Ken Berwitz

From Patterico, writing for www.hotair.com:

Smear: L.A. Times Lies About Cornyn’s Comments on Sotomayor

posted at 6:20 pm on May 31, 2009 by Patterico

Today the Los Angeles Times lies to its readers about Sen. John Cornyn’s statements on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” Here’s what the L.A. Times says:

Only days earlier, Cornyn said in a radio interview that it was “terrible” for conservatives to be attacking Sotomayor as a “racist.” But today, the senator did not reiterate those sentiments and pledged that he and other Republican lawmakers would probe deeply into Sotomayor’s past comments and rulings to see if her heritage colors her ability to make fair decisions.

The hell he did. Yes, he said Republicans would closely examine her record. But he never said that Republicans would seek to learn whether her “heritage” would affect her ability to be a fair judge. In essence, the paper is saying, Republicans are concerned that Sotomayor might be a poor judge because she is a Latina. That is an outrageous distortion of Cornyn’s comments.

Rather than focusing on Sotomayor’s ethnicity, Cornyn focused on Sotomayor’s statements and rulings. Cornyn said Republicans were concerned by Sotomayor’s ruling in the New Haven firefighters case, and her comments about how she would be a better judge because of her Latina heritage. The focus was on her actions and words, not on her “heritage.”

The transcript of Cornyn’s appearance is here. On a separate page, I have included every single comment that Cornyn made in this morning’s appearance, so you can see with your own eyes how this newspaper is lying about Cornyn’s comments.

Indeed, Sotomayor herself is the one who has claimed that her ethnicity and heritage might be relevant to her judging:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor . . . . “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

Today, Cornyn actually said the exact opposite, telling George Stephanopoulos that it “shouldn’t make any difference what your ethnicity is.”

For the L.A. Times to claim that Cornyn pledged to examine whether “her heritage” would make her a bad judge is an outright fabrication by the newspaper, and they should be deeply ashamed.

The L.A. Times owes Cornyn an apology. Do you think he’ll get one?

Yes, that was a rhetorical question.

Why do they lie so openly, so brazenly?  Is it because they assume they'll get away with it?

And why do they assume they'll get away with it?  Is it because they always seem to?

Who is going to hold the Los Angeles Times to account?  The NY Times?  The network news?  Those keepers of the faith at MSNBC?

And Patterico thought that he asked a rhetorical question?  He's got nothing on mine.

Ken Berwitz

George Tiller, probably the most famous, and prolific, late-term abortionist in the United States, was shot and killed at his church this morning.  And a suspect has been arrested, as you can see from the local TV station's update below (KWCH-TV):

Police: Tiller Died of Single Gunshot Wound

Latest Update:

Det. Tom Stolz w/ Wichita Police Dept. says Dr. Tiller died of a single gunshot wound.  A 51-year-old suspect is in custody in Johnson County.  Police say the suspect was arrested without incident after a traffic stop.

Stolz says formal charges are expected Monday.  Suspect faces one count of murder, two counts of aggravated assault. 

Police say Tiller's body was removed from the church at 12:30 Sunday afternoon.  The FBI is involved in the investigation.

Nationwide alert issued for car and suspect description.

Update: Wichita residents are planning to mourn the death of Dr. George Tiller, as well as remember his triumphs, at Old Town Square tonight at 8pm. Although some in attendance may bring signs, the vigil is intended to be a peaceful gathering to show support for Tiller's family and friends.

---

Eyewitness News has confirmed that abortion provider Dr. George Tiller has been shot and killed at his Wichita church.

The shooting happened around ten o'clock Sunday morning at the Reformation Lutheran Church.

Location of Church

Police have a suspect description. The suspect is described as a white male in his 50's or 60's with grey hair that is balding in the middle. He is about 6'1" and about 220 pounds and was wearing a white shirt and dark pants.

The suspect was last seen in a light blue Ford Taurus, possibly an early 1990's model. It has a K-State vanity plate and a Kansas license plate number 225 BAB.

Tiller was the victim of violence before. On June 9, 1986 someone detonated a homemade bomb on the roof of his Wichita clinic. No one was hurt

During the Summer of Mercy in 1991, protesters blocked the entrance to his facility before a federal judge ruled the protesters be arrested.

Two years later, Dr. Tiller was shot outside his clinic the evening of August 19, 1993. His wounds were not life threatening. Abortion opponent Shelly Shannon was convicted of that shooting and sentenced to prison.

In the absence of actually knowing, my first impulse is to assume the killer is an anti-abortionist, probably a devoutly religious one.  But I don't know that to be a fact. 

Let's all wait and find out for sure.

Ken Berwitz

Here is another update on those kindly, pacifistic folks Israel is supposed to be making peace with.  It comes to us from the Associated Press:

6 dead in battle between Hamas, Palestinian police

By ALI DARAGHMEH, Associated Press Writer Ali Daraghmeh, Associated Press Writer

QALQILIYA, West Bank – Top Hamas fugitives lobbed grenades and fired automatic weapons Sunday to push back Palestinian security forces storming their hideout, leaving six dead in the bloodiest clash since the Palestinian president launched a crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank two years ago.

Two top Hamas militants — on the run from Israel for years — were among those killed, along with an unarmed Hamas supporter and three Palestinian policemen.

After the hours-long battle, hundreds of spent bullet casings, puddles of blood and tear gas canisters were visible at the hideout, a two-story building in the northern West Bank town of Qalqiliya. Parts of the walls were burned down.

The Islamic militant Hamas immediately hurled angry accusations at the Western-backed president, Mahmoud Abbas, accusing him of betraying Palestinians resisting Israeli occupation and threatening revenge. Relations have been sour since Hamas seized Gaza by force two years ago, leaving Abbas only in control of the West Bank.

The arrest raid underscored Abbas' determination to rein in militants as part of his obligations under the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan.

The shootout came just three days after Abbas met at the White House with President Barack Obama and renewed a pledge to honor these commitments. The U.S. has been training Abbas' elite forces to help him affirm his control of the West Bank and prepare for eventual statehood.

Despite Hamas' threats of reprisals, it was not immediately clear whether it would change its tactic of lying low in the West Bank while it weathers Abbas' crackdown. Since Hamas' Gaza takeover, Abbas' security forces have detained hundreds of Hamas supporters in the West Bank and closed the group's institutions and charities.

The Qalqiliya clash began late Saturday when Palestinian troops surrounded a hideout of Mohammed Samman, a leader of Hamas' military wing, Izzedine al-Qassam, and his assistant, Mohammed Yassin. Both had been on Israel's wanted list for six years, Palestinian security officials said.

Initially, about two dozen officers stormed the house, breaking down the door, said a policeman who had participated in the raid, but spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters. The Hamas men lobbed a grenade and opened automatic fire, killing three officers and wounding two critically, he said. Other officers fled, then brought in reinforcements.

The ensuing battle lasted until midmorning Sunday. Police say they found bombs, suicide belts and bullets in their search of the house.

Qalqiliya, which elected a Hamas mayor several years ago, was tense Monday. Women gathered near the scene heaped insults on policemen. Sporadic gunfire erupted in other areas of town, and police said the shots came from Hamas loyalists targeting officers, though there were no reports of injuries.

Security officials seized the bodies of the Hamas militants, fearing a public burial would turn into angry protests against the Palestinian Authority. Muslim tradition demands the dead should be buried quickly.

Hamas officials in the West Bank said that some 40 loyalists of the group had been arrested in Qalqiliya in the past week as part of the search for the top two fugitives.

In Gaza, Abu Obeida, a spokesman for the Hamas military wing, threatened "tough and harsh reprisal."

Ehab Ghussein, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry in Gaza, said Abbas' security forces have betrayed those fighting Israeli occupation.

But Abbas aide Nabil Abu Rdeneh said going after militants is key to one day setting up a Palestinian state. "To build our country and our state, we need to have one authority, one gun, one law," he said.

Hamas opposes Abbas' policy of trying to negotiate a peace deal with Israel. In recent months, Abbas and Hamas have tried to reach a unity deal, but talks have run aground over Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel and renounce violence, a precondition for joining a coalition with Abbas supporters.

Last year, 26 Palestinians were killed during Fatah and Hamas attempts to crack down on their rivals, said the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights.

Can someone please send this report to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the administration?  I can't help hoping against hope that someday, somehow, they will actually recognize who they're demanding that Israel make peace with. 

Based on this, and so many other events like it, that concept might be a bit premature.

Maybe the first demand should be that Palestinian Arabs make peace with each other.  Then we can talk about Israel.

Ken Berwitz

In the interests of fairness, I am posting Tom Goldstein's analysis of Judge Sotomayor's decisions in discrimination cases (www.scotusblog.com).  It is important that we see both sides of this nomination:

Judge Sotomayor and Race — Results from the Full Data Set

Friday, May 29th, 2009 10:27 pm | Tom Goldstein

I’ve now completed the study of every one of Judge Sotomayor’s race-related cases that I mention in the post below.  I’ll write more in the morning about particular cases, but here is what the data shows in sum:

Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals. 

Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions.  Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous.  (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.)  Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge.  In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent’s point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case.  So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.

Of the roughly 75 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor dissented 2 times.  In Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 F.3d 642 (1999), she dissented from the affirmance of the district court’s order appointing a guardian for the plaintiff, an issue unrelated to race.  In Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 195 F.3d 134 (1999), she would have allowed a black kindergartner to proceed with the claim that he was discriminated against in a school transfer.  A third dissent did not relate to race discrimination:  In Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002), she dissented from the majority’s holding that the NYPD could fire a white employee for distributing racist materials.

As noted in the post below, Judge Sotomayor was twice on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions.  Both were criminal cases involving jury selection.

The numbers relating to unpublished opinions continued to hold as well.  In the roughly 55 cases in which the panel affirmed district court decisions rejecting a claim of employment discrimination or retaliation, the panel published its opinion or order only 5 times.

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times.  Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred.  (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.)  She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims.  Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

Very interesting, and then some.

I don't know much about Tom Goldstein, but there is his analysis for you to consider.   He, in essence, is telling us that while Sotomayor runs off her mouth regarding race and skin color, her judicial decisions are another story entirely.

Make of it what you will.

Ken Berwitz

Jake Tapper is a reporter/analyst for ABC News. He is becoming indispensable to anyone who cares about both sides of the story.  And that is a tragedy

It is a tragedy because Tapper is doing nothing other than reporting both sides -- which is what every journalist is supposed to do.   The fact that his neutrality is so rare today is an awful statement on where media have descended.

Here, courtesy of Scott Whitlock, writing for www.newsbusters.org, is an example of what I mean:

ABC Offers Skeptical Take on Obama's Stimulus Claims; CBS, NBC Uncritical

By Scott Whitlock (Bio | Archive)
May 29, 2009 - 12:15 ET

 On Friday's "Good Morning America," ABC White House correspondent Jake Tapper provided a skeptical, challenging analysis of the Obama administration's claims about the economic stimulus bill. NBC's "Today" and CBS's "Early Show" on Thursday simply regurgitated White House statements that the "economy is looking much healthier these days" and that the President is "taking credit for writing the prescription." [Audio available here]

Tapper, in contrast, referenced a new administration report on the stimulus entitled "100 Days, 100 Projects" and wondered, "But, how much of this is real? And how much is hype?" He asserted, "Critics have long said the administration overstates the impact of the stimulus." After playing a clip of Obama claiming 150,000 jobs have been created by the stimulus bill, Tapper called that "a number based on theory, not fact." University of Maryland economist Peter Morici appeared briefly to point out, "It's simply an implausible statement to say that some 150,000 jobs were created by direct spending, indirect spending and so forth."

The ABC correspondent noted the government report claims $27 billion was used for "green improvement" to public housing in Washington D.C. Tapper dismissed, "But, that's not true. The stimulus paid for only two of [seven items listed in the report]. The other five were installed before the stimulus bill was even introduced in Congress." He went on to pointout that the $27 billion was the total the D.C. Housing Authority is getting. Only $44,000 came from stimulus money.

Finally, Tapper closed his piece by explaining that the White House, in its first quarterly report, stated $46 billion of the stimulus had been spent. The journalist noted, "They had to revise that figure. It's now $36 billion, which means that less than five percent of the stimulus has gone out the door."

In contrast, NBC and CBS's morning shows have done no such investigations. On Thursday's "Today," after reporting on a drop in unemployment numbers, Hoda Kotb simply added, "At a fund-raiser in Los Angeles last night the President said it was safe to say the economy is back from the brink. He said the stimulus bill is starting to improve the economy." The "Early Show" provided a similar unquestioning tone.

CBS anchor Chris Wragge recited, "President Obama says the ailing U.S. economy is looking much healthier these days and he's taking credit for writing the prescription." Reporter Susan Roberts proceeded to file a report on home sales and played a clip of the President at a fund-raiser in Beverly Hills.

On "Good Morning America," Thursday, guest news anchor Kate Snow delivered almost the same spin, explaining, "President Obama says the economy is back from the brink. At a fund-raiser in Beverly Hills last night, the President said a sense of calm has returned and he said the stimulus plan passed by Congress is beginning to work." However, "Good Morning America," to its credit, followed-up the next day with Jake Tapper's investigation.

A transcript of the May 29 Jake Tapper segment, which aired at 7:02am, follows:

ROBIN ROBERTS: But, we're going to turn now to the money trail. A new report today from the Commerce Department shows the economy shrank less than expected in the first quarter of 2009. The White House says that's in large part due to the $787 billion economic recovery plan. Senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper takes a look at those claims for us. Good morning, Jake.

ABC GRAPHIC: Follow the Money: Stimulus Claims/Stimulus Reality

JAKE TAPPER: Good morning, Robin. Well, that's right. The White House says that the stimulus plan is already starting to have an effect on job creation. And they listed a bunch of the jobs in their new report, "100 Days, 100 Projects." But, how much of this is real? And how much is hype? Green improvement to this public housing is project number one. Using $27 million, the report says, the Regency House installed solar panels, a green roof, a rainwater collection system, energy efficient lighting, as well as water conserving toilets, shower heads and faucets. But, that's not true. The stimulus paid for only two of those seven items. The other five were installed before the stimulus bill was even introduced in Congress. And $27 million? That's the total amount the D.C. Housing Authority is getting for all their projects. For this one?

MICHAEL WAYNE BROWN (Projects GM, D.C. Housing Authority): $44,000 for the roof. Solar panels is the only thing that's been paid for thus far.

TAPPER: The White House admitted the entry is not accurate, though it remains on the WhiteHouse.Gov.

ROBERT GIBBS: A mistake in that one took a series of different projects in a cut and paste into one.

TAPPER: Critics have long said the administration overstates the impact of the stimulus.

LARRY SUMMERS (Director, National Economic Council): You'll see the effects begin almost immediately.

TAPPER: In Las Vegas this week, President Obama played this card.

BARACK OBAMA: The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act has saved or created nearly 150,000 jobs.

TAPPER: But that's a number based on theory, not fact. And some critics say it's overstated.

PROFESSOR PETER MORICI (PHD, economist): It's simply an implausible statement to say that some 150,000 jobs were created by direct spending, indirect spending and so forth.

TAPPER: Without question, the stimulus is having an affect on some job creations. And of course, some of the reports, some of the projects listed in here are projects that are going to happen. But not yet one penny has been sent. One other bit of stimulus news, Diane. The administration in its first quarterly report on the stimulus says $46 billion has been spent. They had to revise that figure. It's now $36 billion, which means that less than five percent of the stimulus has gone out the door. Diane?

What exactly has Tapper done, other than look honestly at the claims being made by Barack Obama and his administration?  And what a stark contrast his reporting is to the others, who are clearly cheerleading everything the administration says.

For this reason, Tapper is indispensable. 

The others?  They're dispensable.  Very, very dispensable.

Ken Berwitz

From the redoubtable Steve Gilbert of www.sweetness-light.com:

Time Says Cookies Make Terrorists Talk

May 29th, 2009

From the former news magazine, Time:

How to Make Terrorists Talk

By Bobby Ghosh / Washington – Fri May 29

The most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or "walling" and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.

Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. Although there was already evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, American authorities needed conclusive proof, not least to satisfy skeptics like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose support was essential for any action against the terrorist organization. U.S. intelligence agencies also needed a better understanding of al-Qaeda’s structure and leadership. Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden’s chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured.

Abu Jandal’s guards were so intimidated by him, they wore masks to hide their identities and begged visitors not to refer to them by name in his presence. He had no intention of cooperating with the Americans; at their first meetings, he refused even to look at them and ranted about the evils of the West. Far from confirming al-Qaeda’s involvement in 9/11, he insisted the attacks had been orchestrated by Israel’s Mossad. While Abu Jandal was venting his spleen, Soufan noticed that he didn’t touch any of the cookies that had been served with tea: "He was a diabetic and couldn’t eat anything with sugar in it." At their next meeting, the Americans brought him some sugar-free cookies, a gesture that took the edge off Abu Jandal’s angry demeanor. "We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him," Soufan recalls. "So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures."

