking for limitation or restrictions of this freedom beyond those that already have been set by Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” he said.
 
(Article 19 of the covenant upholds freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions necessary to respect “the rights or reputations of others.” Article 20 prohibits “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”)
 
The outcome document does include references to restrictions on free speech. It “urges states … to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols.”
 
And states are also called on “to develop, and where appropriate to incorporate, permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression into national legislation.”
 
The OIC for several years has spearheaded a campaign aimed at outlawing religious “defamation.”

There you have it.  So, how much taqqiyah did you spot? 

Ok, let me help this along...

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has told us that Islamic countries have no anti-Semitism.  That OIC members have no problem with Jews, just the country of Israel.

This, of course, is why giving Jews the same basic rights that Muslims have is unheard of in OIC countries.  It is why some OIC members - Israel's "moderate" neighbor Jordan, for example - do not allow any Jews into the country at all.  (Did you know that?  Did you know that it is not legal for a Jew to be a citizen of Jordan?). 

Then we have the fact that Durban II's draft calls Israeli occupation "apartheid" but does not talk about any other occupation by any other country in the world.  Apparently the OIC considers "apartheid" throughout the non-Israel world to be irrelevant'n'immaterial.  

I was particularly fascinated by that part where it says that the OIC "upholds freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions necessary to respect “the rights or reputations of others.” Article 20 prohibits “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” .

This comes from an organization based in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, where it is illegal to so much as wear symbols of any religion besides Islam.  If a Christian cannot openly wear a cross in Saudi Arabia, how do you suppose a star of David would go over?  And that's before we discuss the OIC countries that make it a crime - punishable by death in some of them - to convert to a non-Islamic religion.

So tell me;  how am I supposed to feel about the USA considering participation in Durban II?

I guess I can hope (with great skepticism) that our interest is not real, only window dressing aimed at making the Muslim world feel better when we eventually don't attend.  But - let's talk plain - that would be our taqqiyah, wouldn't it? 

Besides, what is there to like about making OIC members feel we would even consider participation in a farce like this.  Am I supposed to think it's a good idea to suggest to the OIC that we might legitimize such a hate-fest by attending it?

This is exactly the kind of situation I feared when Barack Obama was elected President. 

I will be watching closely to see how it plays out.  I hope my fellow supporters of Israel, especially those among the 78% of Jews who voted for Obama, are watching just as closely.

Ken Berwitz

It is 9:57PM.  President Obama has been speaking for about 40 minutes now.  And I have yet to year anything worthwhile.

This is a CAMPAIGN SPEECH.  It is a "we are going to __________" and "I refuse to _________" and "we must become more ___________" speech, full of sound and fuzzies, signifying nothing.

About 5 minutes in, Mr. Obama told us that there are 57 more police on the streets of Minneapolis today because of the legislation he signed into law last Tuesday.  How did a piece of legislation do this in one week, when none of it is even in the earliest stages of implementation yet?  Ask the cheering Democrats.  Ask Nancy Pelosi who - this is my wife's line - is up and down like she's at a Yom Kippur service***.

Joe Biden, by contrast, looks like he'd rather be at a basketball game (that's also my wife's line).

This was supposed to be a substantive speech.  It isn't.  It is a campaign speech to a sycophantic group of Democrats and a speaker of the house with a perpetual smirk who is acting like she's trying out for the cheerleading squad at her local high school.

What a bust. (the speech, that is.  I assure you it isn't a reference to Ms. Pelosi).

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

***Yom Kippur is the Jewish high holiday.  And, as anyone who has attended a Yom Kippur service knows, you stand and sit and stand and sit until you feel like you're doing a gym routine.

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

UPDATE:  It is now about 10:35PM and I've about had it with Jindal too.  His comments are more substantive than Obama's.  But the delivery is godawful.  Overdone and contrived.  My wife (who is absolutely on fire tonight) says he sounds like Mr. Rogers. She says that this can't be the best Republicans have to offer.  She's got a point.

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

FURTHER UPDATE:  It is now Wednesday Morning and my wife is even funnier than she was last night.  The Today Show was running video of the speech, complete with Nancy Pelosi jumping up to applaud.  This time my wife said it looked like there was a crab on Pelosi's seat that kept biting her in the ass.  I'm still laughing as I type this.

Ken Berwitz

When I see "slight but perceptible", I take it to mean just about enough to be visible.  A little less and it wouldn't be noticable at all.

With that in mind, the latest Gallup tracking data are out for President Obama, and Gallup's analysis is:

To date, Obama has averaged 64% approval, but, as the graph shows, there has been a slight but perceptible decline in his approval rating since he took office.

So that would mean it went from 65% to 63%, or may be 66% to 62%.  That would qualify as slight, but perceptible.

Oh yeah?  Here's the chart:

Reality check:  In less than one month (January 25 to February 22) Gallup shows Mr. Obama going from 69% -13% to 59%-25%. 

That is a drop of 10% in the positive and a rise of 12% in the negative.  It means Mr. Obama went from a +56% positive profile (69-13) to +34% (59-25); a 40% dropoff in less than one month.

This leads to the interesting question of why Gallup is downplaying how much and how quickly Mr. Obama has fallen.  I don't have the answer.  Do you?

FYI:  President Bush was barely elected in 2001.  There was a major controversy over whether he was elected at all.  He had nothing near the positive vibes that Obama had from the voters, and virtually none at all from the media.  So what were Gallup's numbers for February 21-25 2001, essentially the same time period we're looking at for Mr. Obama? 

President Bush was at 55% positive and 23% negative; a +32% positive profile.  Statistically, that is no different than where Barack Obama is now.  In other words, without any of the glitz and bling or any of the media love, Bush's standing with the voters was the same as Obama's.

Think about that the next time you see a media type swooning over Saint Barack.

Ken Berwitz

I just received the e-mail of Jeff Jacoby's latest column. 

I love it.

Jeff is a political conservative who has been writing for the eminently liberal Boston Globe since 1994.  In fact, today is the 15th anniversary of his first column - which dealt with how he saw the difference between conservatives and liberals.  He decided to republish that column today.  It's a classic.

He decided to republish it today

Here it is.

Conservative columnist, liberal paper

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
February 24, 1994

SO WHAT'S a nice conservative like me doing in a newspaper like this?

Wondering, for a start, why so many liberals think of conservatives not so much as people they disagree with, but as people they despise.

Most mainstream conservatives acknowledge that liberals are essentially well-meaning. Misguided, to be sure. And naive? Certainly. And elitist, self-righteous, collectivist know-it-alls, chronically unwilling to learn from their mistakes, clueless when it comes to the workings of the marketplace, always persuaded that the next government program will fix whatever went wrong with the last government program? Yeah. But well-meaning.

It should go without saying that you can mean well and do ill. Those liberal good intentions have helped pave more than a few of the 20th century's roads to hell, from the Evil Empire to the welfare state to the meltdown of the American criminal justice system. Conservatives condemn the demonic results that liberal good intentions have led to, and with gusto. What they don't do, as a rule, is demonize their opponents.

Liberals do.

Liberals look at conservatives and see moral cripples: Conservatives hate the poor. Conservatives are greedy. Conservatives have no compassion. Conservatives are Neanderthals . . . racists . . . homophobes . . . warmongers.

To be conservative, in the eyes of many fervent liberals, is to be by definition a vile human being -- someone to recoil from, not reason with; someone to damn, not to debate.

Personal vignette: It was a roundtable discussion about poverty and social welfare policies in Massachusetts, and I had made some point or other about welfare and illegitimacy. The representative from the prominent, Boston-based foundation spoke up in disagreement.

"People like Mr. Jacoby can say that because they don't care about the poor," she began. "But the rest of us . . ."

They don't care about the poor. Period, end of story. No room for differences of philosophy here. You're a conservative? Then you're morally defective, your views are warped, and would you please get out of the marketplace of ideas before you stink up the joint.

Think of Ted Kennedy's slander of Judge Robert Bork in 1987 ("Bork's America is a land in which . . . blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids . . ."). Or of Boston City Councilor Charles Yancey's foul comparison of his colleague, conservative James Kelly, to a Nazi ("It would be like electing David Duke . . . he has the same politics and rhetoric as David Duke.")

"Liberals go for the jugular," says David Horowitz, the one-time antiwar activist and editor of the radical magazine Ramparts. "With them, it's always about character assassination. If you're conservative, you're either sick or in some way deeply malevolent."

The most flagrant recent example oozed across The New York Times op-ed page last month, when columnist Frank Rich launched a vitriolic personal assault on conservative journalist David Brock, author of a controversial article on Bill Clinton's extramarital adventures.

Brock's "motives are at least as twisted as his facts," wrote Rich. "It's women, not liberals, who really get him going. The slightest sighting of female sexuality whips him into a frenzy of misogynist zeal. All women are the same to Mr. Brock: terrifying, gutter-tongued, sexual omnivores."

Imagine a conservative trying to discredit a liberal by sledgehammering him as an unhinged woman-hater, or none-too-subtly "outing" him as a homosexual. Actually, that's hard to do: The last well-known conservative with a taste for baseless personal invective was named Joe McCarthy.

At the 1984 Democratic National Convention, Tip O'Neill -- the great-hearted, much-mourned late Speaker himself -- voiced his opposition to President Reagan's policies thus: "The evil is in the White House."

The evil. Never would Reagan have used such language to describe O'Neill.

But then, Reagan wasn't a man of the left. He wasn't on a utopian crusade. Like most conservatives, he didn't think the blights of the world could be ended by transforming human nature. And he certainly didn't imagine the only thing blocking that transformation was wrong-thinking people who must be gotten out of the way -- or excommunicated as "evil."

So what's a nice conservative like me doing in a newspaper like this? Why, conserving. Looking to the past to figure out what has succeeded, and trying to apply its wisdom to the conundrums of the present. Acknowledging that there are no guarantees and that life is unfair, but knowing that the best road for the pursuit of happiness is the one marked with the old signposts: Freedom. Responsibility. Virtue. Work.

Like they say, the more things change the more they stay the same.  Jacoby didn't have a thing to add here, and neither do I. 

Well done, Jeff. 

Ken Berwitz

How did we finally stanch the Dow Jones free-fall?

It sure as eff wasn't because of Barack Obama. 

Here's your answer, from the Wall Street Journal:

Stocks recouped the market's heavy losses from the previous session Tuesday after the Federal Reserve chairman talked down the idea of nationalizing top lenders.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which slid nearly 251 points on Monday, was recently up about 230 points, trading around 7340. The S&P 5000 climbed 4.1% to about 773, boosted by an 11% surge in its financial sector. The Dow and the S&P are coming off their lowest closes in more than 11 years.

"Yesterday, it was 10 to 1 sell to buy and I bet today it is the reverse," said Dick Del Bello, senior partner at Conifer Securities. "But a recovery is going to take a long time and it's going to be a series of small steps to regain confidence."

The banking sector rally picked up steam after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said that nationalization of major U.S. banks isn't needed to ensure their viability. "I don't see any reason to destroy the franchise value or to create the huge legal uncertainties of trying to formally nationalize a bank when that just isn't necessary," Mr. Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee.

A special thanks to senate banking committee chairman Chris Dudd, for just shutting up.  It was this genius's offhanded comment about nationalizing the banks which apparently caused the latest Dow Jones mega-drop.

And an honorable mention to Barney Fudd for doing the same. 

If Dudd and Fudd were one tenth as competent at getting us out of this mess as they were at getting us into it, the market would be in five-figure territory right now.

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

P.S.:   The Dow closed up 236.16.

Ken Berwitz

The mainstream media have put an iron-clad lid on the numerous legal proceedings in progress that demand proof of Barack Obama's citizenship, thus eligibility to be President.

But that doesn't mean they aren't still in progress.

Here's an interesting part of the effort, which comes in the form of excerpts from a story by Bob Unruh at www.worldnetdaily.com:

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president's orders
'As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this'

A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.

Let me say that I don't speak for World Net Daily, or for Scott Easterling or for Orly Taitz or anyone else pursuing these lawsuits.  I don't know these people or their motives. 

Speaking for myself, I have repeatedly pointed out that Mr. Obama's eligibility has never been proven and, if we did not decisively resolve this issue before the election, we were asking for unspeakable chaos afterwards.  

It is dispiriting to note that several bloggers who I have great regard for on other issues have ridiculed the effort to see proof of Mr. Obama's eligibility under the constitution.  I don't know why, but they have.

Here is what I wrote about Barack Obama's eligibility to be President on December 9.  It is as sensible to me now as it was then:

OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES AND TIN FOIL HATS

Ken Berwitz I am now resigned to the fact that Barack Obama will be made President-elect by the electoral college (he isn't yet, despite what media are telling you) and will be sworn in as President of the United States, without having to prove he is legally eligible to hold the office. No, I do not wear a tin foil hat.  No, I am not a wild-eyed right winger or a racist looking to end-around an Obama presidency. I am a citizen who expects that the man who will become the leader of my country and whose finger, figuratively speaking, will be on the nuclear trigger, should be required to show that he is legally allowed to do so. Despite countless media articles to the contrary - due either to ignorance or willful dishonesty - Barack Obama has not produced his actual birth certificate.  Why not? Two Hawaiian officials claim to have personally looked at the actual certificate and assure us it is valid.  About this, two points should be made: 1) In 1961, a non-naturalized citizen in Hawaii could have been given a valid birth certificate.  Therefore the claim that it is valid proves nothing; 2) In any event, why are we being asked to accept the word of these two?  Why would we accept their word?  Why can't we see this birth certificate? And why won't Barack Obama tell us which hospital he was born in so that, in the absence of a valid birth certificate, we can check that hospital's records? Think about this:  Mr. Obama is only 47 years old.  That means at least some people involved in his birth, such as the patient admissions office, doctors, nurses, etc., are likely to be alive.  Doesn't it strike you as odd that not one of them has come forward to brag about being with Barack Obama "from the beginning"?  Bottom line:  Instead of allowing us to see his original birth certificate and/or letting us in on what hospital he was born in, Barack Obama has done everything in his power to hide both.  These are the actions of someone who does not want us to know the truth.  Am I claiming I know Barack Obama is legally unable to hold the office of President?  No I am not.  Nor have I ever said otherwise (I started writing about this in early August.  Scroll through my blogs since then and see for yourself).  What I am saying is that we are owed proof.  And the fact that, with a disgraceful complement of media complicity, Mr. Obama has deliberately withheld it from us, raises major suspicions about his eligibility in my mind. It is particularly disturbing that writers I respect, including David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson of www.littlegreenfootballs.com , are so adamantly dismissive of people who feel as I do (and there are plenty of us).  What happened to them?  When did they decide that a simple, easy-to-provide proof of eligibility is unnecessary for the most important job in the world? Regardless, barring some unforeseen turn of events we will have our President Obama on January 20.  If, after he performs duties of this office (e.g. signs legislation, agrees to treaties with foreign nations, etc.) it comes out that he is not legal to be President, thus the legislation and those treaties are null and void?  I guess we'll just have to deal with it then.  Maybe, just maybe, the time for dealing with it is before rather than after he assumes office.  But, hey, that's just me.  I wonder how many FM stations you can get through your fillings if you wear a tin foil hat.

Ken Berwitz

New York's Governor-by-accident, David Paterson, has a piggy bank.  A large one. 

You may know it as the state treasury. 

Several days ago I blogged about the large raises Paterson was handing out to members of his administration, while telling the "little people" in state government that they weren't getting their 3% raise.  That story came from the New York Post's always-worth-reading Albany bureau chief, Fred Dicker.  

Today there is additional news on the same front.  It also comes to us from Mr. Dicker and the New York Post (did you expect it from the Times????  Sorry, they're too busy writing Barack Obama's daily hagiography):

AIDE TO GOV'S WIFE $OAKING UP RAISE

By FREDRIC U. DICKER, STATE EDITOR

Click to enlarge

Last updated: 10:04 am
February 24, 2009
Posted: 2:22 am
February 24, 2009

ALBANY - At a time when state workers are being asked to forgo any pay hikes, the chief of staff to Gov. Paterson's wife was given a $25,000 raise in December - plus a $3,866 bonus - even though she began working for the state only last July, The Post has learned.

The whopping 28.4 percent raise - granted while Paterson was asking 130,000 public employees to give up 3 percent pay hikes because of the state's fiscal crisis - went to Michele Clarke-Ceres, who was hired on July 10 as an $88,000-a-year "special assistant," records show.

Five months later, her salary was raised to $113,000 a year, retroactively effective to Oct. 2, giving her the windfall $3,866 bonus.

Clarke-Ceres' name was not on the list of more than a dozen senior Paterson staffers who received pay hikes of as much as 46 percent made public by The Post last week because she's not on the payroll of the governor's central staff.

Despite Clarke-Ceres' assignment to work for Michelle Paige Paterson, she's listed as an employee of the Department of State - a catch-all agency used as sleight of hand to provide political jobs - and not as an employee of the governor's office.

A Paterson administration source said, "Many of the governor's employees have been placed on the payrolls of state agencies in order to make it look like the governor's staff has been reduced."

Paterson claimed last week that despite giving sky-high raises to many of his employees, the overall number of his immediate staff had been reduced in recent months.

Paterson spokesman Errol Cockfield said Clarke-Ceres initially served the governor as chief of protocol and was given the raise after taking on the additional responsibility as Mrs. Paterson's chief of staff.

Cockfield said Clarke-Ceres replaced Denise Ellison, who had been paid $113,300 a year as Mrs. Paterson's chief of staff, and is "doing double duty," saving the state money in the process.

The Post reported last week that Paterson had handed out pay hikes worth about $250,000 annually after the governor declared an "emergency" budget situation in August.

After a storm of controversy and apparent criticism from Mayor Bloomberg, Paterson conceded he had second thoughts about granting the raises.

While Mrs. Paterson has no official responsibilities as New York's first lady and holds a lucrative private-sector job, she often accompanies the governor at public events and makes occasional appearances on behalf of such causes as reducing childhood obesity.

The chief of staff to former First Lady Silda Wall Spitzer was hired at $100,000 a year and saw her salary rise to $120,000 and then $128,000 before she left the state payroll last spring.

David Paterson is a dimwit who became Governor only because Eliot Spitzer didn't pay cash for his hookers.  Based on what we've found out about his use of campaign funds and women, Paterson is considerably more corrupt than Spitzer.  He would have no business at all holding this job even if he were competent.  Add to this that he isn't, and you've got quite a situation in The Empire State.

I wonder how the 130,000 employees who were stiffed by this dimwitted, corrupt loser feel about it.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a fascinating slide show from www.msnbc.com,  that depicts the major progress realized for Iraq's infrastructure, economy and - most importantly - freedom:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29351064/displaymode/1107/s/2/

Did you enjoy those images?  Me too.

Now keep in mind that none of this occurred as the result of Barack Obama's administration.  In fact, Mr. Obama was against the troop surge that is largely responsible for this progress.  Iraq should thank its lucky stars that President Bush ignored Senator Obama on January 10, 2007, when he said:

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there.  In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

The slideshow you just saw was provided by MSNBC today.  But you didn't see any such slide show during the 2008 election.  And you certainly didn't hear its on-air "talent" trumpeting the great successes of our effort in Iraq at that time.

But now the President is Obama instead of Bush.  So there it is.  Feel free to cheer.

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

Ken Berwitz

This is another post that should enrage and educate.

If you care at all about Israel and/or democracy, freedom and the future of western civilization, you should be enraged.

If you are a supporter of Israel who voted for Barack Obama, you should be educated.  Why?  Because no supporter of Israel would want the US government to do this, so you must have thought that Barack Obama wouldn't have when you voted for him.

With this in mind, please read today's article from Sue Pleming of Reuters:

U.S. plans "substantial" pledge at Gaza meeting

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States plans to offer more than $900 million to help rebuild Gaza after Israel's invasion and to strengthen the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, U.S. officials said on Monday.

The money, which needs U.S. congressional approval, will be distributed through U.N. and other bodies and not via the militant group Hamas, which rules Gaza, said one official.

"This money is for Gaza and to help strengthen the Palestinian Authority. It is not going to go to Hamas," said the official, who asked not to be named as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton planned to announce the funding at a donors' conference in Egypt next week.

Neither the United States nor Israel have direct contact with the Islamist Hamas movement which runs Gaza and remains formally committed to the destruction of the Jewish state.

The official said the pledge was a mix of money already earmarked for the Palestinians and some new funding.

"The package is still shaping up," he said, when asked for specifics over how the money would be spent and a breakdown of old and new funding.

In December, the former Bush administration said it would give $85 million to the U.N. agency that provides aid to Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

The March 2 donors' conference in Egypt's Sharm el-Sheikh resort aims to raise humanitarian and rebuilding funds for Gaza after Israel's invasion last December to suppress rocket fire against its cities.

Preliminary estimates put damage from the offensive, in which 1,300 Palestinians died, at nearly $2 billion.

Clinton's bid to get "substantial" funds could face an uphill battle in Congress because Hamas continues to rule Gaza and the U.S. focus is on its own souring economy.

BOOST FOR ABBAS

Part of the goal of the new funding is to boost the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas, which controls the occupied West Bank.

The United States wants Abbas's PA to play a central role in the reconstruction effort in Gaza, hoping this will increase its influence in the Hamas stronghold. Washington is also putting pressure on other donors to bolster Abbas.

"We call on donor countries to focus their pledges to meet the Palestinian Authority's priorities, including budget support, and on projects that can be funded through the Palestinian Authority and other existing, trusted mechanisms," said a State Department official.

The quartet of Middle East mediators -- the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations -- are expected to meet on the sidelines of the Egyptian conference where they will work on strategy on Gaza, U.S. officials said.

After attending the conference in Egypt, Clinton is expected to go to Israel and the West Bank -- a public demonstration of Obama's promise to make Arab-Israeli peacemaking a foreign policy priority.

Clinton's special envoy to the region, George Mitchell, will be there this week trying to revive stalled Palestinian statehood talks complicated both by Hamas and political uncertainty in Israel after last week's election.

Let's get a few things straight:

-Both hamas AND abou abbas' fatah party are committed to the destruction of Israel and the death of its Jews.  hamas is more extreme in its efforts - as of now, anyway.  But we are not talking about a difference in objective, we are talking about a difference in degree.

-The $85 million that was committed by the Bush Administration and was to have been spent through the UN, was offered when the UN, at least apparently, still had some control over supplies in Gaza.  But during Israel's action in December/January, the UN had to stop sending supply trucks into Gaza because hamas was hijacking them and stealing the supplies.  Thus the general Gazan population was not benefitting from the UN supply trucks;  only hamas. 

So now we're going to commit over ten times as much and funnel it through the UN, when we know that hamas is likely to take it anyway?  Does that make sense to you?

-Then we have the incredible fantasy that recontructing Gaza somehow supports fatah.  The last time Gaza voted, hamas won a majority over fatah.  Then hamas violently removed the rest of fatah and now is in 100% control.  The idea that reconstructing Gaza boosts fatah instead of hamas is idiotic bordering on insane.

-Finally, there is the use of this money.  Someone has to reconstruct Gaza.  Without massive US aid, hamas is to a great extent stuck with the expense.  So every dollar that the US and/or the UN spends to do it is a dollar freed up for hamas to buy weaponry that will be used to kill Israelis.  Is that what we want to do?  Bail out hamas so it can use the freed-up resources to kill Israelis?

In the last election, exit polls indicated that 78% of all Jews voted for Barack Obama.  Presumably most of them support Israel. 

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

Ken Berwitz

Here's a poll that the poll-happy folks on the Today Show somehow missed this morning (I wonder if it did any better on GMA or CBS Early Morning).  It comes to us from James Pethokoukis of US News:

Santelli's Not Alone, New Poll Shows Little Support for Obama Housing Plan

Thanks, Matt and Meredith, for not mentioning this to your millions of viewers. 

I do understand.  After all, you had to use the time for Robert Gibbs, President Obama's Press Secretary and three time winner of the Grady Sutton award for amiable bumbling, to not answer your questions. 

I would love to see these data - and Rasmussen's approval data which is significantly lower now than it was on inauguration day - broken by people who own homes with no mortgage/a mortgage that is not in arrears, versus people who are in arrears and look at this as a way to get money from the ones who are paid up.  I'd bet anything that there would be a huge difference in the data.

Ken Berwitz

Happily, what you are about to read is not reflective of all Islamic clerics.  Sadly, however, it certainly is reflective of a good many.

The following transcript comes to us from the invaluable www.MEMRI.org:

Egyptian Cleric Zaghloul Al-Naggar: The Arab World Is Ruled By the Scum of the Earth and the Garbage of All Nations; I Am 'Absolutely' Calling to Wage Jihad Against the Jews, Who Are Devils in Human Form

Egypt and Israel have had a peace - a tenuous, cold one - for over 30 years.  But make no mistake:  Egypt is chock full of hate-driven radicals just like this (the Muslim Brotherhood is, to say the least, alive and well there - among others). 

For that reason, when it comes to Israel and its Jews, Egypt is literally one heartbeat away from being Iran, .

Israel is a free, democratic country situated in a very dangerous neighborhood; one which teems with people like zaghloul al-naggar. 

The USA must never forget the importance of Israel in the Middle East.  I hope - with great trepidation - that this is understood by the current administration.

Ken Berwitz

When then-Senator Obama was running for the presidency, he promised a very quick, very significant stimulus to the economy.

-On election day the Dow Jones average closed at 9,625. 

-The day afterwards, when it was apparent that Barack Obama won and would be our next President, it closed at 9,139.

-The day before Barack Obama was inaugurated, it closed at 7,949.

-The day Barack Obama signed the so-called "stimulus package" it closed at 7,552.

-Today, 6 days after the signing, it closed at 7,114.

I won't write any last line here.  You fill in your own.

Ken Berwitz

Now that Barack Obama is in, are monkeys out?

Last week I attacked the New York Post for what, to me, was clearly a racist cartoon, which was published right after Barack Obama signed the so-called "stimulus" package into law.  It depicted a dead chimpanzee with bullet holes in its chest, and a police officer, holding the smoking gun while saying "it looks like someone else will have to write the next stimulus bill". 

While President Obama didn't write the bill, he had just signed it.  That cartoon came across as dead-on racist and I said so. But I certainly didn't think that newspapers were precluded from using chimps, or monkeys, or gorillas in their stories. 

Yet look at the hoops the Washington Post went through regarding an article they published last week.  The story comes to us from Ken Shepherd of www.newsbusters.org: 

WaPo Gone Bananas with Political Correctness?

Can someone tell me what the Washington Post is apologizing for?  I agree with Shepherd - I can't find a reason.

Is this how it's going to be for the next four years?  Is the Washington Post going to apologize for anything that could be construed as an offensive stereotype if it were used in a racial or religious way - even when it isn't used that way?  If so, I have some suggestions for additional apologies.  

The Washington Post should....

-Apologize to Jews for any story that mentions cheapness;

-Apologize to Muslims for any story that mentions terrorism;

-Apologize to Irish people for any story that mentions drunkenness;

-Apologize to Italian people for any story that mentions organized crime;

-Apologize to migets and dwarfs for any story that mentions a short-order cook;

-Apologize to amputees for any story that refers to slot machines as one-armed bandits;

Get the point?  Just because something is mentioned that could, in a certain context, be offensive to one group or another, doesn't mean that it is being used that way.   And the more examples you think of, the more ridiculous it gets, right?