It took more questioning, and some interrogators’ sleight of hand, before the Yemeni gave up a wealth of information about al-Qaeda - including the identities of seven of the 9/11 bombers - but the cookies were the turning point. "After that, he could no longer think of us as evil Americans," Soufan says. "Now he was thinking of us as human beings."

Soufan, now an international-security consultant, has emerged as a powerful critic of the George W. Bush - era interrogation techniques; he has testified against them in congressional hearings and is an expert witness in cases brought by detainees. He has described the techniques as "borderline torture" and "un-American." His larger argument is that methods like waterboarding are wholly unnecessary - traditional interrogation methods, a combination of guile and graft, are the best way to break down even the most stubborn subjects. He told a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee that it was these methods, not the harsh techniques, that prompted al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah to give up the identities of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. Bush Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, had previously claimed that Abu Zubaydah supplied that information only after he was waterboarded. But Soufan says once the rough treatment began - administered by CIA-hired private contractors with no interrogation experience - Abu Zubaydah actually stopped cooperating…

Each interrogator has his own idea of how to run an interrogation. Soufan likes to research his captive as thoroughly as possible before entering the interrogation room. "If you can get them to think you know almost everything to know about them - their families, their friends, their movements - then you’ve got an advantage," he says. "Because then they’re thinking, ‘Well, this guy already knows so much, there’s no point in resisting … I might as well tell him everything.’" When Abu Zubaydah tried to conceal his identity after his capture, Soufan stunned him by using the nickname given to him by his mother. "Once I called him ‘Hani,’ he knew the game was up," Soufan says.

To get Abu Jandal’s cooperation, Soufan and McFadden laid a trap. After palliating his rage with the sugar-free cookies, they got him to identify a number of al-Qaeda members from an album of photographs, including Mohamed Atta and six other 9/11 hijackers. Next they showed him a local newspaper headline that claimed (erroneously) that more than 200 Yemenis had been killed in the World Trade Center. Abu Jandal agreed that this was a terrible crime and said no Muslim could be behind the attacks. Then Soufan dropped the bombshell: some of the men Abu Jandal had identified in the album had been among the hijackers. Without realizing it, the Yemeni prisoner had admitted that al-Qaeda had been responsible for 9/11: For all his resistance, he had given the Americans what they wanted. "He was broken, completely shattered," Soufan says. From that moment on, Abu Jandal was completely cooperative, giving Soufan and McFadden reams of information - names and descriptions of scores of al-Qaeda operatives, details of training and tactics…

Of course cookies that are not sugar-free might still be considered torture.

[Ali Soufan] told a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee that it was these methods, not the harsh techniques, that prompted al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah to give up the identities of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla.

Er, never mind that this claim entirely contradicts the fabled CIA memos, which we thought were the media’s latest gold standard for truth.

And never mind that, despite the implications of this article, Mr. Soufan has no special background in interrogation techniques.

In fact, according to the New Yorker, Mr. Soufan was the only Arab speaking FBI agent in New York right after 9/11 hit. And that is how he happened to get the job.

And speaking of credibility, the author of this piece, Aparisim ‘Bobby’ Ghosh, is the fellow who along with Tim McGirk brought us Time’s notorious ‘Haditha massacre’ scoop.

Just in case you were tempted to trust anything he writes or anyone he decides would choose as a source.

Indeed, this is the second Time article the Muslim born Mr. Ghosh has written about the thoughts of his hero, Ali Soufan.

Mr. Ghosh has also recently opined on the need for prosecution of the Bush administration for its war crimes.

It’s almost as if he has an agenda.

This, folks, is what passes for journalism today.

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

Ken Berwitz

Ezra Levant is a Canadian writer and publisher.  He is also a victim of the insane, arbitrary, censorious "human rights commissions" which seem to have replaced what used to be free speech in Canada. 

Levant eventually won his case - at huge personal and monetary cost - because the more public his inquisition became, the more embarrassing it was for the HRC and they finally had to sink back under their rock.

Here is an essay by Mr. Levant on how his attitude toward HRC's differs from those of at least one Jewish group, B'nai B'rith.  It is well worth reading:

B'nai Brith says without censorship laws there would be "anarchy"

By Ezra Levant on May 28, 2009 11:26 PM

When I was in Winnipeg three weeks ago, I had a brief book signing at the local McNally Robinson store. While I was chatting with patrons and signing books, I managed to simultaneously do an interview with the local Jewish newspaper, called The Jewish Post and News. They actually put the story right on their front page, and it continued onto page 3. You can read the whole story here, in .pdf.

I'm pleased that Shakedown has received so much interest from Jewish media and that I've been invited to speak to so many Jewish groups. It's a sign of confirmation of my thesis that the "Official Jews" who are for censorship do not speak for the mass of Canadian Jewry. I find that very encouraging.

The JP&N story was pretty sympathetic. Regular readers of this blog will have heard me make most of the points in it before. But what's new is that David Matas, legal counsel for the B'nai Brith, tries to defend human rights commissions. It makes for entertaining reading -- especially since the B'nai Brith itself has been subject to a five-year-long witch hunt by the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. My favourite detail about that fiasco is that B'nai Brith hasn't even been informed as to the identity of the complainant! Seriously, in what court in the world -- outside of totalitarian regimes like North Korea -- are cases brought by parties who remain secret? Actually, that's not fair to North Korea. They have secret trials there, to be sure, and they're sham trials, of course. But everyone knows who the prosecution is: it's the state. In Manitoba, the government has been hijacked by some secret party that the B'nai Brith doesn't even know. It's so absurd it would be funny, if it weren't so punitive.

And yet the B'nai Brith defends HRCs. I'm almost tempted to say they deserve everything they get, but I know that's not true. I believe that even murderers deserve a fair trial -- so surely politically correct lobby groups do, too.

Matas seems to agree that there ought to be some procedural changes made -- he points to outrageous delays in HRC cases, and to the fact that harassing complaints that abuse the system are not punished with costs being awarded against them. I agree with those criticisms, but even if the processes of HRCs were perfectly fair, I still wouldn't want them to have the power to censor political thought.

For me, it's not just the process that's abusive. It's the substance of the law -- the censorship of ideas.

Matas, who is a clever man, knows he has a difficult case to make, and he doesn't do a particularly good job of it. He says that the hijacking of HRCs by radical Muslims, such as Syed Soharwardy, could be stopped if the HRCs were merely "educated" about the risks of radical Islam. That's so naive it's cute. The HRCs are perfectly aware of the nature of radical Islam. They're happily doing the bidding of that illiberal fascism in the war against our western liberties. Matas actually thinks the HRCs don't know what they're doing. Well, tell that to Islamic fascist Arman Chak, happily working in the bosom of Alberta's HRC. I'm sure he'll turn right around after a little re-education session by Matas.

What would probably happen if Matas tried to re-educate Chak, is that Chak would try to re-educate Matas. And since Chak has the power of the law behind him, Chak would win. That's the problem with giving the state the power to censor -- and to re-educate. You can't always be sure you're going to be the one holding the stick, as opposed to getting beaten with the stick. The B'nai Brith and other Official Jews are so used to having Canada's HRCs do their bidding, they can't conceive of being its victims -- even as B'nai Brith has been victimized for five years, they still think that's an anomaly, rather than the natural, irresistable future of these censorship boards.

But my favourite line from Matas is his response to my call for the abolition of censorship laws altogether. Again, I'm opposed to both the process and the substance of such laws. Here's Matas's weird reply:

“This [Levant’s argument] is an argument which can be used about any law. Israel is falsely accused of genocide. So there should be no law against genocide and so on. The defence against abuse of the laws is to stop the abuse, not repeal the laws."

Look at what Matas is trying -- very clumsily -- to do. He's comparing laws against speech to laws against mass murder. That's one logical flaw -- equating political offensiveness with real crimes. And he's wrapped it in another logical flaw: saying that the only reason I want to repeal such laws is because they're being abusively applied. But, of course, I'm against censorship because I'm against censorship -- not just because the censors are such abusive clowns.

This is the final line of defence I've seen for the handful of people who actually do try to defend HRCs: they always deliberately blur thought crimes with real crimes. Pearl Eliadis is a specialist at this -- she always tries to use words that imply real violence -- "assault", "drive-by", etc. -- when talking about merely offensive words. It's a tell -- a sign that the HRCs' defenders know they're defending the indefensible, so they're going to try to pretend they're against real crimes, not word crimes.

Let me end with my all-time favourite fear-mongering response. If we repeal the censorship provisions of Canada's HRCs (and the criminal code provisions against "hate propaganda"):

That sort of reaction is a prescription for anarchy. It is in everyone’s interest that we have a society living under the rule of law rather than living in a lawless society.

Anarchy! Ladies and gentlemen, the only thing standing between Canada's peace, order and good government, and riots in the street, a war of all against all, are these HRCs and their censorship laws! Canadians are so malevolent, so violent and lawless in their hearts, that were it not for people like Jennifer Lynch, we'd be at each others' throats!

I'm not interested in living in a lawless society. I rather like our laws, or most of them. I like the Criminal Code, though we could do without the hate propaganda sections -- and, given the infrequency with which those provisions are actually used, it seems like the police can do without those, too, without us lapsing into "anarchy".

But look again at what Matas has done: he has said that to repeal censorship laws is to make us lawless. No: it would simply remove the laws from our thoughts and our words, and keep the police focused on violent deeds.

I rather like the idea of living in a country with intellectual anarchy. And, given the fact that you are reading this on the Internet, I get the feeling that you do, too. The Internet is about as lawless a frontier as it gets, when it comes to ideas and information. You will read offensive things on the Internet. But you're a grown-up. So you can handle it.

I'd like to live in a country where I'm safe from real harm. But when it comes to ideas, thoughts, emotions and other harmless deeds -- yeah, anarchy sounds a lot better to me than living under the yoke of Canada's HRCs, including the one that has had Matas on the run for half a decade for B'nai Brith's word crimes.

B'nai B'rith in Canada reminds me a lot of some Israel-supporting groups in the USA, which don't know how to stop extolling Barack Obama, even as he turns further and further away from Israel. 

I wonder when - if may be the appropriate word - they will wake up and see what is in front of their eyes.

Ken Berwitz

Want to see a classic case of bureaucracy gone wild?  Read this, from the Denver Post:

Ken Berwitz

From Pravda, without further comment:

American Capitalism Gone With A Whimper It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people. True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists. Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters. First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish. Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America. The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe. These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

.

Ken Berwitz

I love it when someone suggests exactly the same idea about marriage that I have been propounding for years.  And Doug Kmiec, whom I have never heard of until reading this article, is the guy in question.

Here, from www.catholicnewsagency.com, is Kmiec's suggestion - and, not surprisingly given the web site - a dissenting view as well:

Kmiec proposes end of legally recognized marriage

Washington D.C., May 28, 2009 / 04:41 am (CNA).- Doug Kmiec, a prominent Catholic who backed Barack Obama’s presidential bid, has endorsed replacing marriage with a neutral “civil license,” a proposal law professor Robert P. George called a “terrible idea” that would make the government neglect a vital social institution.

Speaking to CNSNews.com, Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec said that although his solution to disputes over the definition of marriage might be “awkward,” it would “untie the state from this problem” by creating a new terminology that would apply to everyone, homosexual or not. “Call it a ‘civil license’,” he said.

“The net effect of that, would be to turn over--quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding,” he said.

Kmiec said that a motive for California’s Proposition 8, which restored the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman, was religious believers’ “genuine concern” that the California ruling imposing homosexual “marriage” was not addressing religious freedom issues.

Saying he was among those believers who had such concern, Kmiec noted the possibility that churches which don’t acknowledge same-sex “marriage” could be subject to penalty, lose public benefits, or be subject to lawsuits “based on some theory of discrimination.”

Kmiec argued “civil licenses” would address the question. He proposed the state withdraw from “the marriage business” and do licensing “under a different name” to satisfy government interests for purposes of taxation and property.

Under his proposal, “the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community,” he added, saying that the proposal would reaffirm the significance of marriage “as a religious concept,” which has a much fuller understanding than is found in civil marriage.

Responding to Kmiec’s proposal, Princeton University professor Robert George said it was a “terrible” idea and a “very, very bad one.”

George told CNSNews.com that marriage is not like baptisms and bar mitzvahs but has “profound” social and public significance.

“It’s a pre-political institution,” he said. “It exists even apart from religion, even apart from polities. It’s the coming together of a husband and wife, creating the institution of family in which children are nurtured.”

“The family is the original and best Department of Health, Education and Welfare,” he continued, saying that governments, economies and legal systems all rely on the family to produce “basically honest, decent law abiding people of goodwill – citizens – who can take their rightful place in society.”

“Family is built on marriage, and government--the state--has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake,” George told CNSNews.com.
 
“I don’t know where Professor Kmiec is getting his idea, but it’s a very, very bad one.”

Years ago I came to the realization that marriage is none of government's business, except for its legal implications.  From a governmental perspective it should be nothing more than a contract.  Marriage is a religious and/or social issue that should be the province of religious and/or social entities.

If two people want to get married in the Catholic church, all fine and well.  They enter into a legal partnership and are married in,  thus recognized by, the church.  End of issue.

Same with Jews, or Protestants or Muslims or Buddhists or Elks or Kiwanis or whomever.  Marriage has a legal component, which would be satisfied by the contract.  It has a religious and/or social component that would be satisfied by religious and/or social institutions. 

If a man and a woman, or two gay men, or two gay women wanted to be married, they would commit to the same legal contract.  It would cover their rights as a partnership, who got what in case of death or other dissolution of the partnership, etc.  That would, and should, end governmental involvement. 

Then, if a religious or social institution was agreeable to marrying them, so be it.  If different religious or social institutions recognized, or did not recognize it as a marriage, fine.  Either way, the legal contract covers the parameters of their partnership.

H. L. Mencken once said "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong".  True enough.  But sometimes there is an answer that is clear, simple and right. 

This is one of the times.

Ken Berwitz

Read this report from Fox News and see if you recognize the USA in it:

Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a Bible study — unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.

"On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the Bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county." David Jones told FOX News.

"We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a Bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all," Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited "unlawful use of land," ordering them to either "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit," the couple's attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

But the major use permit could cost the Jones' thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.

For David and Mary Jones, it's about more than a question of money.

"The government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion," Broyles told FOX News. "I believe that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave if they saw that here in the year 2009, a pastor and his wife are being told that they cannot hold a simple Bible study in their own home."

"The implications are great because it’s not only us that’s involved," Mary Jones said. "There are thousands and thousands of Bible studies that are held all across the country. What we’re interested in is setting a precedent here — before it goes any further — and that we have it settled for the future."

The couple is planning to dispute the county's order this week.

If San Diego County refuses to allow the pastor and his wife to continue gathering without acquiring a permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

Is that the United States of America?  The one you recognize?

Will San Diego (and wherever else atrocities like this are being perpetrated) threaten clubs too?  Theater and movie groups which dare to talk about the performances afterwards?  

Hey, I have an idea.  How about threatening POLITICAL CLUBS.  See how fast this insanity goes bye-bye if you do.

Ken Berwitz

It's the Today Show again. 

The Today show and its unconditional love affair with Sonia Sotomayor:  a love affair which is causing it to make so unbelievably bizarre a case for her that it is scary that some viewers might be gullible enough to buy in.

Here is this morning's installment.  It comes in the form of an interview Matt Lauer conducts with Laura Ingraham.

First the setup:  Lauer reminds us that Judge Sotomayor said: 

His reason for reminding us of this overtly racist, sexist statement?  So that he can immediately neutralize it. 

And how can he neutralize a statement like that?  By claiming a sitting Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito, said the same kind of thing.  

Point of order:  Obviously there is something wrong here.  If Samuel Alito had said something parallel to what Ms. Sotomayor said, he would not be on the Supreme Court and would not be anywhere near it.  There is no way that a White male judge could pass the confirmation process if he ever said something this overtly racist and sexist. 

So what did Alito say?  He said:

"When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender.  And I do take that into account."

Are you waiting for more?  If so, you've got a long wait.  Because there isn't any more.

Are you saying to yourself  "Hey, wait a minute.  Alito said that his life experience makes him more sensitive to ethnic, religious and gender discrimination.  What does that have to do with Sotomayor saying she is SUPERIOR based on her race and gender??????