Hey, here's an idea:  Maybe the Washington Post should apologize a second time for its monkey cartoon.  I'm sure there is a chimp or gorilla somwhere that feels hurt and left out......

Ken Berwitz

Ok, fans, here is another episode of the ongoing series, "Guess That Party". 

First we have the article, which comes to us from the Associated Press, via msnbc.com:

Pa. judges accused of jailing kids for cash

Judges allegedly took $2.6 million in payoffs to put juveniles in lockups

WILKES-BARRE, Pa. - For years, the juvenile court system in Wilkes-Barre operated like a conveyor belt: Youngsters were brought before judges without a lawyer, given hearings that lasted only a minute or two, and then sent off to juvenile prison for months for minor offenses.

Prosecutors say Luzerne County Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan took $2.6 million in payoffs to put juvenile offenders in lockups run by PA Child Care LLC and a sister company, Western PA Child Care LLC. The judges were charged on Jan. 26 and removed from the bench by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shortly afterward.

No company officials have been charged, but the investigation is still going on.

The high court, meanwhile, is looking into whether hundreds or even thousands of sentences should be overturned and the juveniles’ records expunged.

Among the offenders were teenagers who were locked up for months for stealing loose change from cars, writing a prank note and possessing drug paraphernalia. Many had never been in trouble before. Some were imprisoned even after probation officers recommended against it.

Many appeared without lawyers, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1967 ruling that children have a constitutional right to counsel.

'I have disgraced my judgeship'
The judges are scheduled to plead guilty to fraud Thursday in federal court. Their plea agreements call for sentences of more than seven years behind bars.

Ciavarella, 58, who presided over Luzerne County’s juvenile court for 12 years, acknowledged last week in a letter to his former colleagues, “I have disgraced my judgeship. My actions have destroyed everything I worked to accomplish and I have only myself to blame.” Ciavarella, though, has denied he got kickbacks for sending youths to prison.

Conahan, 56, has remained silent about the case.

Many Pennsylvania counties contract with privately run juvenile detention centers, paying them either a fixed overall fee or a certain amount per youth, per day.

Ready for the contest?  I hope so, because it's time to play Guess That Party!!

Which political party do you think Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan belong to? 

Here's a clue:  Well, when an entire article fails to mention the party of a corrupt politician or judge, what party does the offender usually belong to?

Yep.  You guessed it.  Ciavarella and Conahan are DEMOCRATS. 

I used to be shocked by the blatancy of these omissions.  But now?  Heck, now it's a regular tradition. 

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

Ken Berwitz

Donna Hanks is the Baltimore woman whose home was foreclosed, and then invaded by ACORN people full of righteous indignation that she was no longer in it.  They had a lot of anger and a lot of demands.

Did they have a point?

Michelle Malkin has done terrific work in ferreting out the real story about Ms. Hanks (and, unfortunately, the same old story about ACORN).  Here is the real Donna Hanks; the one our wonderful "neutral" media somehow didn't get around to telling us about:

Document drop: The truth about ACORN’s foreclosure poster child

I disagree with Michelle Malkin that the Washington Post commentary on Hanks was specifically a "puff piece".  But I 100% agree that it left out all of the information which Ms. Malkin found out from the public records - information which gives us a wholly different view of Hanks than the Washington Post writer is leading us to (hey, maybe it is a puff piece after all).

If Michelle Malkin can find this, it stands to reason that the Post, or other media could as well.  So how come she wrote about it and they didn't? 

Are they lazy?  Are they incompetent?  Are they unprofessional?  Do they intentionally edit the facts in order to manipulate you into erroneous conclusions?

See if you can eliminate any possibilities from that list. 

Ken Berwitz

The redoubtable Steve Gilbert of www.sweetness-light.com has provided both a video and a written transcript of this exchange between Stuart Varney of Fox News Channel and Bertha Lewis of ACORN. 

FYI, I just removed a word from the previous paragraph.  I called it a "remarkable" exchange, but have pulled that back.  Lamentably, this being ACORN, there is nothing remarkable about it at all.  It is the organization's philosophy:

ACORN: People Have A Right To Housing

February 23rd, 2009

Steve saved me the trouble of bold-printing that passage about home ownership being a right.  Unbelievable.

Varney is clearly astonished both by Ms. Lewis' ignorance and by her apparently sincere belief that home ownership is some kind of legal guarantee - not to mention her inability to connect taxpayer money with those rectangular green pieces of paper with former presidents and a secretary of the treasury on them.

But, since ACORN's benefactors are in full control of the country, what does it matter that she doesn't know what she's talking about?

We have two years of this before voters get a chance to show how they feel about what they did last November.   It can't pass too soon.

Ken Berwitz

I agree that this probably isn't fair.  But a) it's more than a little interesting and b) importantly, if this were the Bush administration it would be a feature story in the media today - which, for Obama's people, it isn't.

From the Detroit News:

Auto team drives imports

Fed task force has few new U.S. cars

David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The vehicles owned by the Obama administration's auto team could reflect one reason why Detroit's Big Three automakers are in trouble: The list includes few new American cars.

Among the eight members named Friday to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and the 10 senior policy aides who will assist them in their work, two own American models. Add the Treasury Department's special adviser to the task force and the total jumps to three.

The Detroit News reviewed public records to discover what many of the task force and staff members drove, but information was not available on all of the officials, and records for some states were not complete.

The co-chairs of the task force -- Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and White House National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers -- both own foreign automobiles.

Geithner owns a 2008 Acura TSX, registered in New York. He once owned a 1999 Honda Accord and a 2002 Acura MDX, according to public records.

Geithner is the president's designee for purposes of enforcing loan agreements with GM and Chrysler and must approve or reject any proposed transactions by either company that would cost $100 million or more.

His maternal grandfather, Charles Moore, was a vice president at Ford Motor Co. from 1952-63, according to Peter Geithner, the secretary's father. But Geithner wasn't very interested in cars growing up -- in part because he graduated from high school in Asia, his father said.

Summers owns a 1995 Mazda Protege that's registered in Massachusetts. He previously owned a 1996 Ford Taurus GL.

What other task force members drive:

• Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag owns a 2008 Honda Odyssey and a 2004 Volvo S60. He previously owned a 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee and 1982 Datsun.

• Carol Browner, the White House climate czar, said earlier this month at the Washington Auto Show that she doesn't own an automobile. Public records show she once owned a 1999 Saab 9-5 SE.

• Energy Secretary Steven Chu doesn't own a car, his wife, Jean Fetter, said in a telephone interview on Sunday. Cabinet officials are typically transported to and from work by security officials in government vehicles.

• Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson owns a 2008 Toyota Prius and a Honda Odyssey minivan, she said Sunday. "It's great," she said of her Prius.

• Vehicle information was not available for Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood or Christine Romer, head of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Here's what task force policy aides drive:

• Austan Goolsbee, staff director and chief economist for the White House Economic Recovery Advisory Board, owns a 2004 Toyota Highlander.

• Joan DeBoer, the chief of staff to LaHood, said in an interview Sunday she drives a 2008 Lexus RX 350. She doesn't consider herself "a car buff" and views her car as a way to get around town.

• Heather Zichal, deputy director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change, owns a Volvo C30, according to public records and officials.

• Gene Sperling, counsel to the Treasury Secretary, owns a 2003 Lincoln LS, and previously owned a 1993 Saturn SL2.

• Edward B. Montgomery, senior adviser to the Labor Department, owns a 1991 Harley-Davidson and previously owned a 1990 Ford Taurus L station wagon, public records show.

• Lisa Heinzerling, senior climate policy counsel to the head of the EPA, owns a 1998 Subaru Legacy Outback station wagon, according to her husband.

• Diana Farrell, the deputy National Economic Council director, doesn't own a vehicle. Her husband, Scott Pearson, owns a 1985 Peugeot 505 S.

• Dan Utech, senior adviser to the Energy Secretary, owns a 2003 Mini Cooper S two-door hatchback.

• Rick Wade, a senior adviser at the Commerce Department, owns a 1998 Chevrolet Cavalier and previously owned a 1998 Toyota Corolla.

• Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden's chief economist, owns a 2005 Honda Odyssey.

The White House declined to comment.

President Barack Obama traded in his Chrysler 300C for a more fuel-efficient Ford Escape hybrid during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Joe Biden, the son of a car dealer, owns a 1967 Chevrolet Corvette -- a wedding present from his dad. He primarily commuted from Delaware to the Senate on Amtrak.

Ron Bloom, a special adviser to the Treasury Department who is also advising the task force, owns an aging Ford Taurus.

Well, at least the President and Vice President have US cars -- although it can be argued that the President may have pre-emptively gotten one, knowing he was running for national office (I'd love to know what his two previous cars were) and the VP's father gave him the car.

To Ron Bloom?  Congratulations. You're the guy they should send - by car - to the automakers' offices. 

Welllll, to Ford, anyway.

Ken Berwitz

The UN's first "anti-racist conference", held in Durban, South Africa in 2001, was little more than an Israel hate-fest.  Under President Bush, the US refused to participate in that despicable fraud.

Well, that was then and this is now. 

It is 2009, there is going to be another UN "anti-racist conference".  Its intent is exactly the same as the first.  But with the Obama administration in control, we are happy to aid and abet it.

Ann Bayefsky of Forbes Magazine has the particulars.  Although her article is longer than what I usually post here, I can't excerpt it because there is nothing I'd leave out.  Nor will I put any part in bold print, since every word is important.

Here it is:.

Commentary
The Obama Administration Sacrifices Israel
Anne Bayefsky 02.22.09, 11:48 AM ET

The Obama administration's decision to join the planning of the U.N.'s Durban II "anti-racism" conference has just taken a new twist: cover-up. On Friday, State Department officials and a member of the American Durban II delegation claimed the United States had worked actively to oppose efforts to brand Israel as racist in the committee drafting a Durban II declaration. The trouble is that they didn't.

The Feb. 20 State Department press release says the U.S. delegation in Geneva "outline[d] our concerns with the current outcome document" and in particular "our strong reservations about the direction of the conference, as the draft document singles out Israel for criticism." One member of the delegation told The Washington Post: "The administration is pushing back against efforts to brand Israel as racist in this conference." In fact, tucked away in a Geneva hall with few observers, the U.S. had done just the opposite. The U.S. delegates had made no objection to a new proposal to nail Israel in an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other country-specific claims.

Getting involved in activities intended to implement the 2001 Durban Declaration--after seven and a half years of refusing to lend the anti-Israel agenda any credibility--was controversial to be sure. But late on Saturday Feb. 14, the State Department slithered out a press release justifying the move. It claimed that "the intent of our participation is to work to try to change the direction in which the Review Conference is heading."

Following what was clearly a planned public relations exercise, Washington Post columnist Colum Lynch championed the U.S. bravado in an article based on the story orchestrated by the American delegates. In his Feb. 20 article entitled: "U.S. Holds Firm on Reparations, Israel in U.N. Racism Talks," he fawned: "The Obama administration on Thursday concluded its first round of politically charged U.N. negotiations on racism, pressing foreign governments ... to desist from singling out Israel for criticism in a draft declaration to be presented at a U.N. conference in April."

The reality, however, was nothing of the sort. Instead, Obama's Durban II team slipped easily into the U.N.'s anti-Israel and anti-Jewish environs, taking the approach that "fitting in" was best accomplished by staying silent.

On Tuesday, the Palestinian delegation proposed inserting a new paragraph under the heading "Identification of further concrete measures and initiatives ... for combating and eliminating all manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance..." with the subtitle "General provisions on victims ... of discrimination." The paragraph includes: "Calls for ... the international protection of the Palestinian people throughout the occupied Palestinian territory." In other words, it claims that the Palestinian people are victims of Israeli racism and demands that all U.N. states provide protection from the affronts of the racist Jewish state.

Furthermore, the new Palestinian provision "Calls for ... implementation of international legal obligations, including the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the wall..." This is a dramatic attempt to change an "advisory opinion" into a "legal obligation"--a status which attaches to no advisory opinion. The ICJ decision, which advises that the Israeli security fence is illegal, has always been rejected by the United States--hitherto. And with good reason. The Egyptian judge had voiced his opinion on the result before the case was even heard, in his capacity as a leading Egyptian diplomat. The terms of reference from the General Assembly who asked for the decision, and the documents they laid before the Court, predetermined the outcome. And as the strong dissent by the American judge and Holocaust survivor Tom Buergenthal pointed out, the Court came to its preposterous conclusion that "the right of legitimate or inherent self-defense is not applicable in the present case" without considering "the deadly terrorist attacks to which Israel is being subjected."

But when the Palestinian delegation laid their new proposal before the drafting committee, what did Obama's team do? Nothing, absolutely nothing. They made no objection at all.

It is impossible to argue that their silence was unintended. Over the course of the week's negotiations the American delegation had objected to a number of specific proposals. They had no trouble declaring "we share reservations on this paragraph," in the context of a demand to criminalize profiling. They "called for the deletion" of provisions undermining free speech like the suggestion to "take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols."

Their silence when it came to Israel was, therefore, deafening. It also had the very concrete result of not placing the Palestinian paragraph in dispute, and the diplomatic rule of thumb is that paragraphs that have not been flagged as controversial cannot be reopened for discussion, as negotiations finalize an end product.

The Obama team was not only silent on the new "Israel is racist" language, it also said nothing when faced with Holocaust denial. Negotiators from the European Union suggested on Wednesday a new provision to "condemn without reservation any denial of the Holocaust and urges all states to reject denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full, or in part, or any activities to this end." Iran--whose president is a Holocaust-denier--immediately objected and insisted that the proposal be "bracketed" or put in dispute. The move blocked the adoption of the proposal and ensured another battle over the reality of the Holocaust in April--at these supposedly "anti-racism" meetings. After Iran objected, the chair looked around the room, expecting a response. He said: "Is there any delegation wishing to comment on this new proposal by the European Union? It doesn't seem the case. We move on." U.S. delegates said nothing, even after the prompt.

Again, the American silence must have been deliberate. In marked contrast, after the E.U. objected to a provision calling for limits on free speech, the American delegation had no trouble piping up immediately: "I want to echo the comments from the E.U. This ... call for restrictions is something that my government is not able to accept."

Evidently, a U.S. team bent on legitimizing Durban II believed it would be counter-productive to object vigorously to sections most likely to be noticed by Americans skeptical about participation in the conference. They must have figured that no objection would mean no controversy, which in turn would mean there would be no cause for complaint from U.S. observers. That's one way to buy favors on the international stage, but it sure doesn't forward a stated intention of changing the Conference direction. Nor does it promote the ultimate need to change the anti-Semitic and anti-democratic direction of global human rights policy.

The week's events also revealed that European negotiators have adopted the same strategy at Durban II that they did at Durban I. After the United States and Israel walked out of Durban I on Sept. 4, 2001, it was the European Union that cut the deal trading off a mention of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism for a reference to Palestinians victims of Israeli racism. Likewise, this week the European Union said nothing in response to the Palestinian proposal but pushed the Holocaust reference instead. No matter that discrimination against the Jewish state, and against Jews for supporting the Jewish state, is the major form of anti-Semitism today.

The manipulation of Holocaust remembrance--knowing that Israel is the bulwark of the Jewish people against "never again"--is as cynical as it gets.

European Union delegates confirmed that their silence on the Palestinian proposal was deliberate, commenting off-camera that the references to Israeli racism had already been made in the Durban I Declaration, and the purpose of Durban II is to implement Durban I.

State department officials and U.S. delegates to Durban II's planning committee insist that their minds have not been made up. Friday's State department press release said "the United States has not made a decision about participating in the Durban Review Conference or about whether to engage in future preparations for the Conference, but the work done this week will be important information for taking these decisions." Similarly, The Washington Post reports, quoting an American delegate: "This is a fact-finding mission; it's just a first step ... Negotiations will probably resume in March or early April."

The strategy is painfully obvious--spin out the time for considering whether or not to attend the April 20 conference until the train has left the station and jumping off would cause greater injury to multilateral relations than just taking a seat.

The delay tactics are indefensible. The U.S. administration attended four full days of negotiation. During that time they witnessed the following: the failure to adopt a proposal to act against Holocaust denial, a new proposal to single out Israel, which will now be included in the draft without brackets, broad objections to anything having to do with sexual orientation, vigorous refusal by many states to back down on references to "Islamophobia" (the general allegation of a racist Western plot to discriminate against all Muslims), and numerous attacks on free speech.

This "dialogue" is not promoting rights and freedoms. It is legitimizing a forum for disputing the essence of democracy, handing Holocaust deniers a global platform and manufacturing the means to demonize Israel in the interests of those states bent on the Jewish state's destruction.

But you can be sure that the State Department report now on Obama's desk reads "can't tell yet, don't know, maybe, too early to tell." Why?

If the Obama administration does not immediately announce that its foray into the morass of Durban II has led it to decide this is no place for genuine believers in human rights and freedoms, there is only one conclusion possible. His foreign policy of engagement amounts to a new willingness to sacrifice Israel and an indeterminate number of American values for the sake of a warm welcome from the enemies of freedom.

Yes, this is the same Barack Obama who promised supporters of Israel that he was 100% with them.  Does it look like he is to you?

According to the exit polls, about 78% of all Jews voted for Barack Obama.  Presumably, most of them support Israel.  I hope they're happy with what they've got. 

Speaking as one of the other 22%, I can assure you I'm not.

Ken Berwitz

This unsettling piece comes to us from John Hinderaker of www.powerlineblog.com.  Read it and wonder how long it will be before they go back to what they do best:

Would-Be Terrorist Goes Free

Binyam Mohamed is being transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Great Britain by the Obama administration, where he will be let go. Mohamed is generally being characterized as a martyr due to his claim that after his arrest in Pakistan, he was sent to Morocco, where he was tortured. Whether this is true or not is impossible to say, based on the public record. Al Qaeda instructed its operatives, if captured, to make false claims that they were tortured. Whether this is an instance of such deception or Mohamed was actually abused while in Morocco, we simply don't know.

What we do know, as Tom Joscelyn points out, is that Mohamed was a dedicated member of al Qaeda who tried to carry out terrorist acts against the U.S.:

According to the U.S. government's allegations, Osama bin Laden visited the al Farouq camp "several times" after Mohamed arrived there in the summer of 2001. The terror master "lectured Binyam Mohamed and other trainees about the importance of conducting operations against the United States." Bin Laden explained that "something big is going to happen in the future" and the new recruits should get ready for an impending event.

From al Farouq, Mohamed allegedly received additional training at a "city warfare course" in Kabul and then moved to the front lines in Bagram "to experience fighting between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance." He then returned to Kabul, where the government claims he attended an explosives training camp alongside Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber.

Mohamed was then reportedly introduced to top al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah. By early 2002, the two were traveling between al Qaeda safehouses. The U.S. government alleges that Mohamed then met Jose Padilla and two other plotters, both of whom are currently detained at Guantánamo, at a madrassa. Zubaydah and another top al Qaeda lieutenant, Abdul Hadi al Iraqi, allegedly directed the four of them "to receive training on building remote-controlled detonation devices for explosives."

At some point, Padilla and Mohamed traveled to a guesthouse in Lahore, Pakistan, where they "reviewed instructions on a computer ... on how to make an improvised 'dirty bomb.'" ...

Zubaydah, Padilla, and Mohamed allegedly discussed the feasibility of the "dirty bomb plot." But Zubaydah moved on to the possibility of "blowing up gas tankers and spraying people with cyanide in nightclubs." Zubaydah, according to the government, stressed that the purpose of these attacks would be to help "free the prisoners in Cuba." That is, Zubaydah wanted to use terrorist attacks to force the U.S. government to free the detainees at Guantánamo.

According to the summary-of-evidence memo prepared for Mohamed's combatant status review tribunal at Guantánamo, Mohamed was an active participant in the plotting. He proposed "the idea of attacking subway trains in the United States." But al Qaeda's military chief, Saif al Adel, and the purported 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), had a different idea. Al Adel and KSM allegedly told Binyam that he and Padilla would target "high-rise apartment buildings that utilized natural gas for its heat and also targeting gas stations." Padilla and Mohamed were supposed to rent an apartment and use the building's natural gas "to detonate an explosion that would collapse all of the floors above."

It may have been this "apartment building" plot that Mohamed and Padilla were en route to the United States to execute when they were apprehended. In early April 2002, KSM allegedly gave Mohamed $6,000 and Padilla $10,000 to fly to the United States. They were both detained at the airport in Karachi on April 4. Mohamed was arrested with a forged passport, but released. KSM arranged for Mohamed to travel on a different forged passport, but he was arrested once again on April 10. Padilla was released and made it all the way to Chicago before being arrested once again.

The gravity of the charges against Mohamed is rarely reported in the media. The Bush administration and U.S. intelligence officials believed he was part of al Qaeda's attempted second wave of attacks on U.S. soil.

Andy McCarthy has more. Dozens of detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have subsequently returned to terrorism and have been recaptured or killed. It is hard to see any reason to believe that Mohamed will not join them.

Remember the movie Ghostbusters?  Remember when a dedicated, but unbelievably arrogant and obtuse, EPA guy forces them to turn off the power grid necessary to contain all the ghosts?  Remember that it causes the chamber they're stored in to explode and the ghosts go flying out in every direction? 

That was a very funny scene in a very funny movie.  But this is a very unfunny parallel in a very unfunny situation.

The Obama administration is releasing dozens and dozens of al qaeda operatives; people whose purpose in life is to see our culture ended and us either under shari'a law.  We are "turning off the power grid" and allowing them to go on their merry ways.

And when we, or Israel, or one of the numerous other countries targetted by these people, are attacked?  Who will Obama and his cohorts blame it on?  Bush?

This is insane.

Ken Berwitz

I found this video at www.sweetness-light.com .  What a wonderful antidote for that unbalanced nut job with the angelina jolie obsession who now has 14 children under the age of 8 for California taxpayers to support.

This should give you a far different outlook - and make you smile from ear to ear:

From YouTube:

Ken Berwitz

Read this piece by Rick Moran of www.americanthinker.com, and thank your lucky stars that the electorate got it right - last time, anyway:

February 21, 2009

Our Keystone Cops Foreign Policy

Rick Moran

It appears that Barack Obama's foreign policy team is going to make us pine for the days of the Bush Administration's competency by comparison very soon.

I'm not sure what exactly this story illustrates except there doesn't seem to be anyone home at the White House yet. You may recall the hubbub over Senator Kerry being handed a letter that was from Hamas which he promptly turned over to the American consulate at his next stop which happened to be Jerusalem.

Well now Kerry swears he didn't know it was from Hamas (who did he think it was from, Santa Claus?) because it was "sandwiched among other promotional papers" from the UN. And the US is up in arms because (gasp!) the UN is tattling to Hamas about the schedule of high level US personnel:

U.S. officials in Jerusalem are outraged at the United Nations Relief and Works agency for apparently handing the letter off to Kerry.

The official source who spoke to FOX News argued that if the U.N. had a letter from Hamas, it should have given U.S. officials a heads-up before the news was leaked to media organizations.

The Hamas official who wrote the letter confirmed to FOX News that he wrote Obama personally, asking him not to be biased toward Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians and to act fairly. He also said Hamas is ready to talk directly to a new American administration. 

This Hamas official insists he had the backing of the group to write the letter, but it appears the official acted alone.

Kerry turned the letter over to the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem on Friday and his spokesman told FOX News that the Democratic senator was not aware that the letter was from Hamas when he accepted it from an official with the U.N. relief agency.

Kerry told FOX News that he never read the letter because it was sandwich among other promotional papers the U.N. gave him. A State Department official confirmed to FOX News that it was from Hamas and is now under review.

A potential concern was whether such a letter would violate the United States' policy toward Hamas. Obama has said his administration will not engage in diplomatic talks with Hamas unless the group renounces terrorism and affirms Israel's right to exist.

In addition, a U.S. official said there were security issues with the letter. The official who spoke to FOX News said there is concern that Hamas had advance notice that Kerry was visiting, which may raise issues of trust with the U.N. on future diplomatic trips.

As bad as Bush was about some things, we should thank the lord every night when we hit our knees that John Kerry lost in 2004.

John Kerry is one of the longest-running embarrassments in the US Senate.  He has been a senator for over a quarter century, high-profile for virtually all this time, and we're still waiting for the first bill of any consequence that he has sponsored and seen through to passage.  That is a record of non-achievement which few can match.

What he has been good at doing, however, is talking down the USA every time we try to defend ourselves or show more than lip-service concern about our national security.

And Kerry was the guy who used weasel-words to imply that he was Irish for years and years, so that he could mine the large contingent of Irish voters in Massachusetts.  He did things like issuing proclamations on St. Patricks Day that started "Those of us of Irish heritage...".  '

As you either know by now or maybe knew already, Kerry doesn't have one drop of Irish blood in him; only a name that sounds Irish and can be used to fool voters.

Now he's being handed communiques from hamas and he goes into a Homer Simpson routine.  "Doh, how should I know who gave it to me?".

This man could have been President.  God help us.

Instead we got Barack Obama, who is using Kerry as if he were competent and/or useful to our foreign policy.  .

Can I get another God help us?  Thanks.

Ken Berwitz

I call him Chris Dudd for good reasons.  I wish they didn't exist, but they do.  And here is another one of them, courtesy of the New York Daily News:

Dodd's big mouth: Connecticut senator should do the stock market a favor and keep his trap shut

Saturday, February 21st 2009, 4:00 AM

Applewhite/AP

Sen. Christopher Dodd

Vice President Joe Biden was expected to be Washington's loose cannon in chief, but his old Senate buddy Christopher Dodd of Connecticut is proving to be the master of disaster.

Dodd flapped his gums in a television interview yesterday and promptly sent the stock markets into a tailspin, further battering America's bruised investors. Thanks, pal.

It was downright dumb for the powerful chairman of the Senate Banking Committee to loosely throw around the concept of nationalizing U.S. banks, even for a brief period of time.

Said Dodd in a Bloomberg TV appearance: "I don't welcome that at all, but I could see how it's possible it may happen. I'm concerned that we may end up having to do that, at least for a short time."

And there went the Dow and the S&P, as spooked shareholders stampeded to unload Citigroup and Bank of America, the shakiest of the big financial houses. The selloff led a nosedive to an 11-year market low.

Only after White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told the world that the Obama administration was committed to keeping the banking system in private hands did stocks rebound - just some.

The senator needs lessons in discretion at a time when markets have a severe case of the nerves.

He needs to leave policy proposals to President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who will be saying more about a financial system rescue plan next week, in part to calm nationalization fears.

Dodd, you may recall, put the hurt on Wall Street recently by inserting onerous restrictions on the compensation that banks can pay top execs after collecting federal bailout funds.

His move backfired by all but ensuring that the best and the brightest financial talent would leave struggling banks for greener pastures.

Yesterday, in the same TV interview, he said Geithner "has leeway" in administering the pay limits. He also said he was "stunned" by the reaction to his damaging populism.

So, Dodd should give Geithner the ultimate leeway by asking Congress to repeal his amendment.