If so, good for you.  Because that's exactly the point.  The two statements are exactly opposite of each other.

But that doesn't deter Matt Lauer in the least. Here is his question to Laura Ingraham:

“Does, though, this comment that Justice Alito made in Chuck Todd’s piece there, does that neutralize the argument some have made on that issue?”

Incredible.

In the happy horsemanure world of Matt Lauer and Today, being sensitive to discrimination because you saw it hurting people in your family, is equivalent to being the person who does the discriminating by claiming superiority based on race and gender.

Incidentally, this is far from the only racist, sexist statement from Sonia Sotomayor.  Here's another one, which she made at Berkeley in 2001:

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

There, folks, is Sonia Sotomayor telling you in so many words that her gender and national origin inform her decisions.  "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging". 

I notice that Mr. Lauer didn't mention this comment at all.  An accidental, inadvertent error, I'm sure.......

Bottom line:  In her own words, and through her membership in the racist, anti-USA group "La Raza", Sonia Sotomayor has made it clear that she has no business being anywhere near a seat on the Supreme Court.

No matter how far in the tank the Today show is for her. 

Ken Berwitz

From the New York Times:

On Sept. 30, the day of her confirmation hearing, Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host, warned the Senate that Judge Sotomayor was an ultraliberal who was on a ''rocket ship'' to the Supreme Court. That day, Judge Sotomayor was questioned closely by Republicans.

Interesting passage.  It puts Limbaugh on record as predicting Sonia Sotomayor would be nominated for the Supreme Court.  And by citing the fact that Republicans questioned her closely on the same day as Limbaugh's prediction, it also makes the case that Rush Limbaugh is somehow in charge of the Republican Party.

Hmmmmm.  Since the mantra that Limbaugh runs the Republican party has been used big-time for the past few months, that reference to September 30 must have been just last year, right?

Uh, no.

The New York Times article with Limbaugh's prediction was published June 14, 1998.  And the September 30 reference was 1997  -- almost 12 years ago.  When most people had never heard of Sonia Sotomayor.

Y'know, Rush Limbaugh just might have something on the ball. 

Ken Berwitz

I pulled this from www.sweetness-light.com.  It starts by showing a series of photographs depicting Sonia Sotomayo's growing-up years.  Then it shows the Wikipedia entries for Ms. Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas. 

Its simple question at the bottom of the blog speaks volumes:

Ken Berwitz

The scoop on Susan Boyle, the Scottish homebody who became an overnight sensation on "Britain's Got Talent", was that at 47 years of age she had never had been kissed.

Maybe that was because of what comes out of those lips.

From The Sun of London:

SuBo goes loco

By VERONICA LORRAINE
and GARY O’SHEA

 

RANTING Susan Boyle completely lost her cool with TWO four-letter outbursts in a day, The Sun can reveal.

 

She stunned Britain's Got Talent fans, contestants and their families before going into meltdown later in front of hundreds of hotel guests.

There were fears last night that the pressure was getting to the show favourite.

Cops intervened at 5pm yesterday after Susan, 48, went berserk in the lobby of the Wembley Plaza Hotel in North London when two strangers set out to "wind her up".

The Scottish singer was heard to roar: "How f***ing dare you! You can't f***ing talk to me like that."

One of two cops stationed at the hotel went up and asked: "Is there a problem?"

Susan, dubbed SuBo, roared: "Of course there's a f***ing problem."

Tears flowing, she turned on her heel and marched out the exit followed by her family, production staff and the cops.

Hotel guests legged it to the windows to get a better view of the rumpus. Police spoke to Susan and her family for several minutes in the car park.

One officer told her: "You are in the public eye, you must learn to expect this sort of thing."

A pal of Susan's told the star: "You can't act like this."

TV producers ushered her back upstairs after police finished speaking to her.

Crush

One onlooker added: "It took her a long time to calm down from whatever upset her. She was breathing heavily and in a terrible rage.

"The pressure is obviously getting to Susan. Perhaps all the fame is too much for her."

A BGT spokesman said the strangers had been "trying to wind her up". He added: "The police were not called. They were already present."

The entire episode lasted 15 minutes.

Incredibly, Susan flew into another rage on Tuesday night after judge Piers Morgan lavished praise on rival singer Shaheen Jafargholi.

Shaheen, 12, wowed the judges with And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going from the musical Dreamgirls.

Piers, who gave spinster Susan her first kiss, said: "I think that, pound for pound, that was the best singing performance we've seen so far."

Smiling Simon Cowell added: "You are a real contender in the competition."

Hairy Angel Susan - watching on the hotel bar's TV with Shaheen's pals, family and show fans - stood and screamed "f*** off" before flicking a "V" at the screen and storming out.

More than 100 people saw her tantrum.

One onlooker said: "Susan was sitting there quite happily with her drink at first.

"She got a bit annoyed when a busload of tourists asked for autographs and told them to wait until Shaheen had finished. She was smiling as Shaheen sang but afterwards, when Piers started praising him, Susan went nuts.

"She got up, did one of those strange wiggling dances that she does, and then stuck two fingers up at the TV. Then she marched off. We didn't see her again.

"Everyone staying at the hotel gets on really well - it's like one big happy BGT family - so everyone was shocked by her outburst."

Shaheen was voted into the final by Piers, 44, and Amanda Holden. She's admitted to fancying "baby-faced" Piers.

The onlooker added: "She was clearly upset that her favourite judge had sided with one of her main rivals.

"It's beginning to look like its all getting a bit much for her."

Locals in Susan's hometown of Blackburn, West Lothian, claim Susan has frequent angry outbursts.

They've called her Rambo after the troubled fictional film hardcase "for years".

A neighbour told The Sun: "The reason is because if Susan doesn't get what she wants, she goes wild."

Another added: "It's not unusual to see her freak out over the smallest thing.

I guess we're lucky she didn't change the lyrics of that song to "I dreamed a f***ing dream".

Ken Berwitz

Things are too heavy today.  We need a joke.  I saw this one (in somewhat different form) in the June issue of Esquire - a magazine I didn't know was still being published until I happened to see a copy yesterday.

Ok, here it is.

Two guys are fishing in the woods and suddenly they see a bear charging at them.

As they start running, one guy says to the other "Boy am I lucky I have my running shoes on". 

The other guy says "do you really think we can outrun the bear?"

The first guy says "I don't have to outrun the bear.  I have to outrun you".

Ken Berwitz

Judge Sonia Sotomayor belongs to La Raza.

Last year Michelle Malkin put together this compendium of facts about La Raza

Read them and tell me if Ms. Sotomayor should be made a Supreme Court justice (or be on any judicial bench at all):

Here are 15 things you should know about “The Race”:

15. “The Race” supports driver’s licenses for illegal aliens.

14.”The Race” demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.

13. “The Race” vehemently opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state, and federal authorities.

12. “The Race” opposes a secure fence on the southern border.

11. “The Race” joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent the feds from entering immigration information into a key national crime database — and to prevent local police officers from accessing the data.

10. “The Race” opposed the state of Oklahoma’s tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions, and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.

9. “The Race” joined other open-borders, anti-assimilationists and sued to prevent Proposition 227, California’s bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.

8. “The Race” bitterly protested common-sense voter ID provisions as an “absolute disgrace.”

7. “The Race” has consistently opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.

6. Former “Race” president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton’s Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: “U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks.” He was referring to U.S. English, the nation’s oldest, largest citizens’ action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States. “The Race” also pioneered Orwellian open-borders Newspeak and advised the Mexican government on how to lobby for illegal alien amnesty while avoiding the terms “illegal” and “amnesty.”

5. “The Race” gives mainstream cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized the organization as “a radical racist group . . . one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.”

4. “The Race” is currently leading a smear campaign against staunch immigration-enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves — in addition to pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes. The New York Times reported that current “Race” president Janet Murguia believes “hate speech” should “not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights.”

3. “The Race” sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: “We don’t want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don’t need a White water fountain . . . ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.”

2. “The Race” has perfected the art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home-loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal “mortgage counseling” grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks, and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.

1. “The Race” thrives on ethnic supremacy — and the elite sheeple’s unwillingness to call it what it is. As historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: “[The] organization’s very nomenclature ‘The National Council of La Raza’ is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of ‘race’ in Spanish, not ‘the people’ — and that’s precisely why we don’t hear of something like ‘The National Council of the People,’ which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism.”

I don't give a damn what Sonia Sotomayor's race, ancestry or gender is.  Someone who belongs to this group has NO BUSINESS ON THE SUPREME COURT.   La Raza is racist, advocates anarchy and advocates racial supremacy.  It is the equivalent of a White nominee belonging to the KKK.

It is a tragedy of the first order that she is not only being considered, but will probably sail through the confirmation process.

If Democrats vote to seat this racist they are a disgrace.

If Republicans vote to seat this racist they are a double disgrace, because in addition to the fact that she is a racist, she is also a nominee of the opposition party.  If they can't oppose her on moral or political grounds, they are useless.

If ever there was a time for decent people in either party to stand for something, this is it.  Will they?

Ken Berwitz

Over a week ago, it was reported that 76 US senators and 195 house members signed a letter to President Obama strongly urging him to recognize the level of risk Israel is under as he formulates his policy on Iran.

The senate sponsors of this letter were Chris Dodd, Arlen Spector, Johnny Isakson and John Thune.  That's four

Why, after all this time, have no media outlets I can find reported who the other 72 senators are - and, more to the point, which 24 senators would not sign that letter?  Why have no media outlets reported who the majority of house members not signing this letter are?

Why is this information being withheld?  Is it because the non-signers are disproportionately Democratic and media, as an entity, don't want us to know because it could affect some people's view of the party?  Is it some other reason?  What reason?

When does this stop being a secret?

Ken Berwitz

This is precisely why the blogosphere is so important.  Because if this scandal - and it appears to be a major scandal - were left to the tender mercies of mainstream media, you would probably never hear about it.

The scandal is that, having largely taken over Chrysler Corporation, the Obama administration is closing dealerships whose owners have contributed to Republicans or Obama political opponents, while making sure to leave open the dealerships of Obama supporters.

In other words, our tax money is being used to nationalize a business and then turn it into a partisan political arm of the ruling administration.  It is as if Barack Obama took a crash course from hugo chavez.

Here are excerpts from a web site - http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/dealergate-statistical-evidence-that.html - which shows how it is being done. 

It is way too long to post here, but the part I'm showing you should pretty clearly demonstrate what is going on.  I urge you to read the entire web site in order to see, first-hand, how our country is being taken over:

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Dealergate: Stats demonstrate that Chrysler Dealers likely shuttered on a partisan basis

This work builds upon the research done by numerous parties, most notably Joey Smith. It is a follow-up to my original post, entitled "Did anti-Obama campaign contributions dictate which Chrysler dealers were shuttered?" The odds that these closings occurred without partisan bias are roughly equivalent to the odds that Jean Claude Van-Damme will grab a Best Supporting Actor Oscar next year for a remake of Terms of Endearment.

How did the U.S. government's "car czar" decide which Chrysler dealers to close and which would remain open? No one appears to know, not even the President of Chrysler:

...Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the impression that Press did not support the plan...

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers," Bellavia said. "It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."

Follow the evidence trail, below, and judge for yourself.

Dealers on the closing list donated millions to Republicans, $200 for Obama

The initial pass at the list of shuttered dealers showed they had donated, in the aggregate, millions to Republican candidates and PACs and a total of $200 to Barack Obama.

In fact, I have thus far found only a single Obama donor ($200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

Another review of all 789 closing dealerships, by WND, found $450,000 donated to GOP presidential candidates; $7,970 to Sen. Hillary Clinton; $2,200 to John Edwards and $450 to Barack Obama.

Now, and this is important, Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included "sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area."

Dealer Jim Anderer told Fox News' Neil Cavuto he can't comprehend how his dealership can be among those killed: he stated that his sales volume ranking is in the top 2 percent of all dealers.

Furthermore, Anderer says explanations aren't forthcoming. "They won't tell us. They seem to be running for cover right now because they won't give us a solid explanation. They come up with all these reasons, but none of them seem to make sense... This is insanity. The government is stealing my business. And they're telling me there's nothing I can do about it... There was no process that you could put your finger on and say, 'Hey, we cut 25 percent of the lowest performing dealers.' They didn't do that. Nobody will give us a real clear explanation of the formula that they came up with."

The odds of a non-partisan process being employed can best be illustrated by RLJ.

The Mysterious Case of RLJ

In Smith's research, one company kept popping up on the list of dealerships remaining open. The company is RLJ-McLarty-Landers, which owns six Chrysler dealerships. All six dealerships are on "the safe list."

RLJ's owners "are Steve Landers (long-time car dealer, 4th-generation dealer), Thomas "Mack" McLarty (former Chief of Staff for President Clinton), and Robert Johnson (founder of Black Entertainment Television and co-owner of the NBA's Charlotte Bobcats)... McLarty campaigned for Obama in 2008, and Johnson has given countless amounts of money to Democrats over the years."

Please, please do not stop at this excerpt.  I strongly urge you to read the entire site.  See the maps, see the information, see the facts.

Mainstream media appear determined not to show you this reality.  By their silence, they are aiding and abetting the kind of corruption that people go to jail for.  Why?  Because they like the guy perpetrating the corruption

But you have to know, so that you can understand what it being done in your name and with your tax dollars.  .

Wake up.  For god sake, wake up.

Ken Berwitz

Wouldn't it be ironic if, instead of her racist/sexist comments and her membership in La Raza, Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court was derailed because she is too "pro-life"?

Read this from David G. Savage and Peter Nicholas, writing for the Los Angeles Times.  The bold print is mine:

Abortion rights groups concerned about Sotomayor's stance

Obama's Supreme Court nominee has little record on issues related to Roe vs. Wade.

By David G. Savage and Peter Nicholas
May 28, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has provoked concern from abortion rights advocates, who say they have seen no evidence that she supports upholding Roe vs. Wade.

Unlike most finalists for the high court opening, Sotomayor has never ruled on the issue. And in her only abortion-related decision, she did not come down the way activists would have liked.

 In 2002, Sotomayor rejected a challenge to President George W. Bush's so-called Mexico City policy, which required foreign groups receiving U.S. funds to pledge that they would not support or promote abortion.

Sotomayor spoke for a three-judge panel that upheld the policy as constitutional. The government "is free to favor the antiabortion position over the pro-choice position and can do so with public funds," she said.

"I simply don't know Judge Sotomayor's view on Roe vs. Wade. I will be very concerned if the question is not asked and answered during the Senate hearings," Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Wednesday. "So far, no one has been able to give us an assurance of her views."

While that key segment of Obama's constituency was expressing concern, a leading Senate Republican indicated Wednesday that a filibuster against the nominee was unlikely. "I don't sense a filibuster in the works," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told CNN.

Still, GOP staffers were starting to go through hundreds of Sotomayor's decisions, looking for issues that might score political points or even derail her nomination.

Northup said she would be surprised if Obama, who as a candidate spoke in favor of abortion rights, selected a justice who did not feel the same way. "But other presidents have been surprised before," she said, pointing to Justice David H. Souter.

Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace on the court, was nominated in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush. Although Souter had a limited judicial record, Republicans at the time said they were confident that he was a conservative and an opponent of Roe. In 1992, however, Souter upheld a woman's right to abortion in a 5-4 ruling -- an ideological split over the issue that remains on today's court.

The White House added to the concerns of abortion rights advocates, saying that the president did not discuss the issue with Sotomayor before her nomination.

"The president doesn't have a litmus test, and that question was not one that he posed to her," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. Asked whether Obama had not promised to appoint judges who support abortion rights, Gibbs replied: "I'd have to look. I don't remember exactly what he said on that topic."

Last year, Obama's campaign said he would make "preserving a woman's right to choose under Roe vs. Wade a priority as president." This year he has sought to bridge the divide on abortion, saying America should try to find ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage adoptions. At the University of Notre Dame a week and a half ago, Obama called for "fair-minded" debate on abortion and a search for "common ground." To that end, he has formed a task force, with advocates on both sides of the issue.

Sotomayor, who was raised a Catholic in New York, has listed herself as a member of Childbirth Connection, a group that helps young mothers prepare for caring for a baby.

Two years ago -- in a case of concern to women's groups -- she joined an appeals court ruling that upheld a school district's policy requiring teachers to notify a parent if they saw that a girl was pregnant. The court said that the teachers had no legal basis for objecting to the policy.

And since her nomination to the high court Tuesday, several abortion rights advocates have said they remained unsure and uneasy over her views.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said her group would "look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor's views on the right to privacy and the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision as the Senate's hearing process moves forward."