Isn't it bad enough that Dudd was neck-deep in the Enron Scandal?  Isn't it bad enough that he's neck deep in the sub-prime mortgage mess?  Isn't it bad enough that he was getting those sweetheart mortgage deals from Countrywide?

Does he also have to scare the excrement out of Wall Street with his big mouth and send the already-reeling stock market into another tailspin?

How I wish Chris Dudd, and his pal Barney Fudd, would just disappear.  Maybe they could go off together on a 10 year expedition to the Arctic Circle. 

Would you miss either of them?

Ken Berwitz

It's been one month now.  And, however belatedly, some folks are suddenly appearing to be a bit less mesmerized by Mr. Obama.

Here's the story, from Rasmussen Reports:

Ken Berwitz

I'm not at my desk right now.  My wife and I are at a family event out of town and I'm suddenly able to get to a computer and blog.

But since my cousin Audrey is sitting right next to me as I type this, I will give her the opportunity to pick a topic - other than President Obama, whom I talk about a lot without her input.

(she's thinking.......)

Ok, the topic is Sarah Palin.  Audrey feels that she is bashed mercilessly - more because she is a Republican than for her actual positions on issues.  Audrey also feels that if Palin were a Democrat she would be esteemed by many of the same people who bash her.

I agree with Audrey on this.  Ms. Palin scares a lot of liberal Democrats because she is what they claim a liberated woman should be....and the truth is that many of them are threatened by her because of it -- because they don't want to deal with a truly liberated woman, only an image.

Compare her to Hillary Clinton and see what I mean. 

To many people, Hillary is the epitome of the liberated woman.  But the truth is that she grew up in very substantial means, has a Yale education, and pretty much everything she has gotten in her professional life is the result of the position attained by hubby Bill. 

-She became a partner in the Rose Law firm when he became Arkansas' Attorney General. 

-She became a senior partner when he became Governor. 

-She became the health care czar when he became President and appointed her to that position. 

-And she became senator with massive help from hubby Bill, which propelled her to where she is now.

By contrast, Sarah Palin grew up in modest means.  Her college degree is certainly not from an Ivy League school.  But she became a small-town council member and then two-time mayor without anyone's influence helping her along.  Ditto for her election as Governor of Alaska. 

When Palin's husband went into the commercial fishing business, she didn't spend her days diddling around in the office, she was on the boats with him, handling the fish.  And how many other women do you know who can field dress a moose?

THAT'S what I call self-made.

Audrey feels Mr. McCain did Palin a disservice by making her his VP candidate because she was not ready for the position (though she was at least as prepared to be VP as Obama was to become President, which is pretty scary if you think about it).  This opened her up to a lot of bashing by the elites. 

But that doesn't change the fact that her background as a self-made woman is stellar, and leaves privileged folks like Hillary Clinton in the dust.

Thanks, Audrey.  Now I'll go back to ranting on my own.

Ken Berwitz

It has taken all of one month for President Obama to demonstrate his unwillingness to deal with terrorism and the people who practice it. 

Dick Morris and (his wife) Eileen McGann have written a genuinely unsettling column which lays out the evidence.  Here it is:

You may or may not have liked the way George Bush fought terrorism.  But, dammit, he did fight terrorism.  In the 7+ years of his presidency after 9/11, terrorists hit targets all around the world - but not here.  And that's before we get to the liberation of Iraq, its emergence as a functioning democracy and the decimation of al qaeda there.

Do you have any realistic expectation that Barack Obama is prepared to carry on this fight?  If you do, what is it based on?  The things he's done so far, in just one month?

One month down.  Only 47 to go.  Lucky us.

Ken Berwitz

This is one for the books. 

You have to wonder if it is Barack Obama's position or Hillary Clinton acting as if she were in charge of US policy instead of him.

Here is the story, from Agence France-Presse:

That last paragraph tells the story, doesn't it?  China was worried that an Obama administration would press harder on human rights than President Bush did - but here is its Secretary of State telling them in so many words that it won't press on human rights at all.

Does this non-concern regarding human rights begin and end with China?  Or does it extend to, say, Zimbabwe, Darfur and other such places as well?

I can't help wondering if this is what Mr. Obama's supporters thought they were getting when they voted for him.  

Ken Berwitz

The Chicago Tribune has called for Roland Burris to resign.

The Los Angeles Times has called for Roland Burris to resign.

There is little doubt that a good many other media have done the same (though I don't know them all).

And now the Governor of Illinois has asked for Roland Burris to resign.

Pat Quinn, Rod Blagojevich's replacement, has asked Mr. Burris to resign and called for a special election to replace him.

Fair enough, since Burris, who initially appeared to be just about the only Illinois politician without the taint of corruption, has been outed as a liar who had far more contact with Blagojevich about the senate appointment than he originally said, and agreed to fund-raise for him.

But here's a fascinating bit of news that somehow is not being reported very much if at all:  The Illinois state legislature - which is dominated by Democrats - could have voted for a special election before Burris was selected by Blagojevich, and there is nothing he could have done about it. 

Why didn't they do so?  I can't prove it, but it certainly seems as though they were afraid that given the extent, and stench, of Blagojevich's corruption a Republican might win.  So they voted the special election down, hoping they could either replace Blagojevich without him picking a senator, or orchestrate the one he did pick.

How'd that work out?  Not very well, I'd say.

The result?  Not only has Blagojevich been removed from office for supersedingly corrupt behavior, but Illinois is also stuck with his senate pick - whom Democrats tried to prevent from being seated right from the start, and who apparently was part of Blagojevich's give-me-something-to-get-something game.

Ironically, whatever the chances were of a Republican winning the senate seat, this fiasco has no doubt enhanced them. 

And the fiasco is still in progress, because Burris isn't showing any signs of resigning - with every day he stays making things worse for his party.

Stay tuned.  This is better than The Biggest Loser.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a short segment from Ms. Malkin's latest column.  I think it says a lot for the number of words it contains.  See if you agree: 

Disgraced Democrat Sen. John Edwards was right about one thing: There are two Americas. One America is full of moochers, big and small, corporate and individual, trampling over themselves with their hands out demanding endless bailouts. The other America is full of disgusted, hard-working citizens getting sick of getting played for chumps and punished for practicing personal responsibility.

Ken Berwitz

During the election campaign I posted several blogs about Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) in Chicago.  It is the church Barack Obama faithfully attended for almost 20 years, contributed a lot of money to, was married in, had his children baptized in, and whose pastor, jeremiah wright, he referred to as his spiritual mentor.

I did so because TUCC was a racist, Black supremacist church that no presidential candidate had any business associating with.

Finally, after it started to hurt him politically, Mr. Obama agreed and - at least ostensibly - left TUCC. 

jeremiah wright - also ostensibly - retired (to a 1.6 million dollar mansion in a mostly White neighborhood - on the Church's money). 

It occurred to me that I should check again, to see if Mr. Obama's supposed separation and wright's "retirement" has caused any change there. 

Here is the answer.  It comes to us from the "About Us" page of TUCC's web site.  The bold print is mine:

Our History

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

There you have it.  TUCC is just as racist now as it was then.  Obama's very public break with the church didn't change a thing.

Are you surprised? 

Ken Berwitz

Sunday night is Oscar night. 

I'm no expert and don't claim to be.  But my wife and I have seen most of the nominated movies and, since I have an opinion about everything else, I thought I'd impart my opinion about the major Oscar categories too. 

Here are the major categories.  My choices (not necessarily who I think will win) are in bold print:

Best Actor

Richard Jenkins - THE VISITOR

Frank Langella - FROST/NIXON

Sean Penn - MILK

Brad Pitt - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler

I thought Sean Penn's performance was tremendous.  It also was a spot-on match for Milk himself, based on the footage I've seen of him.  

Richard Jenkins was every bit as tremendous as the bitter, detached college professor who comes back to life by striking up improbable relationships with a young, struggling illegal couple and, eventually, the young man's mother.  I wish he had a more realistic chance to win then he probably does, and would stand up and cheer if he somehow made it.

I didn't see Frost/Nixon, only several short segments on various shows.  Frankly, from what I've seen of Langella's performance, he reminds me more of Ed Sullivan than Richard Nixon.

Brad Pitt is a fine actor who was very good in Benjamin Button, but not Oscar-worthy.

I didn't see Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler.  Based on what I've heard (and his Golden Globe win) he must have been exceptional in it - though, based on his real life, he probably didn't have to work that hard at inventing his character.

Best Actress

Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married

Angelina Jolie - Changeling

Melissa Leo - Frozen River

Meryl Streep - Doubt

Kate Winslet - The Reader

We saw all five movies, and every one of the actresses deserved an Oscar nomination.  But Kate Winslet's performance is transcendental, even for a great actress.  It is one of the best I have ever seen by anyone anywhere.  She should get the Oscar -- and, I hope, give a more convincing thank-you speech than she did at the Golden Globes.  (By the way, I would be remiss not to note that Winslet's  co-stars, Ralph Fiennes and David Kross, were also superb.)

Ann Hathaway wasted a fine performance in a lousy movie.  Rachel Getting Married is one of these "find every dysfunction and non-traditional situation you can, and stuff it into one movie" thingies that Hollywood loves and I find contrived and formulaic.  I felt the same way about Little Miss Sunshine.

Angelina Jolie also did a fine job, and had a far better movie to work with.  But she is not in the same league with Winslet this time around.

Meryl Streep is a great actress who did a great job in Doubt, and conceivably could win. 

I don't know much about Melissa Leo, but she was just terrific in Frozen River.  What a fine performance in a truly offbeat, gripping (and thoroughly depressing) movie.  In another year she might have had a chance.

Best Supporting Actor

Josh Brolin - Milk

Robert Downey Jr. - Tropic Thunder

Phillip Seymour Hoffman - Doubt

Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight

Michael Shannon - Revolutionary Road

I'm pretty certain that Heath Ledger's ghost is going to win this Oscar.  But I am hoping against hope that it will be Michael Shannon, who was just fabulous as a looneybird who turns out to be the single most insightful character in Revolutionary Road.  It took tremendous talent for Shannon to be this convincing. 

Josh Brolin is some actor.  Better than his father.  He'll eventually win an Oscar and deserves the nomination for this role.  But he's not getting it in 2009.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman is great.  He reminds me a lot of Gene Hackman, in that he has an everyman face that allows him to play many different roles - including the ones that "movie star good looks" are rarely credible in.  He could win this, and I wouldn't complain if he did.

I didn't see Tropical Thunder, but I know what the movie is about.  I can't begin to imagine how Robert Downey Jr. could win against this competition for playing a silly role in a silly (though funny, I have been told) farce.

Best Supporting Actress

Amy Adams - Doubt

Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Viola Davis - Doubt

Taraji P Henson - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Marisa Tomei - The Wrestler

Viola Davis was on-screen for maybe 5 - 8 minutes in Doubt.  But she was so powerful and so convincing and so moving that I hope she pulls a "Sylvia Miles". (Miles won for playing a prostitute in Midnight Cowboy with even less on-screen time than Ms. Davis).  Like they say, it's not how big it is, it's what you do with it.

Amy Adams was great in the same movie and I wouldn't be troubled at all if she won.

Penelope Cruz is an oscar-quality actress and she was terrific in Vicky Cristina Barcelona, but I don't think she has much of a shot.

Finally, we have Taraji P. Henson.  Ms. Henson might win here.  It's a long shot, but a situational one:  i.e., since The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has no business being given anywhere near the 13 nominations it has, this could be the place where they throw it something.  Please note, however, that I do not mean to in any way diminish Ms. Henson's acting, which was absolutely wonderful.  If she somehow gets it she'll have exactly nothing to apologize for.

I didn't see The Wrestler, but assume Marisa Tomei was excellent in it, because she is an excellent actress.

Best Director

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - David Fincher

Frost/Nixon - Ron Howard

Milk - Gus Van Sant

The Reader - Stephen Daldry

Slumdog Millionaire - Danny Boyle

Danny Boyle walks away with the Oscar.  And it is well deserved.  This is a one-of-a-kind movie that was done just magnificently.

The only other movie I'd mention directorially is The Reader, because when a great actress plays a role, this far out of character, and does it so amazingly, there has to be a major directorial component to getting her to where she is. 

Best Picture

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Frost/Nixon

Milk

The Reader

Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire is the favorite to win, and should be.  It is just wonderful, every minute of it.

If not Slumdog, then The Reader.  My wife thinks that The Reader suffers from critics being tired of holocaust-themed movies.  She also feels the movie is about Kate Winslet's character and the holocaust itself is incidental to what the film really is about.  I think she's right on both counts.

I didn't see Frost/Nixon, but don't get much of a sense that it's a great movie, only a very interesting theme (to people who still can't get enough of Nixon). 

Milk is a very good film but not in best-film territory.

Ditto for Benjamin Button. 

Ok, there you have it.  Now back to politics.

Ken Berwitz

So this guy walks into a pet store and says "I'd like to buy a talking bird for my mother.  She lives alone and could use the companionship".  The store owner says "I have an amazing bird.  It speaks 12 different languages.  But it costs $8,000.  The guy says "Nothing is too good for my mother"  He empties out his bank account, buys the bird and has it sent to her apartment.

The next night he goes to see her and asks "So, ma, how'd you like that bird?"  She says "It was delicious.  The plucking took a little time, I haven't worked with a live bird for many years, but it was so tasty.  Thank you sonny". 

He turns four shades of green and says "MA!  You ATE the bird??????" 

"Of course I did"

"But MA!  That bird cost $8,000!!.  It spoke 12 LANGUAGES!!!!"

"So why didn't it say something?"

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

You don't often find a true story that plays out like a joke you've heard.  But this one, from the Phillipines, is in the same ballpark.  It comes to us from www.news.nationalgeographic.com:

 "Extinct" Bird Seen, Eaten

February 18, 2009—A rare quail from the Philippines was photographed for the first time before being sold as food at a poultry market, experts say. Found only on the island of Luzon, Worcester's buttonquail was known solely through drawings based on dated museum specimens collected several decades ago. Scientists had suspected the species—listed as "data deficient" on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's 2008 Red List—was extinct. (See related bird photo: "Rare 'Smiling' Bird Photographed in Colombia.") A TV crew documented the live bird in the market (above) before it was sold in January, according to the Agence France-Press news agency. Michael Lu, president of the Wild Bird Club of the Philippines, told AFP the bird's demise should inspire a "local consciousness" about the region's threatened wildlife. "What if this was the last of its species?" Lu said. However, the buttonquail is from a "notoriously cryptic and unobtrusive family of birds," according to the nonprofit Birdlife International, so the species may survive undetected in other regions.

That last paragraph liberates us, more or less, to laugh at the story.  But I would lie if I didn't admit I'd probably be laughing even without it.

Besides, if the bird was that rare, it probably was lonely anyway.  It should have said something.

Ken Berwitz

This one is very definitely for the supporters of Israel who helped Barack Obama become President.  You know, the folks who looked the other way as he stacked his campaign with Israel-bashers, and figured out a way to rationalize that it didn't reflect his true intentions; it was only a political move that would be forgotten after the election.

Here's a glimmer of reality:

According to www.thecable.foreignpolicy.com, part of the Washington Post/Newsweek interactive, Mr. Obama will name Charles W. Freeman, our former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council.  You can read the entire piece by clicking here.

So what, you say?  Just because Mr. Freeman was the ambassador to Saudi Arabia, it doesn't mean he can't be fair and logical regarding Israel, does it? 

If that's what you think, then read this excerpt from his speech to the Institute of Foreign Affairs, which was delivered on May 24, 2007.  The bold print is mine:

 I have been talking about how to reassert our leadership on the global level. But, in the end, we face the paradox that the world, though globalized to an unprecedented degree, is made up of a series of regions in which regional powers increasingly call the shots. And all diplomacy, like all politics, is local. We face perplexing choices in every region of the world. But the policies that have brought discredit upon us center on one region – the Middle East. To restore our reputation we must correct these policies. And the problem of terrorism that now bedevils us has its origins in one region – the Middle East. To end this terrorism we must address the issues in the region that give rise to it.

Principal among these is the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by an Israeli occupation that is about to mark its fortieth anniversary and shows no sign of ending. Arab identification with Palestinian suffering, once variable in its intensity, is now total. American identification with Israeli policy has also become total. Those in the region and beyond it who detest Israeli behavior, which is to say almost everyone, now naturally extend their loathing to Americans. This has had the effect of universalizing anti-Americanism, legitimizing radical Islamism, and gaining Iran a foothold among Sunni as well as Shiite Arabs. For its part, Israel no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians; it strives instead to pacify them. Palestinian retaliation against this policy is as likely to be directed against Israel's American backers as against Israel itself. Under the circumstances, such retaliation – whatever form it takes – will have the support or at least the sympathy of most people in the region and many outside it. This makes the long-term escalation of terrorism against the United States a certainty, not a matter of conjecture.

The Palestine problem cannot be solved by the use of force; it requires much more than the diplomacy-free foreign policy we have practiced since 9/11. Israel is not only not managing this problem; it is severely aggravating it. Denial born of political correctness will not cure this fact. Israel has shown – not surprisingly – that, if we offer nothing but unquestioning support and political protection for whatever it does, it will feel no incentive to pay attention to either our interests or our advice. Hamas is showing that if we offer it nothing but unreasoning hostility and condemnation, it will only stiffen its position and seek allies among our enemies. In both cases, we forfeit our influence for no gain.

There will be no negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians, no peace, and no reconciliation between them – and there will be no reduction in anti-American terrorism – until we have the courage to act on our interests. These are not the same as those of any party in the region, including Israel, and we must talk with all parties, whatever we think of them or their means of struggle. Refusal to reason with those whose actions threaten injury to oneself, one's friends, and one's interests is foolish, feckless, and self-defeating. That is why we it is past time for an active and honest discussion with both Israel and the government Palestinians have elected, which – in an irony that escapes few abroad – is the only democratically elected government in the Arab world.

Got that? The problem isn't that Palestinian Arabs do not recognize any part of Israel as being legitimate and teach their children that Jews are the spawn of apes and pigs.  And the problem isn't hamas, which specifically commits - in writing - to vaporizing Israel and killing its Jews.  The problem is Israeli intransigence. 

The fact that this screed was delivered two years after Israel ended its occupation of Gaza?  Irrelevant'n'immaterial.  Freeman talks as if it was still under occupation.

And that hostility/condemnation toward hamas?  It is "unreasoning".  Why would you feel that way about a group that shoots artillery at you every day in an effort to obliterate your country and kill you?

THIS is the guy who will head our National Intelligence Council.

To the 78% of Jews, most of whom presumably support Israel:  I hope you're happy with this, because you helped make it happen.

As one of the other 22% I can assure you I'm not.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a 27 second video of CNN reporter Zain Vergee talking about peanuts -what airlines are serving them and where they are grown.  But Ms. Vergee has trouble pronouncing the word peanuts.

I'm guessing that you already have an idea of what you're about to hear.  And you're right too:

I'm going to avoid the countless sign-off lines I can think of, because I have no doubt that you've come up with a few of your own that are as good as, or better than, mine.

Which, I suppose would make any further comments from me anti-climactic (ok, I couldn't resist just one).

Ken Berwitz

By now most people have heard about r. allen stanford, who appears to be the poor man's bernie madoff (relatively speaking, of course). 

madoff bilked his clientele out of a staggering $50 billion dollars.  But stanford was no slouch either, at $8 billion - and quite possibly a great deal more.

madoff is under "house arrest" at his multi-million dollar Park Avenue condo (people like you and me call that living in amazing luxury).  stanford is still at large and could be anywhere, but it's pretty likely he is living in luxurious circumstances too.  (Hey, maybe our wonderful Attorney General, Eric Holder, is willing to pardon him the way he was willing to pardon marc rich).

Here's another thing that bernard madoff and r. allen stanford (marc rich too) have in common:  They are all big-time Democrats who threw tons of money around for Democratic causes.

Funny thing, though;  most mainstream media keep leaving that part out of their coverage of stanford.  But one very welcome exception is ABC News, as seen from the following excerpt which was drawn from its feature article on him.  The bold print is mine:

By JUSTIN ROOD and BRIAN ROSS
February 19, 2009

 

Offshore banking experts say that the fraud charges this week against accused financial scammer R. Allen Stanford have been a long time coming.

Authorities claim billionaire investor R. Allen Stanford may rival Madoff.

"There's no surprise at all," said Washington lawyer and IRS consultant Jack Blum. "This man has been on law enforcement's radar screen for the better part of 10 years."

But the SEC didn't move forward until this week, after two former Stanford Financial whistleblowers filed an alleged lawsuit, which revealed how the bank lied about too-good-to-be-true certificates of deposit.

"The problem was the published returns that many advisors use to present to clients and prospects," said former Stanford Group employee Mark Tidwell, "that now we knew that information was incorrect."

"They would lie about it and that behavior just became more and more prevalent," said Charles Well, the other former Stanford Group employee.

But now the SEC's fraud charges may be the least of Stanford's worries. Federal authorities tell ABC News that the FBI and others have been investigating whether Stanford was involved in laundering drug money for Mexico's notorious Gulf Cartel.

Authorities tell ABC News that as part of the investigation, which has been ongoing since last year, Mexican authorities detained one of Stanford's private planes. According to officials, checks found inside the plane were believed to be connected to the Gulf cartel, reputed to be Mexico's most violent gang. Authorities say Stanford could potentially face criminal charges of money laundering and bribery of foreign officials.

Related

WATCH: Manhunt for Accused Con Man

Manhunt: Accused Financier Scammer Stanford Missing

WATCH: Financial Titan Accused of Fraud

Authorities say the SEC action against Stanford Tuesday may have complicated the federal drug investigation. The SEC had been prepared to move in earlier, but was asked to hold off because of the FBI's undercover investigation. But this week, when officials realized Stanford was moving huge amounts of cash out of his bank, they had no choice to move in, even if it jeopardized the drug money case.

The federal investigation, however, did not stop Stanford from using corporate money to become a big man at last year's Democratic convention in Denver.

A video posted on the firm's web-site shows Stanford, now sought by U.S. Marshals, being hugged by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and praised by former President Bill Clinton for helping to finance a convention-related forum and party put on by the National Democratic Institute.

"I would like to thank the Stanford Financial Group for helping to underwrite this," Clinton said to the crowd at the event.

Stanford Financial was listed as the "lead benefactor" for the gathering, and Stanford was permitted to address the audience of several hundred.

Stanford contributed $150,000 to underwrite the event, said NDI president Kenneth Wollack. More recently, Stanford gave $5,000 to help pay for a luncheon hosted by the group. At the time NDI had no idea of Stanford's trouble, and it is has not had any contact with him since the December event, said Wollack.

"We had no reason to believe that a very public company that was also engaged in philanthropic work might be suspect," said a spokesperson for the National Democratic Institute, Amy Dudley.

The SEC charged yesterday that Stanford was running a fraudulent investment scheme that may have bilked customers out of as much as $8 billion.

Stanford's whereabouts are unknown and U.S. Marshals say they are searching for him.

If this were a Republican fatcat who tossed tons of $$$$ at Republicans - say a Richard Mellon Scaife kind of guy - do you think most mainstream media would be suppressing it the way they are suppressing stanford's ties?

Me neither.  So Democrats can walk away relatively unscathed.  Again.

Unbelievable.

Ken Berwitz

I often criticize the one-sidedness of Associated Press reports.  So when the AP gets it right I want to be fair and point it out as well.

Here is an article written by the AP's Larry Margasak, on the Democratic "culture of corruption", that qualifies very nicely:

Analysis: Democrats self-destructing over ethics

By LARRY MARGASAK – 7 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration and the new Congress are quickly handing over to Republicans the same "culture of corruption" issue that Democrats used so effectively against the GOP before coming to power.

Freshman Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., is only the latest embarrassment.

Senate Democrats accepted Burris because they believed what he told them: He was clean. Burris now admits he tried to raise money for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who authorities say sought to sell President Barack Obama's former Senate seat.

"The story seems to be changing day by day," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Wednesday.

The political mess for the Democratic Party, however, isn't Burris' conduct alone; it's the pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months.

_The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is the subject of a House ethics investigation. It's partly focused on his fundraising practices for a college center in his name, his ownership financing of a resort property in the Dominican Republic and his financial disclosure reports.

_Federal agents raided two Pennsylvania defense contractors that were provided millions of dollars in federal funding by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

_Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 on federal charges, including allegations he schemed to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder.

_Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota, abandoned his bid to become health and human services secretary and the administration's point man on reforming health care; and Nancy Killefer stepped down from a newly created position charged with eliminating inefficient government programs.

Both Daschle and Killefer had tax problems, and Daschle also faced potential conflicts of interest related to working with health care interests.

_Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed after revealing he had tax troubles.

_Obama's initial choice for commerce secretary, Bill Richardson, stepped aside due to a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors.

_While the Senate voted overwhelmingly to confirm William Lynn as deputy defense secretary, Obama had to waive his ethics regulations to place the former defense lobbyist in charge of day-to-day operations at the Pentagon.

The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois, expressed his anger about the Burris case Wednesday while he was on an official visit to Greece.

"I do believe that the public statements made by Mr. Burris to this point have raised questions ... as to the nature of his relationship with the former governor and the circumstances surrounding his appointment," Durbin said.

Reid said in Nevada, "Now there's some question as to whether or not he told the truth."

Where to go next? Reid had no answer.

"What I think we have to do is just wait and see," the Senate leader said.

Senate Democrats now may be trapped in their own ethics system. Disciplinary action against a senator usually requires a long investigation by the Senate's ethics committee. While a preliminary inquiry on Burris is under way, that's only the first early step. And, with ongoing criminal investigations in Illinois, the committee probably would have to postpone any action — as it usually does — to avoid interference.

In 2006, Republicans lost control of the House after Democrats effectively used a "culture of corruption" theme against them.

The final scandal broke shortly before the election, when it was revealed that then-Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida Republican, sent sexually suggestive e-mails and explicit instant messages to teenage boys who had served as House pages.

Republicans were further harmed when it was disclosed that several of their members were aware of the problem and failed to take action.

Democrats, who've been in control of both Congress and the White House less than two months now, are lucky on one point. The next congressional election is nearly two years away.

I would have liked Mr. Margasak to mention that the Democratic house "leadership" has refused to remove Rangel as chair of the house Ways and Means Committee (in other words, this tax cheat is being allowed to write tax policy). 

It would also have been nice if he mentioned that Republican Mark Foley was never charged with any wrongdoing because, however offensive we might have found them to be, the e-mails and IM's he sent all were to house pages who were of age.  But you can't have everything.

All in all, a very well done, very fair assessment. 

Now - how many other places in mainstrem media have you seen a similarly honest look at the Democratic Party? 

Why not start looking?  Meanwhile I'll go on to my business-related activities, eat lunch and dinner, get a good night's sleep, etc.  I figure that's how long you'll need.

Ken Berwitz

Chris Matthews is a liar.  And an obnoxious one at that.

There isn't any other word to use here. 

First off, let me post the following blog from Brent Baker of www.newsbusters.org, so you can see the basis for my calling Matthews the liar that he is:

Matthews Suggests Water-Boarding Libby to Get Truth About Cheney's Misdeeds

Why is Chris Matthews a liar?  Because he and everyone else in both politics and media know who "outed" Valerie Plame (as if people didn't know she worked for the CIA already).  It was Richard Armitage, a former deputy Secretary of State and no friend of the Bush administration.