"What we know about her we like, but I don't know the answer on abortion rights," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

For their part, some antiabortion advocates say they are convinced that Sotomayor is an "extreme" supporter of abortion, although several admit they do not have specific evidence of her views.

If Obama was seeking to avoid an abortion battle during the confirmation process, Sotomayor would seem a logical choice because of her lack of record on the issue. Another finalist to replace Souter, Judge Diane P. Wood from Chicago, had a strong public record of supporting abortion rights. Wood dissented a decade ago when the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Wisconsin's and Illinois' bans on what opponents call "partial birth abortion."

Now, however, it is the abortion rights supporters who want Democrats to raise the issue during the confirmation process.

"Ironically, both sides in the abortion debate can agree on this," Northup said. "All Americans deserve to know where the next Supreme Court justice stands on Roe vs. Wade."

That last sentence I bold-printed is particularly interesting.  How do you avoid a battle on one of the most polarizing issues of the day by nominating someone who does not have a clearly defined position on it?  That means instead of one side being leery and on the offensive, both sides are.

I watched The Today Show this morning, to catch their daily love letter to Sotomayor.  The most interesting, and telling part of it was White House correspondent, Chuck Todd's comment that  "abortion rights" groups may be expressing concern over Sotomayor's abortion stance because they need the controversy to boom up donations during the nomination process.  His exact words:

"It looks like this could be potentially just a straw man by abortion rights groups who are concerned that they're not going to be able to have a Supreme Court nomination to raise money on"

(Todd then went on to recite Today's generic mantra that the bad guys - i.e. the ones who are against their beloved Sonia Sotomayor -  are Republicans and conservatives.  Yawn.)

I will be more than a little interested to hear the responses of "pro-choice" groups who Todd has so directly impugned.  It wouldn't surprise me if one or more such groups have reacted already.

What does this all mean to Ms. Sotomayor's prospects for becoming a Supreme Court justice?  Well, I blogged two days ago that I did not expect Republicans to have the guts and principle to stand against Ms. Sotomayor.  But if groups like NARAL, NOW, etc demand to know her position on abortion, this nomination could get real dicey real soon.

NARAL, NOW and Rush Limbaugh all on the same side on a Supreme Court nomination?  Politics really does make strange bedfellows, doesn't it?

Ken Berwitz

Politicians lie.  Media sometimes do and sometimes do not nail them for it.

Right wing politicians lie and are invariably nailed.  Left wing politicians lie and more often than not get away with it.  There's your difference.

Bruce Walker of www.americanthinker.com has written a terrific little piece - with one major flaw - about the left wing liars who more often than not get away with it.  See for yourself:

May 28, 2009

The Liars Club

By Bruce WalkerThe unfolding spectacle of Speaker Pelosi attending a briefing, in which the CIA of informed her of enhanced interrogation techniques, and then lying about it, is part of the grave danger to our democracy.  The Left is shrinking honesty into an empty, ignored, and mocked virtue.  Pelosi is not just lying about being at a vital briefing; she has decided that the best defense is a good offense:  accuse the CIA of misleading Congress and, particularly, her.  This is much worse than simply holding the wrong policy on issues. 

Mike Mansfield often held very wrong positions on issues, but he never lied to America or to his colleagues.  The Left, when it had men like Mike Mansfield, Eugene McCarthy, and Hubert Humphrey valued honesty.   When the Left stood for something more important that the personal gain of power, wealth, or fame, Leftists were willing to tell the truth even when it hurt them politically.

 

Freedom of speech has is most important when the speech is unwelcome.   People require no legal protection for saying what is popular. They require protection for saying what angers people.  But the Left cares nothing at all about freedom and it cares even less about truth.

 

Nancy Pelosi is lying and she is compounding that offense by lying about lying.  The man who might have led the Democrats, "Pretty Boy" John Edwards looked at reporters and the American people and flatly, boldly lied to us. Bill Clinton did almost exactly the same thing when he flatly and indignantly denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky.  The affair itself was sordid, childish, selfish, and sleazy, but the affair was a peccadillo.  The grand crime was lying. 

Recall what the Left said about his lying then?  Stuff like this:  "Lying is sometimes good," "It is healthy to lie," and "Well, virtually all of us lie."  John Edwards was the Vice Presidential Nominee for the Democrats in 2004 and one of the leading contenders for the nomination in 2008.  Bill Clinton was elected president twice.  Honored members of the Liars Club.

 

Does anyone believe that Barack Obama's Chief of Staff knew nothing about Blago's auctioning the Illinois Senate seat?  Emmanuel and Obama initially said that neither had any conservations with the ex-Governor about who support fill Obama's seat.  Did that make any sense?  Why would he have not talked with Blago? But as soon as the seat-selling scandal broke, Obama and his top aide denied any contact.  Then, it transpired, that Emmanuel did, indeed, visit with Blago.  Later it turns out that Emmanuel had multiple" conservatives with Blago.  The president and his Chief of Staff, before even taking office, were lying.

 

The moral disease seems rampant in the Left.  Joe Biden, repeatedly, has said that a drunk driver killed his wife and child.  There was virtually no evidence of alcohol by the other driver in the crash and, in fact, there was evidence that the crash was caused by he wife, not the poor wretch condemned to be the straw man for one of Biden's favorite lies.

 

John Kerry claims to recall spending Christmas on a gunboat in Cambodia in 1968 under President Nixon:  perhaps in an alternative, Bizarro universe; even those men who served with Kerry on swift boats and who supported him said, well, no, we were never in Cambodia, and Richard Nixon, of course, was not president in December 1968.

 

Al Gore, well, where to begin?  He began to confront the tobacco companies forcefully after his sister died from lung cancer. (That same month, he got a $1,000 speaking fee from U.S. Tobacco; he voted against raising taxes on tobacco three times after that and even supported discounted tobacco; he campaigned in 1988, four years after his sister's death, bragging about his work in planting and cultivating tobacco.)  He authored the Earned Income Credit (although the bill became law in 1975, two years before he was entered Congress.)

 

This list goes on and it is depressingly familiar.  Leftist Democrats simply lie about everything that they think will help them politically and that they think they can get away with.  The Liars Party (also, to an amazing degree, the Lawyers Party) does not care about any of the policies which it professes to advocate (Why, for example, would Gore be deeply involved in the tobacco industry if he thought it was bad?  Why would Edwards have a profoundly hurtful affair behind the back of his dying wife unless all his blathering about the rights of women was just vote-getting flattery?  Or why would Clinton and his wife defend him from all the women who accused him of acting like precisely the sort of most who they argue the federal government should do more about?  If Pelosi cared about water boarding as "torture," then she should have sought all she could and done all she could in 2002 -- even she acknowledges she was either truly ignorant or too profoundly indifferent to research or to act.)

 

Members of the Liars Club do not even merit the dubious honor of being called Leftist ideologues.  They are simply utterly selfish and profoundly amoral liars who view the moral conscience and fidelity to truth of conservatives as more dangerous to them as any notions of market theory, natural rights, or rule of law. 

The rhetoric of the Liars Club means nothing -- nothing at all.  Barney Frank, when he lied about the Republicans passing a bill to reform the banking industry before Frank became a committee chair in 2007 -- which Barney Frank voted against! -- did not care about the truth.  He cares about power.  In a democracy in which the mainstream media actively conceals the lies of the Left, then the Liars Club are vindicated:  dishonesty is the best policy.

The one major problem I have with Walker's commentary is his belief that conservatives, as a group, show "moral conscience and fidelity to the truth".  That is ludicrous.  Conservatives lie too.

But, as noted above, there is a difference.  It is media.  Mainstream media are quick to provide cover for lying on the left and rarely ever do the same for the right.

Case in point:  How fast did Nancy Pelosi's lies disappear from the news?  Two, maybe three days and out. 

This is the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE and, after changing her story several times, finally settled on the claim that she didn't lie about the CIA briefing, the CIA is lying instead.  None of the other dozens of congresspeople who attended those briefings are making this claim.  Just Nancy Pelosi.  

The only way Pelosi can possibly get away with this is media complicity.  And, as per usual, they are dutifully complying.

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

Ken Berwitz

We just received this email from the (corrupt) Senator from New Jersey, Robert Menendez.

The text of his email is in maroon.  My responses are in blue.

Tuesday was a historic day: President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the United States Supreme Court. I am thrilled the president has chosen such a qualified nominee and, at the same time, moved toward a Supreme Court that looks more like America. Judge Sotomayor would be the first Latina, and only the third woman, to serve on the nation's highest court.  What does “more like America” mean, other than being code words for “it’s not a White male, isn’t that great”?  Well, it isn’t great.  It’s selection by race and gender.  Evidently for the Menendez crowd, racism is odious and despicable – unless it benefits a minority, in which case it is wonderful and glorious.  Hypocrites.

Judge Sotomayor's vast knowledge of the law, excellent temperament and lifetime of experiences make her a great choice. Her temperament is very much in question.  I blogged about it just yesterday.  She's authored about 400 legal opinions, and she understands how laws affect people, businesses and government. Judge Sotomayor has more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the past century and has garnered bipartisan support: She was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush and the Second Circuit by President Bill Clinton.  The George H.W. Bush appointment is technically accurate.  But it doesn’t mean she was a bipartisan selection at all.  Bush appointed her at the request of New York’s Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.  It was a gesture of collegiality and good will – try and find either in this administration.

Despite all of her qualifications, Republicans stand ready to obstruct. On Tuesday, de facto party spokesman Rush Limbaugh went so far as to accuse President Obama, and Judge Sotomayor, of racism. "Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist and now he's appointed one ... Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. Limbaugh is absolutely correct.  She is a racist.  She has made several overtly racist statements implying that, because she is Latino and female her judgement is superior to that of White males.  She also belongs to La Raza, which is an overtly racist organization.  Notice that Menendez doesn’t tell you why the claim of racism is made – because to do so would require citing her comments, which would make Rush Limbaugh’s point for him.


With statements like that from Limbaugh, we can expect to have a fight on our hands. You can be assured, however, that the DSCC, the branch of the Democratic Party solely dedicated to electing more Democrats to the Senate, is working hard every day to elect senators who will give President Obama's nominees a fair hearing. It's what America expects of us.  A fair hearing – i.e. a hearing that treated Sonia Sotomayor’s racism as racism - would disqualify her in two seconds flat.
 
Sincerely,

Robert Menendez

Ken Berwitz

Janet Napolitano, our Secretary of Homeland Security, is not satisfied with falsely accusing Canada of being the entry-point for the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11.  Now she is upset with Canadian media for talking about it.

Think I'm exaggerating?  Read this:

Ken Berwitz

Want another reason not to accept Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice?

Read this excerpt from Judge Sotomayor's American Bar Association profile:

 She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza. .

Let's put aside the fact that Ms. Sotomayor belongs to every ethnic/gender group she can find.  Let's just talk about the National Council of La Raza.

Do you know what La Raza ("The Race") is?  What it means?  What it believes?

Here are excerpts from an article written by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga) which explains what La Raza is and what it wants.  The bold print is mine:

Exclusive: The Truth About 'La Raza'

by  Rep. Charlie Norwood

04/07/2006

Radical 'Reconquista' Agenda

There are many immigrant groups joined in the overall "La Raza" movement. The most prominent and mainstream organization is the National Council de La Raza -- the Council of "The Race".

 

Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions.

Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.

One of America's greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.

This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:

"Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot...Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny." (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)

MEChA isn't at all shy about their goals, or their views of other races. Their founding principles are contained in these words in "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan" (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan):

"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. ... Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. ... We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada."

That closing two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. It says: "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing."

MEChA and the La Raza movement teach that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as "Aztlan" -- a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America. As such, it belongs to the followers of MEChA. These are all areas America should surrender to "La Raza" once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, enter to claim a majority, as in Los Angeles. The current borders of the United States will simply be extinguished.

This plan is what is referred to as the "Reconquista" or reconquest, of the Western U.S.

But it won't end with territorial occupation and secession. The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of "Aztlan."

As Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge's MEChA chapter has been quoted as saying: "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled -- opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."

How do you feel about this?  How do you feel about a justice of the United States Supreme Court with this affiliation?

This morning, on the Today Show, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York informed me that Judge Sotomayor was a moderate.  If I had any doubt about what a lying windbag Schumer was before hearing this BS, I can assure you I have none now.

She is not a moderate.  She is not even a liberal or a leftist (I distinguish between the two).  She is a hard left La Raza activist. 

Sonia Sotomayor has no business being on any judicial bench, let alone the United States Supreme Court.

Ken Berwitz

This appeal was sent to me by David Horowitz, on behalf of Joe Kaufman (whom you can read about by clicking here).  I am reprinting it in the hope that readers will consider the facts, think about the alternatives and donate generously.  Thank you.

Dear Freedom Center Supporter,

I have an urgent update for you on the radical Islamic groups who are waging a fight to silence a good friend of the Freedom Center, Joe Kaufman.

Briefly, seven Muslim groups claim that Joe is a threat. They convinced a court that Joe "intends to threaten to take unlawful action... cause bodily injury... or threaten Plaintiffs or their members with immediate bodily injury." On those grounds the court imposed a restraining order on him. In addition, the groups are suing Joe for defamation to stop him from writing about Muslims in the future and to close down his web sites.

Joe's never threatened anyone in his life. He's written well-detailed reports, however, about the growing threat radical Muslims represent and he's identified individuals and organizations in the United States that are supporting our enemies.

The seven Muslim groups who've united to attack Joe and strip him of his rights are well financed and savvy to our court system. There has been a flurry of legal activity as these radicals continue to fuel the fire with senseless demands and accusations - and money. They have deep pockets. They truly believe they can silence Joe by financially breaking him and the Freedom Center's legal team

You see, the Freedom Center's legal team - the Individual Rights Foundation - is handling Joe's defense. But we need your help. Legal fees are mounting. And we're turning to you.

If Joe Kaufman loses, radical Muslims will know they can stop anyone from investigating and writing about any Muslim groups and individuals. This is why I am urgently asking you to make an emergency contribution to help the Freedom Center pay for Joe's defense.

You see, this case is nearly two years old. Yet, the court refuses to toss out the lawsuit, so the case continues. Joe is being represented by a team of lawyers who are generously donating their time. But the other legal costs are considerable.

To date, the Freedom Center has paid more than $30,000 in legal fees. Another $25,000 needs to be paid - and the case has just had another round of oral arguments to add to the legal costs. I'm working hard to raise $45,000 as soon as possible. I can't let this case end with the radical Muslims winning. You see, Joe's not the only one on trial here. The Freedom Center's efforts, the work at Jihad Watch, and the work by many others who are exposing a threat the mainstream media won't touch in jeopardy, as well.

Like Joe, many of the journalists, web publications, and internet watchdogs are doing this out of their passion for freedom and their desire to help protect America from the Islamo-Fascist threat. The case these seven radical Muslim groups have brought against Joe Kaufman is simply the first step in silencing every one of us!

The lawsuit against Joe Kaufman is part of a strategy by these Muslim groups to bully us into silence. That's why we cannot let them win.

I am asking you to make a contribution of $25, $50, $100 or more,< /A> to help us raise the $45,000 we need right away to pay for Joe Kaufman's defense. Any amount you can give will help. Please follow this link immediately to give. It's extremely urgent!

Thanks in advance for your support.

Sincerely,

David Horowitz
President & Founder

P.S. We must continue to fight for Joe Kaufman. Radical Muslims have already shown they can bully their enemies in courtrooms in Canada and Europe! We cannot let it happen here! We must raise the money needed to win this case. Please follow this link to chip in whatever you can to help us reach our goal of $45,000.

Ken Berwitz

I watched the Today Show this morning.  Predictably, the lead story was Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whom President Obama has nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court.

I noticed that just about every time any criticism of Ms. Sotomayor was cited, Matt Lauer made a point of saying that "conservatives" would be the ones doing the criticizing. 

I was wondering how Today would try to slough off the fact that Ms. Sotomayor has made a number of overtly racist and sexist remarks, in which she suggested she was superior because she was a woman rather than a White male, and because she was of Latino heritage.  Evidently the strategy (and make no mistake, this is a strategy - they are in love with her over there) is to deflect the (very legitimate) criticisms by ascribing them to the people they've already demonized.

This, of course, is both disgraceful and dishonest.  There is no good reason to assume that only conservatives would be against someone this prejudiced.  Aren't liberals and moderates against prejudice?  Why is it expected that they would be ok with prejudice from Sonia Sotomayor?  

But, hey, it's Today.  What do you expect.

I've already written about the comments in question.  But the Washington Times has an excellent editorial this morning which cites them, and also demonstrates Judge Sotomayor's awful decision in the New Haven Firefighter's case - which is still another instance of Ms. Sotomayor exhibiting racial prejudice against Whites.