How can I be certain Matthews knows this?  Because Armitage ADMITTED he outed her and APOLOGIZED for it. 

Want proof?  How about the Washington Post**, CBS News**, and  CNN?  And, if that doesn't convince you, how about Armitage in his own voice admitting it while being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer.  That enough proof for you?

Therefore, when Chris Matthews tries to blame Dick Cheney, he is either so completely ignorant and uninformed that he doesn't know this, or he is lying.  I think it is pretty apparent that he is lying.

Thus the question becomes: Why would Chris Matthews lie by suggesting that Dick Cheney had a role in "outing" Valerie Plame when he knows that Richard Armitage did it?

The answer, it seems to me, is pretty simple.  If he acknowledges the fact that it was Armitage, then the hated Mr. Cheney - and Mr. Libby, and Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush - are off the hook. 

And since Matthews hates every one of these people, he does not want them off the hook.  So in order to keep them there, he lies about the Plame "outing" in the hope that his audience is either ignorant enough not to know the truth or as hate-filled towards Cheney, Libby, etc. as he is, and therefore uninterested in it.

I would say that this is why Matthews' ratings are so anemic, even after all these years on MSNBC.  But that wouldn't explain olbermann and Maddow, so it must be something else.

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

**For some reason, the links to the Washington Post and CBS News stories may not be working.  So here are the actual URL's which you can click on instead: 

The Washington Post story is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460.html

The CBS News story is at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/07/eveningnews/main1981433.shtml

Ken Berwitz

Either....

The war in Afghanistan is about to be won.  President Obama is going to implement a troop surge there which will eliminate the taliban....and bag osama bin laden in the bargain.  Piece of cake.

Or....

There is no such thing as winning in Afghanistan; not in any conventional sense.  It is a country with a few "cities" (not as we think of them) and harsh mountainous terrain that is impossible to govern or control in any way. 

President Bush understood this, which is why he kept troop levels where they were and didn't pretend he could do more than what was realistically achievable there. 

Then along came Barack Obama, who "knew" that the troop surge in Iraq was useless but it would have done great good in Afghanistan.  And enough people were mesmerized by this fairy tale so that they bought what he was selling and elected him.

The reality is that the troop surge in Iraq has been a spectacular success.  Iraq is now - with significant US help - a functioning democracy and a role model for the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. 

So how would a troop surge do in Afghanistan?  Read the excerpts from this Associated Press article and find out from the experts.  Please pay special attention to the quote I've put in bold print:

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan offered a grim view Wednesday of military efforts in southern Afghanistan, warning that 17,000 new troops will take on emboldened Taliban insurgents who have "stalemated" U.S. and allied forces.

Army Gen. David McKiernan also predicted that the bolstered numbers of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan — about 55,000 in all — will remain near those levels for up to five years.

Still, McKiernan said, that is only about two-thirds of the number of troops he has requested to secure the war-torn nation.

McKiernan told reporters at the Pentagon on Wednesday that the extra Army and Marine forces will be in place by the summer, primed for counterinsurgency operations against the Taliban but also ready to conduct training with Afghan police forces.

McKiernan said what the surge "allows us to do is change the dynamics of the security situation, predominantly in southern Afghanistan, where we are, at best, stalemated.

"I'm not here to tell you that there's not an increased level of violence, because there is," he said.

More deployments
The 17,000 additional troops, which President Barack Obama approved Tuesday to begin deploying this spring, will join an estimated 38,000 already in Afghanistan.

Another 10,000 U.S. soldiers could be headed to Afghanistan in the future as the Obama administration decides how to balance its troop levels with those from other nations and the Afghan army. The White House has said it will not make further decisions about its next moves in Afghanistan until it has completed a strategic review of the war, in tandem with the Afghan government.

Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, said Wednesday that the foreign ministers of those countries will travel to Washington next week to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other officials as the U.S. formulates a policy review.

Appearing on "The NewsHour" on PBS, Holbrooke was asked how the Obama administration sees victory in Afghanistan. "First of all, the victory, as defined in purely military terms, is not achievable, and I cannot stress that too highly," he said. "What we're looking for is the definition of our vital national security interests."

Holbrooke described his recent trip to the region and the delegations coming to Washington as "a manifestation of a new, intense, engaged diplomacy designed to put Afghanistan and Pakistan into a larger regional context and move forward to engage other countries in the effort to stabilize this incredibly volatile region."

Whatever the outcome of the review, McKiernan said, "we know we need additional means in Afghanistan, whether they are security or governance-related or socioeconomic-related."

The estimated level of 55,000 troops needs "to be sustained for some period of time," he said, adding that could be as long as three to five years.

Is that not exactly how President Bush saw it?  Isn't that why his efforts in Afghanistan were designed to support as much of a government as was realistic, while containing the taliban as best he could in the places where there could never be a government? 

Bush understood that there is no way to get rid of the taliban.  And if it only operated in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, woe to the people it controlled, but we would not be sending troops there. 

The problem is that these people are intent on taking over country after country and ruling the world.  That is why they have to be stopped, even if they can't be eliminated.

I wonder how far President Obama will go towards the USSR model - the one that was so catastrophic for them - before he comes to grips with this reality.

Ken Berwitz

Analyst Ed Elfenbein shows us the sad state of the New York Times - and gives us a great punch line that is both funny and sad:

February 17, 2009

New York Times’ Share Price Less Than Sunday Newspaper Price

Check out this very ugly chart:

Shares of NYT (NYT) dropped 29 cents today to close at $3.77. The Sunday paper goes for $4 at the newsstand.

Maybe they could save costs by printing the paper on their stock certificates.

Maybe that's why they call him "Pinch" Sulzberger.  Because Times shareholders who look at this chart have to pinch themselves to be sure it isn't just some horrific nightmare.

Ken Berwitz

Sweden is in a tumultuous state.  This is due, in no small part, to a major influx of Muslims who have no interest in assimilating and are in the process of changing the country's culture.

Malmo, the third largest city in Sweden, is heavily populated by Muslims.  The crime rate is stratospheric there compared to the rest of the country and it is reported that neither ambulances nor firefighters will enter parts of the city without a police escort.  You can read about this for yourself by clicking here .

They are having an international tennis competition in Malmo from March 6 to 8.  Israel is one of the participating countries.

A decision has been made that Israel's team will only play in an empty stadium - no spectators allowed. 

Why do you suppose this is being done?  For fear that there will be action against who?  Got your answer in mind?  Ok.

Now read the AP account and be ready to shake your head in amazement:

No fans when Sweden hosts Israel for Davis Cup

2/18/2009 11:48:00 AM

The FANS?  They're not selling tickets because the FANS are in danger?

Who do they think believes this utter BS?  Do they think we've all lost our cerebrums and can't find them?  Do they think we can't figure out that Sweden fears it is incapable of protecting Israelis from elements of Malmo's Muslim population?

If Sweden thinks there is danger, then the logical thing to do is MOVE THE MATCHES OUT OF MALMO.  But they won't do that.  Better to play in an empty stadium and lie about why.

Sadly, this is the Sweden of today.  And as long as they keep lying to us, and to themselves, it will continue to get worse.

Ken Berwitz

It isn't often that I agree with Sam Stein who writes for www.huffingtonpost.com and al sharpton, who I avidly dislike because I consider him a fraud and a race hustler.

But today is the day.

The New York Post has a cartoon in today's edition that clearly equates President Obama to the crazed chimpanzee that attacked its owner's friend yesterday and wound up being shot and killed by the police. 

Here is Mr. Stein's commentary, then the cartoon itself, then al sharpton's reaction to it:

It's a racist cartoon.  It equates Barack Obama, who just signed the stimulus package into law, with a crazed chimp that had to be shot dead.  A blind man could see this.

Stein is almost 100% correct.  The only disagreement I have with his commentary is its suggestion that there conceivably might be a different explanation (not that he's buying it, just suggesting).  sharpton is being uncharacteristically diplomatic in his choice of words.  But his point - that the cartoon equates President Obama to a monkey (a chimpanzee, actually) - is spot on. The stereotype couldn't be clearer.

The Post is trying to rationalize this as something other than what it obviously is.  Fat chance.  That is the equivalent of claiming that a guy in a leprechaun suit, with a pug nose and an empty bottle of Bailey's in his hand isn't being stereotyped as an Irishman.

I don't give a damn that reid and pelosi were the ones who put this monstrosity together.  Barack Obama supported it and it was his smiling, Black face that I saw when it was signed. 

Things are what they are.  And the racial component of this cartoon is 100% clear.  Cartoonist Sean Delonas - and the New York Post - should be ashamed of themselves. 

Ken Berwitz

Someone called the USA "...essentially a nation of cowards". 

Who would say that?  An al-qaeda terrorist?  hugo chavez?  fidel castro?

The answer is yes.  Every one of those detestable people would say it.  But that's not who did say it.

The person who said it is the United States Attorney General, eric holder.  The same eric holder who supported a pardon for marc rich.  The same eric holder who supported a pardon for 16 FALN terrorists.

Here is the entire AP article.  Read it and try figuring out what he's really saying:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Eric Holder described the United States Wednesday as a nation of cowards on matters of race, saying most Americans avoid discussing unresolved racial issues.

In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," said Holder, nation's first black attorney general.

Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, Holder said, but "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."

He urged people of all races to use Black History Month as a chance for frank talk about racial matters.

"It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation's history, this is in some ways understandable," Holder said. "If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us."

He told Justice Department employees they have a special responsibility to advance racial understanding.

Do you have any idea what holder is talking about?  He doesn't specify which race, or what part of our history, does he? 

Is he directing those comments more to one race or another?  You may think you know but, whatever your conclusions are, he didn't say it.  You are just guessing.

Is he directing those comments towards slavery?  Or towards the far higher crime rate among Blacks than Whites?  You may think you know but, whatever your conclusions are, he didn't say it.  You are just guessing.

So who is the coward who won't talk about race?

On that question, you don't have to guess at all.

Ken Berwitz

Throughout last year's election campaign, we continually heard about the transparency of a potential Obama administration. 

It is, of course, true that we hear about a lot of things during election campaigns that don't turn out the way we were led to believe.  But this came from Barack Obama.  Saint Barack.  The Obamessiah.  The demigod sent to us straight from the heavenly portals of Chicago's Democratic political machi .... er, forget that last part.

Since Mr. Obama has been the President for almost a month now, we are starting to get an idea of what transparency means to him.   One major inkling is the so-called "stimulus package" (or, as I call it, the stealfromus package).   

We were told that it had to pass it immediately, that there was not one second to waste.  That was Obama's rationale for making its contents available to congress at, I believe, 11PM the day before the vote - so no one could even read what they were voting on - and demanding an immediate vote anyway.

Because Democrats have the numbers in both houses of congress, it passed.  No one read it but they passed it.  It was ready for the President's signature on Friday.

So President Obama signed it that second, right?  I mean it was an emergency, wasn't it?  It had to be signed immediately.

Well, no. 

President Obama wanted to make a bit hit with this signing and get maximum publicity.  So he waited until he had a major event in Denver on Tuesday. 

That's right.  The bill - passed and ready for his signature - cooled its heels from Friday to Tuesday. 

Could a few of those days have been used to READ it?  Why no, it was an emergency, remember?  No time for that.  Only time for Barack Obama to schedule it for maximum political exploitation.

That, I am sorry to say, is what transparency is to the Obama administration.  And it is just one example. 

Want more?  Read these excerpts from an article by Josh Gerstein at www.politico.com:

The White House's missing documents By JOSH GERSTEIN | 2/17/09 8:46 PM EST

In his first weeks in office, President Barack Obama shut down his predecessor’s system for reviewing regulations, realigned and expanded two key White House policymaking bodies and extended economic sanctions against parties to the conflict in the African nation of Cote D’Ivoire. Despite the intense scrutiny a president gets just after the inauguration, Obama managed to take all these actions with nary a mention from the White House press corps. The moves escaped notice because they were never announced by the White House Press Office and were never placed on the White House web site. They came to light only because the official paperwork was transmitted to the Federal Register, a dense daily compendium of regulatory actions and other formal notices prepared by the National Archives. They were published there several days after the fact. A Politico review of Federal Register issuances since Obama took office found three executive orders, one presidential memorandum, one presidential notice, and one proclamation that went unannounced by the White House. Two of Obama's actions on regulatory reform were spotted by bloggers, lobbying groups and trade publications after they emerged in the Federal Register. There was no apparent rhyme or reason to the omissions. A proclamation Obama issued on February 2 for African-American History Month was e-mailed to the press and posted on the White House web site. But another presidential proclamation the same day for American Heart Month slipped by. Such notices were routinely released by the White House press office during prior administrations — making their omission all the more unusual given Obama’s oft-repeated pledges of openness.

Let me say this plain:  If transparency of government is an indication of how the Obama administration operates, there is no reason for us to believe anything it says.  And since we have voted Democrats into complete domination of our government, there is no way to stop it.

We have two years of this before we can change things.  I hope it isn't too late.

Ken Berwitz

My son just e-mailed Robert J. Avrech's article to me and I am passing it along to you.  It comes from www.bighollywood.breitbart.com.

My viewership of PBS is sporadic and I was not aware of this programming.  But I certainly am aware that of PBS' rich history of crapping on Israel and Jews. 

Simply stated, crapping on Israel and Jews is all the rage among the hard left, and PBS is hard left.

Here is what I'm talking about:

Masterpiece Jew Haters

by Robert J. Avrech

I must have missed a few subtle literary points in college when I was taking a Charles Dickens seminar.

I missed the spot where Fagin, in Oliver Twist, is wearing a gigoondo yarmulke.

Also, blasting right by yours truly—alas, never the best of students—is the part where Fagin abstains from eating pork chops because they’re not kosher.

Who knew that Fagin was an observant Jew?

And I must have skipped the part where Fagin—going all bi-polar—talks to himself in fractured Hebrew and intones: “Never trust the goyim.”

Timothy Spall as Fagin: “Never trust
the goyim.” Gotta check the Cliff notes.

Fagin’s thick as lard accent—whoops, forgot Fagin is religious, let’s  make that syrup—eastern European accent pegs him as an immigrant street rat, a dirty foreigner seducing and corrupting young British manhood.

Last night I was flipping through my 150 channels—you can get obese watching all the cooking shows—when I stumbled on this new adaptation of Oliver Twist.

What a surprise, I didn’t know I had access to Al Jazeera. It was kind of scary, I mean, I know the Arab world is a sewer of Jew-hatred, but this Fagin is pretty darn close to the image of the evil Jew pushed by the Nazi propaganda machine.

He’s not just the Jew, he’s the devil.

This Fagin is such a leering, salivating monster that I wouldn’t be surprised if, in next week’s exciting installment, he molests a few doe-eyed kids then slaughters them so he can use their blood to bake matzo.

The Blood Libel is alive and well in the Arab Muslim world and making headway, once again, in oh-so-civilized Europe.

Imagine my surprise when the station ID popped up and I discovered that this was not Al Jazeera, but PBS.

Okay, I really wasn’t surprised.

Just as I wasn’t surprised that this grotesquely anti-Semitic Oliver Twist is a British production. Most sane people recognize that Britain, in about 25 years, will be ruled by Sharia and cheerily Judenrein.

Say hello to the happy-go-lucky 7th century.

In truth, early editions of Oliver Twist were tainted by Jew hatred. But Dickens bravely confronted this bigotry and eliminated anti-Semitism from all subsequent editions. He knew it was wrong. He knew it was poison.

Not so for this BBC productions. They have departed from the standard text and and defaulted to the Jew-hatred that Dickens rejected.

Next PBS Jane Austen adaptation, be prepared for the slick, bad boy Jew who steals fortunes from unsuspecting fine ladies and seduces and abandons Christian virgins.

My fainting couch is positioned right in front of the TV.

European Jew-hatred is so common, so darn fashionable that Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist is now part of the arsenal to make Jew-hatred acceptable.

Director Coky Giedroyc and writer Sarah Phelps are the chief criminals in this vile exercise in sophisticated Jew-hatred. They will, no doubt, argue that they are restoring a fresh perspective to Fagin’s Jewishness. This is the corrupt academic language of deconstruction, where “texts” have no real meaning, where all interpretations are equally valid.

Naturally, it’s a one-way deconstructionist street.

You can bet your bottom dollar that no Muslim would ever appear in such a dark light in a BBC production. Because the Islamists would issue a fatwa and Giedroyc and Phelps would be living under 24/7 protection.

No doubt, this dynamic Jew-hating duo would hunker down with The Koran and deconstruct it in order to prove that beheading is not terribly sporting.

Lotsa luck.

But it’s open season on Jews because, well, what are we going to do but protest in print, be dismissed as right wing nut jobs, or y’know, pushy Jooz.

Question: why does PBS exist?

Oh right, desperately needed government support for people—and by people, I mean losers—who can’t make a living in the business.

Your tax dollars at work.

I have put Mr. Avrech's most important point in bold print.  But he doesn't go far enough. 

PBS doesn't have any more guts to go after radical Islam than the BBC does. 

After all, if you crap on Jews you can sleep like a baby that night, but if you crap on radical Islam you never sleep well again. 

For people without journalistic integrity, this pretty much settles the issue.

Ken Berwitz

Peter Roff, writing for Fox News, has put up a very interesting article about why the New York Times is nosediving so badly - even worse than other print media.

The entire piece is well worth reading (which is why I've provided the link above), even though it has an egregious word error; it mistakes  "auspicious" for "auspices" (hey, I write too and I know these things can happen). But here is the final segment, which wraps things up very well:

A larger problem is that the shrill invective coming from the likes of former theater critic Frank Rich, who now holds forth on global issues on the Times op-ed page, and others like him has reached the point of ridiculousness. Those who take the paper on a regular basis are, I suspect, increasingly tired of being told, with increasing vehemence, that they are stupid, greedy, racist, uncaring, unfeeling and wrong about almost everything they believe.

The New York Times, unlike the other daily newspapers in this nation’s largest city (two of which are owned by the parent company of FOX News) is not written for “Joe Beergut from Bensonhurst.” The Times, which still imagines itself to be America’s newspaper of record, is written for “Larry and Lois Leisure of Larchmont” and the Upper West Sides’ “Walter and Wendy Welloff.” Times readers are highly educated, well off, have opinions about local and national affairs and believe they are generally good, community-minded people who may or may not enjoy complicated crossword puzzles.

To The Times, every social problem America faces is the fault of its readers in one fashion or another. They are rich, upper and upper-middle class Americans who are responsible for all that is wrong with the world. They don’t pay enough in taxes — although you would have a hard time getting most of them to believe that. But to The Times, that makes them all Mephistopheles.

So while the paper’s senior management is trying to figure out how best to restore its flagging financial fortunes, it would do well to read the famous column penned for the National Review some years ago, about how the author’s outlook on life got brighter and more cheerful the day after he decided to stop taking the paper.

Oliver Hazard Perry famously said "We have met the enemy and they are ours...".****

Walt Kelly (who gave us the seminal "Pogo" comic strip for so many years), used a play on that quote during the war in Vietnam:  "We have met the enemy and he is us"

If I were in the New York Times boardroom right now, I would be urging its "brain trust" to pay much more attention to the Walt Kelly version.

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

****FYI, Perry's entire quote, actually a communique to then General and eventually President William Henry Harrison, was "We have met the enemy and they are ours; two ships, two brigs, one schooner and one sloop".  I just researched the quote and found that out.  I certainly didn't know it before and - don't lie - you didn't either. Right?

Ken Berwitz

Ironic, isn't it? 

When Rod Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate he was 100% within his rights to do so.  So hapless harry reid's fulminations and mouth-breathing tirades against the appointment amounted to exactly nothing.  Reid eventually agreed to it (as if he had any choice) and Burris was seated.

But now, weeks after the fact - and with Blagojevich impeached and removed as Governor - it turns out that Burris was lying about what he promised to do for Blagojevich to get the job. 

He has to be lying because his story keeps changing.  Only one version can be true -- and we don't even know if it's among the ones he's come up with.

Here are the lowlights, via excerpts from an article by John O'connor of the Associated Press:

If Burris lied under oath about the circumstances of his appointment, he should be dumped out of the senate forthwith.  And, as is 100% clear, he did just that.

Maybe there's room on that unbelievably egotistical, self-congratulatory monument Burris has built to himself at his future burial site, for one more accomplishment:  "First African American to be Forced Out of the Senate Because He Was a Liar".

Ken Berwitz

I mentioned Brian Maloney of www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com in my previous blog.  Here is Brian's analysis of what is happening to so-called "progressive" talk radio.  See if it makes as much sense to you as it does to me:

Media Turmoil Hits Liberal Talk Radio Hard

LIBTALK IN DISARRAY

How The 'Fairness Doctrine' Provides An Instant Bailout

If you're wondering why so many Democrats have suddenly jumped aboard the Censorship Doctrine bandwagon, with Bill Clinton as the latest example, it might be tempting to believe it's merely a result of one-party rule in Washington.

There's a second, more pressing reason, however: the distressed state of liberal talk radio in 2009. These guys need a bailout, quickly, with the Fairness Doctrine providing an easy way to accomplish that through forced carriage on successful conservative stations.

For anyone in the media business these days, times are tough. With advertising revenues off by as much as 40% or more at some outlets, survival is the name of the game. Newspapers are dying, networks are forced into mass cost-cutting, and FM music formats face a desertion by younger, iPod-happy listeners.

But the news-talk format is in an entirely different position: while certainly not immune to radio's corporate financial difficulties, its fortunes are split between resurgent conservative talk (thanks to Obama) and its still-fledgling, deeply-troubled liberal offshoot.

Even before the economy melted down, libtalk struggled to attract a significant amount of advertising. Just imagine trying to convince sponsors to come aboard now!

Rumors of its financial shortcomings are certainly not new and Air America Radio previously declared bankruptcy, later emerging under new ownership and management. But the latest rumblings, all developing over the past few weeks, involve several players in the field and seem especially troubling for the format's future.

Some of libtalk's key concerns:


The sudden absence of syndicated talker Randi Rhodes, blamed on "technical difficulties", but more likely the result of a contract dispute. Her program continues for now with fill-in hosts in her place. Her own fans don't believe the network's official excuse.


Rumors that Rhodes may lose her national deal and be relegated to a local show covering only her home turf in West Palm Beach. She's been one of libtalk's highest-profile hosts for several years, so this would be significant.


Her current employer, NovaM Radio, an offshoot of Air America Radio, is caught up in a lawsuit filed by one of its former executives, John Manzo, who has longtime ties to Rhodes. Industry whisperers claim the company is having financial difficulties, which might shed light on these issues if proven to be the case.

Other NovaM hosts have resorted to extreme statements, including calling for the death of political opponents, in a desperate bid for publicity.


Rachel Maddow, the closest thing Air America Radio has to a "star" these days, has given up her radio show. The network now runs an audio-only rerun of her MSNBC cable show at 5am weekdays.


Thom Hartmann, the Oregon-based host who replaced Al Franken upon the latter's departure to run for a Minnesota Senate seat, is leaving Air America for another syndicator at the end of the month. This is a risky move that suggests he anticipates a need to depart his current employer for more stable surroundings elsewhere.


The expected bankruptcy of XM Sirius could have a tremendous impact on Air America if it affects the satellite radio provider's programming offerings. XM Sirius has provided a lifeline for the network as land-based affiliates drop its ratings-challenged shows.


So if you're wondering why a steady parade of elected Democrats, led by libtalker Bill Press and others, are suddenly pushing so hard for talk radio censorship, look no further than their own sorry state of affairs.

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

UPDATE:  Read Brian's latest commentary here.  Nova M has folded and Sheldon Drobny, its co-founder (who also co-founded Air America), has reportedly tried to commit suicide.

Not to be flip about this, but Drobny was as successful at suicide as he was at "progressive" talk radio.  It just had the opposite result.  His network is dead and he's still alive.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a five and a half minute video of Fox's Megyn Kelly arguing about the fairness doctrine with Bill Press - who hosts a "progressive" talk show that, to be perfectly frank, just about nobody listens to. 

Watch the video and hear Press talking as though left wing talk radio is some kind of great success when, in reality, he unwittingly is making the exact opposite argument. 

You'll especially enjoy the part when he says he's not demanding implementation of the "fairness doctrine", but instead wants......and then describes exactly, precisely what the "fairness doctrine" is:

See, the problem is that when Press argues about how many markets are natural venues for left wing...er, sorry, progressive...radio, he is making Ms. Kelly's point for her. 

Take Washington DC for example.  On paper, this is the classic market where progressive talk should do well, given that there are about 28 conservatives in the entire city.  But it has never done anything but fail. 

The most recent attempt was Obama 1260 AM (honest, that was the name).  Before trying this name, station WWRC was already a progressive radio station and it had a rating of .4.  That stinks.

After WWRC started calling it Obama 1260 and putting on Press, Stephanie Miller, Rachel Maddow, Lionel, etc.?  The ratings dropped to .1.  

Now it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if .4 was bad, .1 was worse.  A lot worse.  So last week Obama 1260 became Money 1260 and is doing business programming. 

I don't know if that will generate better ratings, but it sure as hell won't do worse.   

According to Brian Maloney at www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com, conservative talk radio succeeds in the DC area because it predominantly attracts suburban listeners.  Although I haven't seen the numbers, that seems pretty logical to me.

The bottom line here is that there is no "fairness" issue at all.  Listenership has made the market.  If Bill Press were palatable to enough people, he'd be on.  But people don't want to listen to him, so he isn't.  And whining that the government should force radio stations to carry his rejected show doesn't change this a bit.

To force Bill Press on an unwilling public, however, does lead to some interesting counterpart ideas in programming:

-What about The Today Show being forced to have a conservative commentator?  Maybe Megyn Kelly could do double-duty and banter with Matt & Meredith too.

- How about 15 minutes of NBC's nightly news with Brian Williams being done by L. Brent Bozell? 

-And then we could have Ann Coulter replace Joy Behar, so that, along with Elizabeth Hasselback, The View would have two conservative voices to balance the two remaining liberals?

How do you suppose Today, or Brian Williams, or The View would feel?  What would they say?  Heck, what would Bill Press say?

Are you laughing at the thought?  Me too. 

Ken Berwitz

Just a couple of months ago the per-barrel price of oil dropped into the $33 - $36 range.  And in the area of New Jersey where I live, we saw gas at $1.37 - 1.43 a gallon everywhere.

Well, the per-barrel price of oil is in about the same place now (maybe just a touch higher), and has been for almost a week.  But those same gas stations are now charging around $1.70-1.75 a gallon.

Why?

Ken Berwitz

Here is a true profile in courage, brought to us by a 12 year old schoolgirl and reported by Chelsea Schilling at www.worldnetdaily.com:

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
12-year-old steals day with pro-life speech
Teachers threaten disqualification, but girl chooses to speak against abortion

Posted: February 16, 2009
8:36 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Would those same teachers have discouraged Lia if her speech had been about "a woman's right to choose"? 

I don't know for sure, but I have a very strong suspicion that she would have been encouraged rather than discouraged. 

That would mean the