Read it for yourself.  The bold print is mine:

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

EDITORIAL: A judge too far

With his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court, President Obama has abandoned all pretense of being a post-partisan president. While he may like to think of himself as a thoughtful moderate soaring above the issues that divide America, his actions reveal what hides under that hopeful lining.

Presidents usually nominate judges that espouse their philosophy. So what does this nomination tell us about Mr. Obama's true colors?

Even the liberal establishment worries that Judge Sotomayor tilts too far to the left. New Republic essayist Jeffrey Rosen reports that fellow liberals who have watched or worked with her closely "expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and... [they have said] she is 'not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench.' "

A suspiciously high number of her decisions have been overruled by higher courts. Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network said that record shows "she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court."

There will be much to say in days to come about Judge Sotomayor's manifest lack of appropriate judicial restraint and about other problems in her record. For now, though, three red flags beg for attention.

Speaking at Duke University Law School in 2005, Judge Sotomayor said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." On its face, the assertion runs counter to more than 200 years of American legal tradition holding that courts are merely meant to interpret existing law, not actively make policy choices.

Immediately realizing she was on thin ice, the judge continued: ". . . and I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't 'make' law." To much laughter, and with facial and hand gestures to indicate that her next line was to be taken with humor as a useful fiction, she added: "I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it."

But judicial activism is no joke. It undermines the Constitution and substitutes judicial whim for democratic decision-making. Unelected judges, answerable to no one but themselves and serving for life, can all too easily become dangerous oligarchs.

Judge Sotomayor seems to think that inherent racial and sexual differences are not simply quirks of genetics, but make some better than others. Consider her 2002 speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she said. "I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

She also accepted as potentially valid the idea that the "different perspectives" of "men and women of color" are due to "basic differences in logic in reasoning" due to "inherent physiological or cultural differences."

If a white male had said these openly racialist words in a prepared speech, his chances of reaching the U.S. Supreme Court would be gone in an instant. Instead, it seems that these outlandish remarks are what qualified Judge Sotomayor in Mr. Obama's eyes.

Judge Sotomayor seems to favor racial discrimination. Consider the case of Ricci v. DeStefano. In that controversial case, 19 white firemen were denied promotion because no blacks scored high enough on a race-neutral test to also be promoted. Judge Sotomayor ruled against the white firefighters.

If Mr. Obama wanted a judge with the right "empathy," he struck out with Judge Sotomayor. One of the white firefighters denied promotion, Frank Ricci, is dyslexic. In order to ace the promotion exam, he quit a second job, spent $1,000 for instruction materials, and spent many hours reading those books into an audio tape to help him study. For his extraordinary efforts, he finished sixth out of 77 applicants for promotion - but then was denied, simply because he is white.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jose Cabranes, appointed by a Democratic president, complained that the ruling written by Judge Sotomayor and two other judges "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case."

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Ricci v. DeStefano before the Senate votes on Judge Sotomayor's nomination. It would be an extraordinary rebuke were a current nominee to be overruled on such a controversial case by the very justices she is slated to join.

Judge Sotomayor seems to be the most radical person ever nominated for the high court. To continue to command public respect, the Senate will have to ask her some hard questions. The simplest one to ask will be the hardest one for her to answer: Given her statements against whites and males, can she be fair to all Americans?

Suppose I told you that a Black firefighter with a learning disability quit a second job and spent $1,000 on instruction materials to overcome that disability and qualify for a promotion - no special privileges, just take the same test everyone else was given.  Suppose I told you he successfully did so, finishing well within the range that would get him the promotion.  Now suppose I told you he was denied the promotion specifically because he and the other successful candidates were the wrong color. 

Would you be outraged?  I hope so.  Because you should be outraged at that kind of in-your-face racism.  But Judge Sonia Sotomayor, given the exact same situation with a White firefighter, not only was not outraged, but ruled against him. 

Would she have ruled against the disabled Black firefighter in my example?  Would she have ruled against a disabled female firefighter?  Well, read her comments about White males and draw the logical conclusion.

All this said, I do not believe Republicans have the will or principle to oppose Ms. Sotomayor - at least not so far.  That in itself is a pretty damning statement about Republicans.  They are all too willing to play politics with this nomination and pander to Latino voters who, they think, care less about Judge Sotomayor's attitudes than they do about "one of their own" being on the Supreme Court.

The best thing I can say about Republicans' motives is that maybe they know of other racist and sexist statements she has made, so they are positioning themselves as willing to vote for her at this point but will decline to do so when those other statements come out.  That's a pretty thin thread, but it might be their game.

My problem with this possible strategy is that what Ms. Sotomayor has already said should disqualify her from the Supreme Court. Wouldn't it be better - much better - if they were principled enough to say as much and vote accordingly?

This is the worst kind of politics.  And, as you can see, both sides play it.

Ken Berwitz

Most people are aware that Chrysler Corporation, which is now under the thumb of the Obama dicatatorshi...er administration, has informed a large number of dealerships they will be closed. 

Most people probably assume these are weak, underselling dealerships whose closure will therefore strengthen the corporation.

But if you're one of them, I suggest you hold off on that assumption.

From Rick Moran, writing for www.americanthinker.com:

May 26, 2009

Did Chrysler play politics with dealer closings?

Rick Moran
Doug Ross has done a little digging and discovered a disturbing pattern in the choices Chrysler (and the Obama administration) made in closing dealerships.

It appears there is a real possibility that if you contributed to Republican candidates or the RNC, your number came up and your dealership was yanked.

Doug explains:

To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn't an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified.

However, I also found additional research online at Scribd (author unknown), which also appears to point to a highly partisan decision-making process.

I have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included "sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area."

In fact, there may have been other criteria involved: politics may have played a part. If this data can be validated, it would appear to be further proof that the Obama administration is willing to step over any line to advance its agenda.

It bodes poorly for America and the rule of law.

Jeez, what a surprise, huh?

Follow the link and take a peak at the dozens of dealers who have been torpedoed by Chrysler and notice that it appears a lot of very big GOP contributors (5 or 6 figure donors) are being financially ruined by Obama and Chrysler.

This is a preliminary study as Doug points out but if Ross was able to find dozens, I suspect there are hundreds who have also been disenfranchised by Obama.

Kind of puts George Joseph's letter we published a while back in a different light, doesn't it? Maybe it's not so mysterious a turn of events after all.

I do not know if what you just read is correct.  But I do know that someone who purports to have cross-checked dealer closings with political donations claims Chrysler appears to systematically be putting Republican-supporting dealers out of business.

Is this worth a serious investigation?  You tell me.

One other thing:  Moran's piece links to a letter from George Joseph, whose family has operated a Chrysler dealership in Melbourne, Florida for 35 years and was told Chrysler was shutting it down.  I posted the letter earlier this month, but maybe you didn't see it at that time.

Before you make any judgement about the likelihood of Chrysler being used as a partisan tool, you owe it to yourself to read what Mr. Joseph wrote.  

Ken Berwitz

Chicago's CBS 2 has some particularly damning information about Roland Burriss, the Blagojevich-appointed U.S. Senator from Illinois:

Burris Offered To Write Check To Blagojevich

Senator Suggested Contribution Before He Was Appointed, Later Decided Against It

CHICAGO (CBS) ―

Sen. Roland Burris was recorded on an FBI wiretap suggesting that he could write a check to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's campaign before the ousted governor appointed Burris to the Senate.

The details of the conversation emerged after a federal judge said Tuesday he would allow the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee to hear a federal wiretap of the former governor's brother, Rob, having a fund-raising conversation with  Burris. Rob Blagojevich was running the campaign fund at the time.

Sources tell CBS 2 the wiretapped phone conversation occurred on Nov. 18 while Blagojevich was still governor and before he named Burris to President Barack Obama's former U.S. Senate seat. 

Sources say that on the tape, Burris suggests that he could contribute, or have associates contribute, money to the Blagojevich campaign. Burris also expresses desire to be appointed to the U.S. Senate.

Burris' lawyer, Timothy Wright told CBS 2 that after that conversation, Burris decided against making any contribution. However, the Sun-Times reports that Burris never disclosed that information in an affidavit detailing his actions before he was appointed by Blagojevich.

Should Burris resign?  Yes, of course. 

Will Burris resign?  No, of course not.

Will Burris be an ongoing embarrassment to Democrats and, if he runs for election next year, a disaster for them unless he is upended in a primary?  Probably yes.

"Tsuris" is a yiddish word, meaning trouble.  For Illinois Democrats, Burris is Tsuris. 

Ken Berwitz

From Jonathan Tobin of www.commentarymagazine.com:

Ken Berwitz

Here is an excerpt from an article by the liberal-left Jeffrey Rosen, written for the liberal-left New Republic:

A few weeks ago, I received phone calls from eminent liberal scholars I know and trust. These scholars closely follow Sotomayor's work and expressed questions about her temperament. They did not have axes to grind or personal agendas; they are Democrats who want President Obama to appoint the most effective liberal Supreme Court justices possible and were concerned Sotomayor might not meet that high standard. They put me in touch with others in the same situation--mostly former Second Circuit clerks and prosecutors who have argued before her--and nearly all of them expressed the same view, with exceptions I noted in the piece. None of these people would have talked to me without the promise of anonymity: some still argue before the judge, and others continue to interact with her. (And, no, despite a conspiracy-minded suggestion to the contrary, one of my sources was not my brother-in-law, Neal Katyal, currently the deputy U.S. Solicitor General.) Anonymous comments aren't ideal, but there was no other way, in this situation, to get people to

 

I was satisfied that my sources's concerns were widely shared when I read Sotomayor's entry in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which includes the rating of judges based on the collective opinions of the lawyers who work with them. Usually lawyers provide fairly positive comments. That's what makes the discussion of Sotomayor's temperament so striking. Here it is:

Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. "She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." "She is overly aggressive--not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament." "She abuses lawyers." "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts." "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system--as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."

Personally, my guess is that Judge Sotomayor will be passed through relatively quickly and easily -- because I don't think Republicans have the stomach to challenge a Latino woman for fear of being called racist, anti-woman, anti-Latino, etc. etc. etc.

That's too bad because between her temperament and her personal racism, which I blogged about earlier today, she has no business being on the court.

Ken Berwitz

Here's another chapter of the increasingly voluminous "you can't make this up" book:

From the AP:

Rocks Dropped on Cars in 'Bizarre Stripping Game'

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

 LAKEWOOD, Wash. —  Troopers have arrested a man and a woman accused of damaging at least 14 vehicles, including a State Patrol car, by throwing rocks onto them from a railroad trestle over Interstate 5 near Lakewood, Wash., as a part of a bizarre stripping game.

Trooper Guy Gill says 23-year-old Joshua N. Sizemore and 18-year-old Amanda L. Madison were tossing baseball-sized rocks from the trestle early Monday. Sizemore, of Tacoma, and Madison, of Lakewood, were booked into the Pierce County Jail in Tacoma, Wash., for investigation of malicious mischief and second-degree assault.

Troopers on the ground were assisted by a State Patrol airplane that captured video of two people throwing rocks from the trestle. Investigators say Madison was in her underwear when the couple were arrested.

Investigators say the two were playing a stripping game.

One person was injured when a rock crashed through the window and bruised his arm. He did not need to be hospitalized.

I'm not exactly getting the "stripping game" part of the story.  Were they wearing the rocks?

Maybe the underwear she had on was a pair of rockey shorts.

She might have already removed her over-the-shoulder boulder holder.

Ugh.  On that saggy note, I'm finished.

Ken Berwitz

Breaking news from the Associated Press:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court has upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

 

The decision Tuesday rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

 

The announcement of the decision caused outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse awaiting the ruling.

My congratulations to the California Supreme Court for determining that there really is such a thing as being a little bit pregnant.

Either gay marriage IS or ISN'T banned.  Either it IS or ISN'T legal.  This is an issue of legal principle, not timing.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to know where I stand on legalization of gay marriage, I wrote a sex-neutral wedding song that can be used for gay weddings.  I think it's pretty good.  If you want the words and music just let me know.

That clear enough?

Ken Berwitz

I call them tra-la-la liberals. 

They are liberals who let their self-created fantasies overcome, then supersede, reality.

There are many, many instances of this happening.  One of the more intriguing, however, is how completely Maryland's liberal governance understood the consequences of a big, new tax on "the rich" - to go along with the already-higher taxation they are subject to.

Here, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal, is what happened:

MAY 26, 2009

Millionaires Go Missing

Maryland's fleeced taxpayers fight back.

Here's a two-minute drill in soak-the-rich economics:

Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.

No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions. For evidence, consult California, New York and New Jersey (see here).

The Maryland state revenue office says it's "way too early" to tell how many millionaires moved out of the state when the tax rates rose. But no one disputes that some rich filers did leave. It's easier than the redistributionists think. Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency."

All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class. Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share."

I blogged about this less than two weeks ago.  And here it is again, loud and clear.

As a great icon of tra-la-la liberals - and at least one blogger you read - once wrote (and still sings at the age of 90), “Oh when will they ever learn?  When will they ever learn?”

Ken Berwitz

From Michelle Malkin, without any comment from me (it doesn't need any):

Hey, Claire McCaskill: Meet Clarence Thomas

By Michelle Malkin  •  May 26, 2009 11:29 AM

 

On Fox News Channel this morning, Sen. Claire McCaskill dutifully read her “compelling personal story” talking points and hyped Sonia Sotomayor’s compelling personal background while whitewashing her legal record.

 

Incredibly, McCaskill was not aware that Sotomayor had said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

 

When FNC anchor Jane Skinner asked her about Sotomayor’s words, McCaskill tried to claim that someone else had made the statement.

 

Is Sen. McCaskill that clueless or that deceitful?

 

The Democrat senator went out to claim that the Supreme Court has no members who have grown up in poverty and overcome extreme hardships.

 

“That’s something new,” McCaskill argued.

 

I suggest she read Justice Clarence Thomas’s memoir before she open her mouth again.

Once again, Democrats send the identity politics-marinated message that the experiences and “compelling personal stories” of minorities don’t count if those minorities stray from the liberal plantation.

 

Celebrate diversity — as long as you pledge allegiance to the Left for life.

Ken Berwitz

The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) is very well known for its leftward bias.  This is nothing new at all.  But I thought you might be interested in the letter written to it by the Canadian Life Coalition, regarding its non-coverage of this year's National March For Life:

Monday May 25, 2009

---

 

CBC "Engaged in Blatant Media Censorship" Says CLC about Lack of National Coverage for March for Life

CLC lodges formal complaint to the CRTC

By Alex Bush

May 25, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), the Canadian pro-life organization that every year organizes the National March for Life, is accusing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) of engaging in "blatant media censorship." According to the pro-life group, "for a broadcaster who is funded by the taxpaying Canadian public" CBC's failure to give national coverage to this year's March for Life "certainly constitutes unethical journalism and professional misconduct."

A letter signed by CLC president Jim Hughes was sent to the CBC Ombudsman today, suggesting that CBC willfully "ignored" the 12,300 people who convened on Parliament Hill two weeks ago to protest the 40th anniversary of the legalization of abortion. This despite the fact that CLC provided CBC with information about the massive pro-life event well in advance, and the fact the station has reported on much smaller protests on the Hill in the past.

"How is it that CBC's national news desk has in the recent past given lengthy coverage to a paltry 200 individuals at a pro-marijuana rally on the Hill," asks the letter, "but fails to notice 12,000+ prolife citizens overflowing the grounds of Parliament Hill?"

"Is this not proof of a double standard which favours 'socially liberal' causes?"

The letter points out that even the local coverage of the March by the CBC was limited to a mere "25 seconds on a local affiliate which misrepresented the numbers attending as 'hundreds'," rather than the more than 12,000 who attended.

According to CLC, the national blackout regarding the March for Life was to all appearances initiated by the CBC "for no other reason than the CBC disagrees with our opinions on abortion." 

CLC suggests out that the omission by the CBC is even more egregious given the unprecedented level of support given to the march by the Canadian bishops, 11 of whom were present on Parliament Hill, and the "explosive 50% growth in attendance" at the march over last year's event.

Jim Hughes concludes the CLC letter, saying, "On behalf of millions of Canadians who have been deprived of unbiased journalism by its public broadcaster and the hundreds of thousands who are disgusted by the CBC's annual blacklisting of the National March For Life, I request a thorough investigation into CBC's programming practices. The results and remedies ought to receive the national publicity and exposure which CBC routinely denies to opinions with which it disagrees."

CLC also sent the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) a letter of formal complaint, which accuses the CBC of discrimination against the March for Life.

"We believe the evidence is overwhelming to support our claim that the CBC has discriminated unfairly against our massive National March For Life in that it gave no national television coverage whatsoever to this historic event," says CLC in that letter.

Is the CLC correct?  You bet your life it is.

Reporting on news has - or, more exactly, should have - nothing whatsoever to do with the opinions of reporters.  News is news. 

If there is a story about a rape-murder in Toronto, it doesn't mean the media venue supports rape and murder.  If there is a story about a terrorist attack in Montreal, it doesn't mean the media venue supports terrorism.    If the weather prediction is rain, it doesn't mean the media venue wants to ruin anyone's day.

Similarly, reporting a major pro-life event doesn't make the media venue pro (or, for that matter, anti) life.  If it is a news story, it is a news story.

But fully reporting a news story for one side of an issue, then not reporting it at all for the other side, does make the media venue something.  It makes the media venue biased.

And that is what the CBC is.  Biased.  Has been since I can remember. 

What a disgrace the CBC is.

Ken Berwitz

President Obama apparently will nominate Sonia Sotomayor (SO-toe mah-YORE) to fill David Souter's seat on the United States Supreme Court.

I know some of  Ms. Sotomayor's biographical information (she is 55 years old, born in The Bronx, New York to Puerto Rican parents, her father died when she was 9, she has an Ivy League education, she has diabetes, etc.).  These things are interesting, but unrelated to my judgement regarding whether she should be a Supreme Court Justice.

Unfortunately, I also know some of her opinions.  They are extremely disturbing, and do relate to whether she has any business being named to the USSC. 

Read them yourself, in this May 14th New York Times article.  The bold print is mine:

A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record

 

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

Published: May 14, 2009

 

WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

 

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

 

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

 

Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.

 

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

 

The video was of a panel discussion for law students interested in becoming clerks, and she was explaining the different experiences gained when working at district courts and appeals courts. Her remarks caught the eye of conservative bloggers who accused her of being a “judicial activist,” although Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school, argued that critics were reading far too much into those remarks.

 

Republicans have signaled that they intend to put the eventual nominee under a microscope, and they say they were put on guard by Mr. Obama’s statement that judges should have “empathy,” a word they suggest could be code for injecting liberal ideology into the law.

 

Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.

 

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

 

Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”

In making her argument, Judge Sotomayor sounded many cautionary notes. She said there was no uniform perspective that all women or members of a minority group have, and emphasized that she was not talking about any individual case.

 

She also noted that the Supreme Court was uniformly white and male when it delivered historic rulings against racial and sexual discrimination. And she said she tried to question her own “opinions, sympathies and prejudices,” and aspired to impartiality.

 

Still, Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

 

She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.”

 

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.

 

Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law professor and an adviser to Mr. Obama, said Judge Sotomayor’s remarks were appropriate. Professor Ogletree said it was “obvious that people’s life experiences will inform their judgments in life as lawyers and judges” because law is more than “a technical exercise,” citing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous aphorism: “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”

 

In a forward to a 2007 book, “The International Judge” (U.P.N.E.), Judge Sotomayor seemed to put a greater emphasis on a need for judges to seek to transcend their identities, writing that “all judges have cases that touch our passions deeply, but we all struggle constantly with remaining impartial” and letting reason rule. Courts, she added, “are in large part the product of their membership and their judges’ ability to think through and across their own intellectual and professional backgrounds” to find common ground.

How am I supposed to feel about a potential Supreme Court Justice who tells me that a "Latina woman" would make better decisions than a White man because of the "richness of her experiences"?  How would I be expected to feel about a nominee who said that his experiences as a White, European male would more often than not enable him to make better decisions than a Latino Woman?  How fast would that man be bounced from consideration after saying such a thing?

How am I supposed to feel about Sotomayor's comment that the Appeals court is where policy is made - since the Appeals Court does not make policy - and neither does the Supreme Court.  Has Ms. Sotomayor ever heard of the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH?  If she thinks that judges have legislative responsibility, or should have legislative responsibility, or don't have legislative responsibility but it is ok for them to usurp it in some situations, she is unfit for any judgeship, let alone the USSC.

And how am I supposed to feel about Ms. Sotomayor's definitive statement that gender and national origin will make a difference in how she performs as a judge.  Isn't she supposed to leave those factors at the door if she is a Supreme Court Justice?  Isn't a Supreme Court Justice's function to determine the constitutionality of laws, not to adjust or remake those laws based on gender and skin color?

How is Ms. Sotomayor's coment different from what a Southern Judge could have said to justify the way Blacks were treated until the civil rights movement?  What if one of those judges said "I'm a White man of European ancestry.  That may and will make a difference in my judging"?  Would he be acceptable for the Supreme Court?  Traffic Court?  Any court? 

Interestingly, at a hearing in 1997, Sotomayor said "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."

But based on what she has said since, Ms. Sotomayor has either forgotten that simple truth, or she just mouthed the words to get her judgeship and ignored them afterwards.

Which of those two makes you comfortable with her on the Supreme Court?

Ken Berwitz

So I was reading some of the blogs at www.crooksandliars.com, and I found a commentary by David Neiwert about someone misusing the term "fascism" while attacking keith olbermann.

Alhthough I attack keith olbermann pretty regularly (he never fails to give me good reasons for doing so), I found myself agreeing with Neiwert that what olbermann did, however negatively it might be taken, was not fascist. Had Neiwert stopped right there, we would have been on the same page. 

But, as so often seems to be the case with crooksandliars bloggers, he couldn't stop there, he went on to post a bunch of BS which ended any chance for agreement. 

Here it is.   I've separated the two halves of Neiwert's speech by color.  See what you think:

On 'Reliable Sources,' David Zurawik decries heated cable talk by shrieking about MSNBC's 'fascism'

By David Neiwert Monday May 25, 2009 11:00am

 If you want an example of how "centrism" is its own specially blinkered ideology, check out the rant from David Zurawik, the Baltimore Sun's media critic, yesterday on CNN's Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz:

OLBERMANN: You saved no one, Mr. Cheney. All you did was help kill Americans.

In the name of God, go.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: David Zurawik, what do you make of a cable culture where some of these anchors and hosts get really, really mad, or upset or emotional, and it seems to work for them?

ZURAWIK: Howie, they're speaking for a visceral response. And honestly -- I don't want to overstate this, Howie, and you know from time to time I do -- risk that. But it's really that path lies fascism.

I mean, what we need as a democracy is reliable information. This is the opposite of it.

And by the way, that clip of Olbermann just really, I think, encapsulates it. This is a bizarro world or cartoon version of Edward R. Murrow with the cadence and this arch rhetoric and all this, but he is saying madman stuff.

So, heated debate is the sign of fascism? Sounds like Zurawick has been reading Jonah Goldberg.

A clue for David Zurawick: Keith Olbermann may have been contentious and even tendentious, but there's a factual case behind his observations that Dick Cheney likely did not save any lives -- after all, 3,000 Americans died on his watch on 9/11, and there is simply no public evidence whatsoever that the measures he enacted afterward actually thwarted any serious terrorist acts -- and his actions in promoting the invasion of Iraq in fact cost thousands of American lives, and over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians' lives.

That's called robust debate. Fascism, on the other hand, entails the antithesis of debate -- it argues for the elimination of the opposition, not engagement. And it acts accordingly. When we see Keith Olbermann organizing or simply encouraging street thugs to go out and beat up Dick Cheney and his supporters, then he might have a legitimate concern about fascism.

Moreover, there's nothing quite as overheated, as contentious and tendentious, as calling people fascists, is there? -- particularly when you use the term as carelessly and thoughtlessly as Zurawick does here. Hello, pot, meet kettle.

But the really bizarre aspect of this is that Zurawick is really most upset about MSNBC in general, who he attacked throughout the segment (he doesn't like their weekend fill-in programming, but exactly what kind of media critic tries to claim that fill-in programming is evidence that MSNBC doesn't staff its national bureaus? Besides an utterly ignorant one, that is?).

Moreover, Zurawick seems to think the MSNBC invented the ideologically leaning opinion-news format that has him so worked up:

ZURAWIK: It's not therapeutic. They really target people, their opposition.

Even Rachel Maddow, who is the nicest, with her snide smile and arched eyebrow and mocking, they target people and hold them up for ridicule. It's exactly what happened in propaganda in the '30s in Europe. I'm not kidding you.

...

ASHBURN: And I think that's true. I also think that the bottom line is this is not good for society. I mean, this constant inflammation and fighting on issues, you learn in kindergarten that this is the way you're supposed to behave.

ZURAWIK: You're absolutely right. I couldn't agree more with that.

The effect on society and on this democracy of this angry, polarizing, bitter kind of putdown conversation is dangerous. And it's from the very people who say they're news channels.

Just wondering:

Has Zurawick managed to tune in Fox News at any point in the past 13 years?

Has he happened to notice that their entire style over those years has been predicated on "targeting people and holding them up for ridicule"?

Has he ever clued into the fact that "putdown conversation" is what not just Fox but all of talk radio is predicated upon?

And during those years -- before MSNBC dropped the "Fox lite" routine and forged its own path -- has Zurawick ever managed to point out what Fox was doing was "exactly what happened in propaganda in the '30s in Europe"?

The answer, of course, is "Nope."

Because for "centrists" -- who largely are just conservatives who can't stomach the racism and bigotry that permeates movement conservatism, so they call themselves something else -- this kind of behavior only matters when liberals do it.

Centrists have their own biases. Most of all, they like to adopt the fallacy of the middle whenever it becomes obvious that liberals have an important point to make, and wail and gnash that they're engaging in "extremism" -- a charge they never seem to make against conservatives. Funny how that works.

Sorry, David.  You blew it (or "blue" it, given the color I used).

I watch Fox and MSNBC all the time.  Other than a small number of anecdotal instances, I have never, ever heard anyone on Fox come remotely close to the vicious, nasty bile which spews from keith olbermann as a matter of course.  And while David Schuster and Chris Matthews are not in olbermann's "vicious nasty bile" league , both regularly exceed anything I hear on Fox.

And your characterization of "centrists" directly suggests that most conservatives are racists and bigots.  Apart from being unprovable, thus ridiculous, that is an overt stereotype -- which puts you in the same class as the people you are condemning.

Maybe in the future you should consider writing two halves separately.  Better that than a whole blog in which logic and reality appear to have been discarded halfway through.

Ken Berwitz

Steve Gilbert of www.sweetness-light.com nails this one.  Read his blog, watch the videos and pay very special attention to his conclusion:

Obama: World Must Stand Up To N Korea

May 25th, 2009

 

From a memory deficient Associated Press:

 

Obama: N. Korea ‘recklessly challenging’ the world

By Merrill Hartson, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama assailed North Korea Monday for new missile tests, saying the world must "stand up to" Pyongyang and demand that it honor a promise to abandon it nuclear ambitions.

 

Appearing on the White House steps, Obama said that its latest nuclear underground test and subsequent test firings of short-range ground to air missiles "pose a grave threat to the peace and security of the world and I strongly condemn their reckless action."

 

It was his second statement within hours on the tests, the latest in a number of nuclear actions that Obama said "endanger the people of Northeast Asia." He called it "a blatant violation of international law" and said that it contradicted North Korea’s "own prior commitments." Obama had released a written statement chastising the North Koreans in the early morning hours of Monday.

 

In his statement before cameras and microphones arrayed in the White House Rose Garden at mid-morning, he noted that the latest tests had also been denounced by China and Russia and had drawn the scorn of many around the world.

Pyongyang’s actions "have flown in the face of U.N. resolutions" and had deepened its isolation, he said, "inviting stronger international pressure."

 

"North Korea will not find security and respect through threats and illegal weapons," the president said. "We will work with our friends and allies to stand up to this behavior. The United States will never waver from our determination to protect our people and the peace and security of the world." …

 

In his statement Monday, Obama noted that North Korea had "conducted a nuclear test in violation of international law."

 

"It appears to also have attempted a short range missile launch," the president said in his statement. "These actions, while not a surprise given its statements and actions to date, are a matter of grave concern to all nations. North Korea’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons, as well as its ballistic missile program, constitute a threat to international peace and security."

 

"By acting in blatant defiance of the United Nations Security Council," he said, "North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community. North Korea’s behavior increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia."

 

"Such provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea’s isolation. It will not find international acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery." …

 

This once again smacks of Mr. Obama’s earlier response to North Korea’s nuclear program that we noted back in April.

 

Back then he said that we needed a ‘global regime’ to deal with them:

 

"North Korea broke the rules once again by testing a rocket that could be used for a long range missiles. This provocation underscores the need for action — not just this afternoon at the UN Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons. Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response. And North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. That’s why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course.”

The world must stand up to North Korea, because heaven knows, the United States won’t. Not under Mr. Obama.

Pyongyang’s actions "have flown in the face of U.N. resolutions" …

It is to laugh.

Apparently Mr. Obama chooses not to remember that once upon a time Iraq, too, flew in the face of UN resolutions. And he had no problems whatsoever with that.

It’s thanks to folks like Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats that the North Koreans feel they can act with such impunity

Will President Obama reflect on this parallel situation?  Is he capable of separating himself from raw politics long enough to do so?

Time will tell.  And, believe me, I'm rooting for him.

Ken Berwitz

Has anyone seen these two men together?

.

Ken Berwitz

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann (his wife FYI) have written a column about the possible demise of Israel. 

Are they exaggerating?  Overstating for dramatic effect?  Misrepresenting the current administration?

Here is the column.  Decide for yourself:

The Death of Israel
Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:31 PM By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news. An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu's government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel to "read the riot act" to the government warning against an attack on Iran. More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, "...we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the U.S. will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy." She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that "as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran's nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself." She notes that American officials would regard any harm to American interests that flowed from an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as Israel's doing, not Iran's. In classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion, the Obama administration is empathizing more with the Iranian leaders who are holding Israel hostage than with the nation that may be wiped off the map if Iran acquires the bomb. Obama's end-of-the-year deadline for Iranian talks aimed at stopping its progress toward nuclear weapons is just window dressing without the threat of military action. As Metternich wrote, "diplomacy without force is like music without instruments." By warning only of possible strengthening of economic sanctions if the talks do not progress, Obama is making an empty threat. The sanctions will likely have no effect because Russia and China will not let the United Nations act as it must if it is to deter Iranian nuclear weapons. All this means is that Israel's life is in danger. If Iran gets the bomb, it will use it to kill six million Jews. No threat of retaliation will make the slightest difference. One cannot deter a suicide bomber with the threat of death. Nor can one deter a theocracy bent on meriting admission to heaven and its virgins by one glorious act of violence. Iran would probably not launch the bomb itself, anyway, but would give it to its puppet terrorists to send to Israel so it could deny responsibility. Obama, bent on appeasement, would likely not retaliate with nuclear weapons. And Israel will be dead and gone. Those sunshine Jewish patriots who voted for Obama must realize that we, as Jews, are witnessing the possible end of Israel. We are in the same moral position as our ancestors were as they watched Hitler’s rise but did nothing to pressure their favorite liberal Democratic president, FDR, to take any real action to save them or even to let Jewish refugees into the country. If we remain complacent, we will have the same anguish at watching the destruction of Israel that our forebears had in witnessing the Holocaust. Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb. And neither is Hillary Clinton. Obama may have held the first White House seder, but he's not planning to spend next year in Jerusalem.

There is the column.  What do you think?

Before making a judgement, please consider whether the facts Morris and McGann use are accurate.  Then consider whether their concerns over how Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton would act are realistic - i.e. would Obama and Clinton stand back, decline to act decisively, and let this happen?  Gauge your answer on what they have done so far.

Now what do you think?

That's a pretty disturbing picture, isn't it?

Ken Berwitz

I write a lot about how biased the New York Times is.  And it is.  But today, I'm switching coasts. 

Patterico's Pontifications (www.patterico.com)  has an excellent piece on bias at the Los Angeles Times - which appears to be very competitive with the New York Times' bias level.  I thought you would be interested in seeing it:

5/23/2009

What the L.A. Times Talks About . . . And What It Doesn’t Talk About

Filed under: Dog Trainer, General — Patterico @ 3:53 pm

To fully understand Big Media bias, sometimes you have to look at what they don’t say as well as what they do. Perspectives that support the Democrat agenda get splashy treatment, while perspectives that favor the Republican agenda are either whispered and then immediately contradicted — or not even mentioned at all.

The L.A. Times does this twice today.

First example: Today the L.A. Times runs a story titled Cheney’s assertions of lives saved is hard to prove. The deck headline reads: “Arguing against Obama’s policies, he says that the Bush administration’s approach to terrorism spared ‘perhaps hundreds of thousands.’ Experts say no evidence of that has emerged.”

The story is very weak to begin with. Cheney said that Bush administration policies were effective against al Qaeda; that effectiveness saved lives; the number of lives saved could be in the thousands and could “perhaps” be in the hundreds of thousands. The experts in the story (both of whom I have written for comment) don’t contradict this; instead, they merely say it’s hard to prove. Not mentioned: the fact that Obama is sitting on the proof, which wouldn’t help the terrorists (even as he releases details of techniques, which does help them).

Meanwhile, as reader Dana points out, The Times reported President Obama’s recent claim that Guantanamo Bay’s prison “likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.”

Is that assertion hard to prove? I suspect it’s every bit as unprovable as Cheney’s statement, if not more so. One wonders why the President’s assertion gets no scrutiny, while Cheney’s merits an entire article of second-guessing.

Editors: can we get an article quoting experts who say that assertion is hard to prove? Together with headlines disparaging the claim? Thanks!

Second example: On today’s front page, The Times runs an above-the-fold article about how horrible proposed California budget cuts would be

(click here)

We’re told that businesses could be driven out of the state by . . . tax cuts? No, by — I’m not making this up — decreased government spending:

The long-term effects of Sacramento’s financial woes, meanwhile, could far outweigh the near-term effects. In particular, the expected deep cuts in education spending could thin the state’s human capital, potentially forcing California companies to look elsewhere for skilled workers as well as new plants or even headquarters.

Lower government spending also hurts business that keep the bloat in our oversized bureaucracies:

Distressed car dealers could see sales to state agencies shrink, printing shops may lose business as courts and other government operations shorten their workweek, and office-equipment suppliers would lose sales as cash-strapped agencies make do with aging copiers.

Heaven forfend that bureaucrats have anything but the very latest in Xeroxing technology. That’s worth a few billion right there, isn’t it?

Promising students would go to other states, taking their future skills, earnings and, possibly, Nobel Prizes elsewhere. California companies would then find it harder to attract high-value employees who might be dubious about moving to a state with sub-par schools.

If we cut public education, we’ll lose Nobel prize-winning students? That strikes me as . . . difficult to prove.

Now, I’d always heard that businesses were driven out by excessive regulation and taxation, and that high government spending, and not spending cuts, were part of the problem. And indeed, the only example of an actual business moving out of state is not because of education cuts, but rather high taxes:

Still, companies such as Solaicx have found the burden heavy enough to look elsewhere to invest.

In 2007, the company built a plant in Portland, Ore., in part because the state offered a tax incentive unavailable in its home state. California had an added disincentive: It is one of only a handful of states that charges sales tax on manufacturing equipment.

But you must risk ink-stained hands and paper cuts and turn, turn, turn those big pages allll the way to Page A16, to learn this, as well as the fact that “Businesses have long complained about big-spending government in California.”

Where is our front-page article about that? Answer: nowhere. But on the front page, we are promised a story of the “faces of the cuts.” 

(click here)

When was the last time the L.A. Times ran a story called “The Faces of the Tax Increases”?

The pattern is clear: this paper has certain perspectives to which it gives inches of column space and front-page treatment, like the Horrible Impact of Spending Cuts and the Questionable Nature of Republican Claims. And it has other perspectives to which it gives Page A16 treatment — or no treatment at all — like the horrible impact of tax increases and the questionable nature of Democrat claims.

The bias couldn’t be more clear.

Remember:  Millions of people get their news from the New York Times and Los Angeles Times.  What these newspapers print is what they know.

God help them.  And God help us for having to deal with people who believe the one-sided "news" they are being fed.

Ken Berwitz

Here are the headlines (all of them links) regarding North Korea's apparent test of a nuclear weapon:

Report: Pyongyang also test-fires short-range missile...
SKorea military forms crisis team...
Japan says test 'unacceptable'...
U.S. 'gravely concerned'...
Obama says actions 'threat to international peace'...
Britain: 'Breach' of UN resolutions...
Asian markets rattled...

A few questions:

-How did North Korea acquire its nuclear capability?   Which US Presidents - one former and one current at that time - handed them to North Korea on a silver platter?

-If the US is "gravely concerned", how does it feel about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons?  And - since Iran doesn't have them yet - what is the US going to do about it?

A President's foreign policy is more than travelling overseas, making speeches, and soaking up media adoration.  This would be a very good time for Barack Obama to act accordingly.

Ken Berwitz

From West Coast Russ....and how does he keep coming up with this stuff?

Don't know if this is just a sick coincidence or if I'm getting paranoid, but ....

2007 - Chinese year of the Chicken - Bird Flu Pandemic devastates parts of Asia

2008 - Chinese year of the Horse - Equine Influenza decimates Australian racing

2009 - Chinese year of the Pig - Swine Flu Pandemic kills hundreds of pigs/humans around the globe. 

Next year is 2010 - Chinese year of the Cock

 

What could possibly go wrong?

Ken Berwitz

The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth told the truth.  John Kerry and his people lied.

Want proof - as well as a crystal-clear report on how our wonderful "neutral" media ran interference for Kerry during his 2004 presidential bid, and right up to the present?

Here it is, via excerpts from an an article by Scott Swett , writing for www.americanthinker.com:

May 25, 2009

Media still lying about the Swift Boat Veterans

By Scott Swett

 

Five years ago, a group of Vietnam veterans came forward at the National Press Club in Washington to dispute the "war hero" stories that formed the basis of candidate John Kerry's presidential campaign, and to challenge the claims of rampant US war crimes Kerry had used to launch his political career 33 years earlier -- false accusations, they said, that helped to poison the reputations of a generation of American troops.  The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth included Kerry's entire former chain of command from Vietnam and dozens of eyewitnesses to his actions there.  Kerry, the veterans said, was not fit to be America's Commander-in-Chief

The Swift Vets intended to hold a single press conference and go home, thinking that Kerry would quickly be withdrawn as the nominee of his party.  However, instead of reporting the veterans' charges accurately, the Democrat-dominated media either ignored or disparaged their testimony.  In response, the Swift Vets planned and executed a remarkably effective end run to bypass the DNC media, presenting their case with the book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, the website SwiftVets.com (which I managed), a devastating TV ad campaign, and thousands of individual interviews, mostly on talk radio.  In early August 2004, the multipronged effort paid off.  Unfit for Command topped the best-seller lists and millions of dollars in donations flooded into SwiftVets.com.  The TV ads, as reporter Bill Sammon would later write, were "transfixing" the country.  Polls showed that the veterans were perceived as highly credible.  Kerry's support plummeted, especially among veterans, the families of veterans and independent voters. 

 

Shortly after the election, the DNC media began using the term "swift boating" as a shorthand reference for supposedly dishonest political criticism - but only for criticism targeting Democrats or Democratic initiatives.  Like the earlier use of "McCarthyism," this sloganeering was intended to silence debate through repetition.

 

Meanwhile, Tim Ziegler and I were working on a book about the anti-Kerry veterans' movement, of which the Swift Vets had been the most visible part.  Again and again our research uncovered new information that supported the Swift Vets' affidavit-backed testimony over the claims of the Kerry campaign.  For example, we were able to interview a former Forward Air Control pilot who had observed Kerry's "No Man Left Behind" mission from above.  We also located and spoke with former Special Forces officer Richard O'Connor, the mission commander, who had declined to be interviewed in 2004.  His subordinate Jim Rassmann was the man Kerry had famously extracted from the river that day.  Both O'Connor and the FAC pilot confirmed the Swift Vets' statement that there was no enemy fire during the mine explosion and subsequent rescue operations, flatly contradicting the campaign version promoted by Rassmann and Kerry.

 

Early in 2008, Wintersoldier.com published summary reports of the Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigations into the atrocity allegations made by Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- the very claims Kerry presented to the Senate during the testimony that launched his political career.  The CID documents, unseen for more than thirty years, showed that the "winter soldiers" had been utterly unable to support their claims with real evidence.  Several of the activists had backtracked or disavowed their stories entirely when interviewed by military investigators.  The DNC media couldn't have been less interested.

 

One of John Kerry's key veteran supporters in 2004 was Wade Sanders, who helped to introduce the candidate at the Democratic National Convention and was mentioned as a candidate for Secretary of Defense. Sanders also acted as Kerry's lead attack dog against the Swift Vets, whom he repeatedly compared to Nazis.

 

Two weeks ago, Sanders was sentenced to 37 months in prison on child pornography charges.  Rather than admit to wrongdoing, Sanders claimed that he had been doing "research."  He blamed his obsessive interest in the subject on a flare-up of post-traumatic stress caused by -- you guessed it -- the Swift Vets.  Alas, as James Taranto pointed out, Sanders' acquisition of child pornography began in 2003, before the Swift Vets even existed.  The DNC media, including Kerry's troubled hometown Boston Globe, ignored Sanders conviction.

 

Imagine the media coverage if the offender had been someone like Swift Vet spokesman John O'Neill.

 

The Swift Vets were created for a single purpose: to inform the public about John Kerry.  The group did not engage in any political activity after 2004, and it disbanded a few months after the FEC investigation ended. 

 

Nevertheless, the DNC media continued to report that the Swift Vets were engaged in a wide variety of anti-Democrat political ventures.  Usually, the only connection was to one of the group's former contractors - political consultants who have done work for hundreds of clients over the years.  On other occasions, the culprits were wealthy Republicans who gave money in support of the veterans, as they have for many other political initiatives.  The reports always dishonestly implied that the Swift Vets themselves were involved.

 

Ironically, this was the same style of attack Dan Rather and CBS News used the very first day the Swift Vets went public.  Parroting talking points provided by the Kerry campaign, Rather falsely labeled the group a "Republican operation" while Byron Pitts claimed that the Swift Vets had used similar tactics against Senators Max Cleland and John McCain.  In fact, none of the veterans had taken part in any such effort.

 

The latest canard is that "swiftboaters" are behind an effort to oppose President Obama's health care plan.  Obama's former campaign manager David Plouffe recently sent out an email to Obama supporters on behalf of a DNC-managed group claiming that "the same people behind the notorious ‘swiftboat' ads of 2004 are already pumping millions of dollars into deceptive television ads."  Plouffe asked for $5 to help "fight back."

 

The health care effort is coordinated by CRC Public Relations, which did do contract work on the Swift Vets' successful TV ads.  Of CRC's many PR campaigns, however, a far more relevant example is the "Harry and Louise" series that helped derail the Clintons' attempt to socialize the American medical system back in 1993.

 

Perhaps an honest reporter might want to ask Mr. Plouffe this question:

 

"Sir, you recently suggested that the Swift boat veterans group is opposing the President's health care proposal.  How is that possible given that the organization has been inactive since 2004?"

 

Don't hold your breath while you wait.

It is bad enough that so many Democrats continue to perpetuate this utter fraud.  But far worse that media have played so great a part in aiding and abetting them. For five years now......and counting.

How can you believe a word they say?

Ken Berwitz

If you read this blog you know that I have repeatedly compared President Obama's nationalization of major US companies, and the strongarm tactics used to accomplish it, to the way hugo chavez operates in Venezuela.

Is that why he stands back and watches as chavez continues his assault on what used to be at least a modicum of freedom in that ill-fated country?

The Washington Post has an excellent editorial on this subject today.  Here it is:

Is Silence Consent?

 

The Obama administration's 'engagement' policy is convenient for Hugo Chávez's latest crackdown.

 

Sunday, May 24, 2009

 

WHILE THE United States and Venezuela's neighbors silently stand by, Hugo Chávez's campaign to destroy his remaining domestic opposition continues. On Thursday night state intelligence police raided the Caracas offices of Guillermo Zuloaga, the president of the country's last independent broadcast network, Globovision. They claimed to be looking for evidence of irregularities in the car dealership that Mr. Zuloaga also runs. In fact this was a thinly disguised escalation of an attack that Mr. Chávez launched this month against Globovision. The channel has been officially accused of "inciting panic," based on its accurate reporting of a mild May 4 earthquake in Caracas; under the regime's draconian media control law it could be shut down. Few doubt that that is Mr. Chávez's intent: Two years ago he revoked the license of the country's most popular television network after a similarly trumped-up campaign.

 

To recap: In February Mr. Chávez eliminated the limit on his tenure as president after a one-sided referendum campaign that included ugly attacks on Venezuela's Jewish community. Since then he has imprisoned or orchestrated investigations against most of the country's leading opposition figures, including three of the five opposition governors elected last year. The elected mayor of Maracaibo, who was the leading opposition candidate when Mr. Chávez last ran for president, was granted asylum in Peru last month after authorities sought his arrest on dubious tax charges. The National Assembly, controlled by Mr. Chávez, is considering legislation that would eliminate collective bargaining and replace independent trade unions with "worker's councils" controlled by the ruling party. Another new law would eliminate foreign financing for independent non-government groups.

 

This is hardly the first time that a Latin American caudillo has tried to eliminate peaceful opponents: Mr. Chávez is following a path well worn by the likes of Juan Perón and Alberto Fujimori -- not to mention his mentor, Fidel Castro. But this may be the first time that the United States has watched the systematic destruction of a Latin American democracy in silence. As Mr. Chávez has implemented the "third phase" of his self-styled revolution, the Obama administration has persisted with the policy of quiet engagement that the president promised before taking

office.

 

"We need to find a space in which we can actually have a conversation, and we need to find ways to enhance our levels of confidence," Assistant Secretary of State Thomas A. Shannon Jr. said two weeks ago, echoing earlier remarks by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. We have no objection to dialogue with Mr. Chávez. But isn't it time to start talking about preserving independent television stations, opposition political leaders, trade unions and human rights groups -- before it is too late?

What is President Obama waiting for?  Is there nothing he can say about this?

Or is he too busy taking notes?

Ken Berwitz

Do you have any idea that radical islamists are operating in our own country?  Do you have any idea how openly they are doing so and what horrific consequences might result from their activities?

Please read the folling piece from Patrick Poole, writing for www.pajamasmedia.com, and realize what is going on.:

Minneapolis Imam Decries ‘the Hell of Living in America’

Hassan Mahmoud was already under fire for defense of suicide bombings and the airport alcohol fatwa.

May 22, 2009 - by Patrick Poole

 

As the FBI has ongoing investigations in numerous cities across the country looking into the disappearances of possibly dozens of young Somali men who have left the country to presumably  join the jihad and train in terror camps back home, attention has recently been focused on one Minneapolis imam. Hassan Mohamud (Jamici) has been singled out by some in that community as being one of the radicalization influences in the Twin Cities.

 

Minneapolis has the largest Somali population in the country. In an interview with USA Today, Mohamud denied any connection to the missing men. But the findings of one recent news report by the Minneapolis Fox News affiliate is sure to keep Mohamud in the spotlight.

 

According to that Fox News report, the imam appeared in a fundraising video posted on YouTube (now since removed) for his mosque, the Islamic Daw’ah Institute in St. Paul. In his appearance he encourages viewers to donate to the mosque’s project, which he says “can save you from the hell of living in America.”

 

When questioned by reporter Tom Lyden, Mohamud attempted to clarify (with his attorney immediately at hand) that by “hell” he was using a religious term denoting “suffering and pain” and general hardships in America, not the travail of living with non-Muslims. Having offered that explanation, however, he did not explain why the video had been taken down from the website.

 

He was also asked about the following comments he had made two years ago when he was interviewed by Minnesota Law & Politics magazine about the legitimacy of suicide bombings for an article:

L&P: The Quran equates the taking of an innocent life with killing all of humanity, yet some Muslims say suicide bombings are justified. Can you explain this contradiction?

 

HM: There are scholars who say that there is one place where suicide is not prohibited. It’s an exceptional case for them because they have no other means. It is Palestine. This is because it is the only means they have to free their country. Otherwise, any other places in the world, suicide means becomes prohibited.

 

Mohamud contends that he was not offering his own opinion. When asked if he believed that suicide bombings were wrong under any condition, he had to stop the interview three separate times and consult his attorney before responding. That prompted Lyden to comment, “It may be complicated, but if it’s difficult for the imam some may wonder how clear it is for the young people he’s teaching.” Coincidentally, Mohamud is also an attorney and teaches a course on Islamic law at the William Mitchell College of Law.

This confusion on Mohamud’s part is compounded when considering that he is the vice president and director of the Islamic Law Institute of the Muslim American Society (MAS)-Minnesota chapter. On this very issue of suicide bombings, the national MAS magazine, The American Muslim, featured a fatwa in their June 2002 issue by Lebanese Muslim Brotherhood leader Faisal Al-Malawi endorsing “martyrdom operations.” The FBI has stated in court documents that MAS was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America”.

Mohamud also openly expressed his support for the terrorist group Hamas in a March 2004 article published in Somali on the Somalitalk website, where he laments the assassination of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and recounts the death of other Hamas leaders previously killed in targeted strikes by Israeli Defense Forces. Yassin’s picture is featured prominently with the essay.

Abdirahman Warsame of the Terror Free Somalia Foundation provides this translation of the opening sentences of Mohamud’s article:

He was the founder of Hamas, the Mujahedin group who fights in a jihad. They are true and brave warriors. He was killed this morning by Israel in an American-made plane. The pilot was given his orders directly by Israel Prime Minister Sharon (terrorist), but he is not the first mujahid killed in a terrorist attack by Israel.

His most recent statements are not the first time that Hassan Mohamud has waded into controversy. In 2007, he was one of four Islamic religious leaders who signed a fatwa on behalf of MAS-Minnesota calling on Somali licensed cab drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to refuse service to any passenger with a dog or carrying alcohol. As reported by Robert Spencer, Mohamud also organized a rally in defense of the right of Somali cab drivers to deny service to passengers at the public facility, saying that requiring them to transport a dog or alcohol would violate their religion.

As FBI agents continue to investigate the circumstances surrounding the dozens of missing Somali men from Minneapolis and other areas, none of Hassan Mohamud’s present qualifications to his previous statements really quell the concerns of those eager to understand the radicalization process behind the disappearances. In fact, his statements and positions raise more questions than they answer.

How do you feel knowing that this festering boil is implanted among us?

How do you feel about the woefully low coverage of this activity by our wonderful "neutral" media?

How do you think we wiill be protected from hate-filled, violence-rationalizing scum like this, which seem to have no problem conducting their activities in our country?  

Do you think the current administration is up to it?

We damn well better start thinking about this.  And fast.

Ken Berwitz

What do you do when you've been caught in a lie, the heat ratchets up, and the questions get too intense?

You duck, that's what.  And one way of ducking is going halfway around the world on a meaningless wild goose (or should I say duck) chase.

Which inexorably brings us to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi is a liar.  That, sadly, is nothing new.  But her lies regarding waterboarding, and her despicable attempt to turn truth on its ear and claim she was the victim rather than the perpetrator of those lies, is low even by Pelosi standards.  It is a black hole that she has no way of getting out of.

What to do, what to do.

Hey, how about a trip to.......China!  Yeah, that's the ticket.  Stay there for a week and hope that our wonderful "neutral" media will again play ball, the way they always have, and forget this ever happened.  

From Agence Presse-France:

US House Speaker Pelosi in China for climate talks

Sun May 24, 9:49 am ET

 

BEIJING (AFP) –

 

US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a longtime critic of Beijing's rule over Tibet and its rights record, arrived in China on Sunday for a trip focused on energy and climate change.

US embassy spokeswoman Susan Stevenson confirmed Pelosi had arrived in Shanghai but could not say who the top US official was going to meet in the country's financial hub.

 

Pelosi is scheduled to attend a clean energy forum in Beijing on Tuesday along with Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Other details of her itinerary were not immediately known.

 

Kerry on Sunday arrived in Xi'an, the capital of the northern province of Shaanxi, where he was holding official meetings and visiting the country's famed Terracotta Warriors, Stevenson said.

 

He will travel to Tianjin, a large city near Beijing, on Monday to do some clean energy-related work before heading to China's capital for the forum with Pelosi, she added.

 

Before her trip, Pelosi -- who is leading a delegation from a key energy and environment committee -- declined to say whether she would press Beijing on rights ahead of the 20th anniversary of the bloody Tiananmen Square crackdown.

 

"The purpose of the trip is to follow up on meetings we've had here with the representatives of the Chinese government on the subject of climate change and energy and how that relates to our economy," the Democratic lawmaker said.

 

Pelosi has been a vocal critic of China's rule of Tibet, drawing the wrath of Beijing, which resents foreign interference in its internal affairs, and led US congressional condemnation of the June 4, 1989 Tiananmen crackdown.

 

In March last year, when riots against Chinese rule erupted in the Tibetan capital Lhasa and then spread to nearby provinces, Pelosi urged "freedom-loving people" in the world to "speak out against China's oppression in Tibet".

 

And in October, she commended the European Parliament for its "bold decision" to award the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to Chinese human rights activist Hu Jia.

 

But Jia Qingguo, a professor at the School of International Studies at Peking University, said Pelosi's visit highlighted an improvement in relations between China and the United States.

 

"She has always been quite tough on Chinese policy, so her visit definitely shows that the two countries' relations are in a stable state," he said.

 

Pelosi, who will be meeting with her counterpart Wu Bangguo during her visit, is due to stay in China until May 31.

Will Pelosi be right?  Will our media be on to other things when she comes back from China?  She certainly has a wealth of history that suggests as much.

Let's hope that this time media do what they're supposed to do, and not let a politician off the hook. 

In other words, let's hope they treat her the same way they'd treat a Republican.

Ken Berwitz

Hobson's choice  n. An apparently free choice that offers no real alternative.

 

[After Thomas Hobson (1544?–1630), English keeper of a livery stable, from his requirement that customers take either the horse nearest the stable door or none.]

You could substitute the name Netanyahu for Hobson, couldn't you?  What alternative does the Prime Minister of Israel have with Iran - a country whose head of state is telling us it will wipe Israel off the face of the map and rapidly acquiring the nuclear means to do it?

And what is Barack Obama's position on Iran and Israel?  How is he addressing each country?

The following discussion of this issue is by Aaron Goldstein of www.intellectualconservative.com.  See if you agree with him:

Preconditions: Why is Obama Placing Them On Israel But Not Iran?

by Aaron Goldstein | May 22nd, 2009

What makes Obama think that a Palestinian state will make Iran hate Israel any less than it does now?

You would think the President of the United States would give pause before engaging Iran.

You would think the President of the United States would be wary of a country that has aided insurgents to kill American soldiers in Iraq. 

You would think the President of the United States would proceed cautiously towards a country that created Hezbollah, a terrorist organization responsible for killing 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut. 

You would think the President of the United States would be mindful of a country prepared to take our citizens hostage as it did when it seized our embassy in Tehran thirty years ago.

You would also think the President of the United States would guarantee the security of a stalwart friend and ally like Israel, especially given Iran's efforts to build a nuclear weapon coupled with its apocalyptic threats against the world's only Jewish state. 

You would think the President of the United States would implicitly understand that we and Israel have common cause where it concerns Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. 

But such considerations do not matter to this President. 

As President Obama sat impassively while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was justifying Israel's existence I sighed with resignation.  What can we really expect of a President who is prepared to talk with Iran without precondition but will not guarantee Israel's security without precondition?

Yet President Obama has made it quite clear the United States will not lift a finger for Israel unless it brings about a Palestinian state. That is the precondition.

Now one can make the case that U.S. support for a Palestinian state began with President Bush. However, President Bush made it clear to the Palestinians that they could have a state or they could have terror, but they could not have both.  President Obama has not drawn such a line in the sand.  As Michael Goodwin of The New York Daily News noted, "Obama did not even demand that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist."

In other words, the Palestinians can have their cake and eat it too. 

All things considered President Obama's position is hardly surprising.  Consider his statement last week on Sri Lanka, where he placed its democratically elected government on the same moral plane with the Tamil Tigers, which the State Department recognizes as a terrorist organization.  Yet in Obama's worldview a terrorist organization has the same legitimacy as a country that observes the rule of law. But then again what can one expect of someone who palled around with Bill Ayers?

Israel must be envious of Sri Lanka. Its government wisely ignored Obama's edict and emerged victorious over the Tamil Tigers, thus proving that terrorism can be defeated militarily.  Of course, Israel is not Sri Lanka. The UN Human Rights Council does not make Sri Lanka a permanent item on its agenda. Hugo Chavez isn't closing the Sri Lankan Embassy in Caracas. No one is seeking to expunge Sri Lanka from the face of the earth.  Alas, the Sri Lankans aren't Jewish. Israel is hated by the world and Obama knows it.

But even with that knowledge how exactly does the creation of a Palestinian state appease Iran? What makes Obama think that a Palestinian state will make Iran hate Israel any less than it does now? Or does Obama think there will be less of Israel for Iran to wipe off the map?

Yet make no mistake. The creation of a Palestinian state will be an enormous coup for President Obama. Should he bring this about he will be forever adored, celebrated, loved in the headquarters of the United Nations, in the halls of academia, in pubs frequented by young socialists and by kafieh-clad Palestinians the world over. As if Obama doesn't receive enough adulation.

In the end, Israel will meet President Obama's precondition. There will be a large ceremony on the White House lawn. Obama might even break out the Greek columns for the occasion. Netanyahu will shake the hands of both Mahmoud Abbas and Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas while Obama wraps Netanyahu's other arm around his back.  Everyone will be smiling.

So what will come in the weeks and months that follow Obama's grand achievement?  More rocket attacks into Israel? Will Corporal Shalit remain in captivity with more Israeli soldiers to join him? When Netanyahu complains, Obama will lean on him to make more concessions.  Dismantle all Jewish settlements. The rocket attacks continue. More soldiers are kidnapped. Obama tells Netanyahu to make yet more concessions. Tear down the security fence.  Suicide bombings happen on the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.  The White House tells Israel, "More concessions please."

Meanwhile, Iran will build its bomb and bide its time as to when to deploy it.  They will simply wait for the right preconditions.

Does Mr. Goldstein have a point? 

Does Barack Obama have any understanding of what is going on in the middle east?  Does he understand Israel's situation?  Or care at all about it?

And does Prime Minister Netanyahu have a choice?

Yes he does.  A hobson's choice.

Ken Berwitz

We have have heard the term "cap and trade" repeatedly over the past few months.   But, based on a series of discussions and off-handed questions with friends and relatives, very few know what it is.  And fewer still know what it will do to our economy - who it will benefit and who it will damage.

Here, from the Washington Post via the New York Post, is an explanation from David Sokol, Chairman of the Board of MidAmerican Energy Holdings, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway.  It is must-reading for anyone who wants a reality-based view of cap and trade:

MADNESS OF CAP-AND-TRADE

PRICEY FOR CONSUMERS -- AND RIPE FOR ECONOMIC CORRUPTION

By DAVID SOKOL

Posted: 3:24 am
May 24, 2009

 

The adage that everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die is on display again as the House considers a massive 932-page climate-change bill, introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), that would establish a "cap and trade" system for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. Its sponsors say it will keep low- and middle-income consumers whole while the United States cuts emissions 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 and transitions to a clean-energy economy.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

On paper, the Waxman-Markey bill puts a cost on carbon dioxide by imposing a ceiling, or cap, on greenhouse gas emissions and then setting up a market for regulated industries -- such as the electric power sector -- to buy and sell allowances to pollute under that cap. As the cap is reduced each year, market participants will exchange allowances in a complex auction market.

 

If you liked what credit default swaps did to our economy, you're going to love cap-and-trade. Just read Title VIII of the bill, which lets investment banks, hedge funds and other speculators participate in the cap-and-trade market. They don't have emissions to cut; they have commissions to make.

 

The real hidden catch of the cap-and-trade system, though, is that it will require consumers to pay twice: first for emission allowances and then for the construction of new low- and zero-carbon power plants.

 

Congressional estimates of government revenue from the sale of cap-and-trade allowances range from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars. Contrary to assurances from the bill's sponsors that utility customers wouldn't have to pay these costs for the first decade, some coal-dependent utilities would be forced to purchase more than half of their allowances when the program is scheduled to begin in 2012. Would these allowances reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? No; that would come when consumers footed a second bill -- for the cost of their utilities either to retrofit coal and gas plants to capture carbon -- something that cannot be done today on a commercial scale -- or to shut them down and build non-carbon-producing nuclear plants and wind farms instead. In fact, to the extent that cap-and-trade auctions increase ratepayers' bills, they will impede utilities' ability to develop a less carbon-intensive infrastructure.

 

Markets thrive on volatility. Electricity utilities, on the other hand, are highly regulated to ensure price stability -- not volatility -- for their customers. The Waxman-Markey bill imposes a market-based (read: unregulated) trading program on a highly regulated industry that must make enormous long-term and least-cost capital decisions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In an unprecedented and unwise fashion, it turns American industry over to the federal Environmental Protection Agency by giving the agency the authority to change the rules on allowances every five years. Is this sound public and economic policy? I think not. If Congress wants to achieve 83% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the electricity sector can get there, but there is no need for that first cost. Get rid of auctions, speculation, trading, new Wall Street "products" (yes, the bill allows for credit default swaps and carbon derivatives) and the trillions of dollars in government revenue that may end up being spent on other programs. Get rid of the 12 new advisory boards, committees and other institutions established under the Waxman-Markey bill. Focus instead on the most efficient and inexpensive way to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

 

The solution? Keep the cap and remove trading from the equation: Mandate that the industry, over the same 40-year period, simply limit its emissions to the same levels proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill. This can be accomplished with a clear plan that gives states an option: Either they participate in a cap-and-trade program or they elect an alternative compliance mechanism to reach the same greenhouse gas emission goals by working with their utilities to develop a 40-year program of shutting down aging coal plants, retrofitting plants to capture carbon dioxide if the technology becomes available, and/or building zero-carbon energy plants. More important, the carbon dioxide reductions in this proposal can be achieved while providing adequate time to plan to minimize price shock and economic dislocation. It is the states, through their public utilities commissions -- not the federal government -- that have both the interest and obligation to manage citizens' costs while transitioning to a carbon-free future.

 

This transformation of our entire electricity sector won't be cheap, but it would be less expensive than the double cost of a complex cap-and-trade program followed by that same transformation.

Let me synopsize Mr. Sokol's carefully written, detailed explanation of cap and trade:  The Waxman-Markey bill is nuts.  It is just what you'd expect from two tra-la-la-la leftists whose "ideals" do not coincide with the real world.

But all is not lost.  Maybe, unlike the "stimulus package", congress will be given a chance to actually read Waxman-Markey before voting on it, and voters will be given a chance to think it through - both sides - before cheerleading Democrats to pass it.

Since the so-called "stimulus package", which put us hopelessly into debt and has not "stimulated" a damn thing, was passed without congress or voters reading it and knowing what it was, I'd call that a step forward.  How about you?

Ken Berwitz

Nile Gardiner writes for London's Daily Telegraph.  He watched this past week's so-called "duelling speeches" by President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney, both of which were about the war on terrorism.

Here is how he saw them:

Dick Cheney: brutal, uncompromising, brilliant

Posted By: Nile Gardiner at May 23, 2009 at 11:43:20 [General]

Posted in: Foreign Correspondents , Politics

 

Forget Christian Bale in Terminator Salvation - the new leader of the resistance is Dick Cheney. The former vice president, who this time has been sent from the past to save the future rather than the other way round, has had an astonishing week. He's dominated much of the news with his barnstorming defence of the previous administration's counter-terrorism strategy, and completely overshadowed President Obama's weak-kneed and exceedingly dull speech at the National Archives. He's even been getting a big boost in the polls even though he's not running for any kind of office. According to CNN, Cheney's up eight points since he left government, not bad for a figure the Left continues to demonize as the Antichrist.

You've got to hand it to the 68-year old Cheney. He's come out swinging like Jake LaMotta, and as Toby Harnden blogged earlier, is landing several well-placed blows. Cheney's speech at the American Enterprise Institute was brutal, uncompromising and brilliant. In contrast to President Obama's highly confusing address across town, which frankly could have been written by the European Commission on a slow day, Cheney adopted a compelling take-no-prisoners approach which generated hundreds of hours of air time across the news networks. It was old-fashioned John Wayne-style stuff, summed up by the former veep's classic line that "there is no middle ground" in the war against Islamist terrorists (aka Overseas Contingency Operation).

There is something very reassuring about a leader who never apologizes for America's actions, possesses no self-doubts about defending his country, and who believes his nation must do what is necessary to crush al-Qaeda. The spectacular return of Dick Cheney on the political stage is a huge breath of fresh air after months of suffocating liberal dominance in Washington. Let's hope he's here to stay.

.Thank you Mr. Gardiner for saying what, I suspect, a lot of people on both sides of the Atlantic are saying - including a good many who are now looking at Mr. Cheney in a very different light than they did before the Obama administration came into being.

I've done some thinking on why Cheney didn't speak up until now.   I'll be talking about the possible reasons in a subsequent blog.

Ken Berwitz

Calvin Woodward is an Associated Press writer who is charged, among other duties, with fact-checking Barack Obama's statements.

This means that, if he is honest, he will be writing that Barack Obama is continually lying to us.

And, as it turns out, Calvin Woodward is honest. 

See for yourself:

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

By CALVIN WOODWARD

Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON | “That wasn't me,” President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

    It actually was him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped a budget so out of balance.

    And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

    Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

    At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.

    His assertion that his proposed budget “will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term” is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.

    He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

    A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

    OBAMA: “Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years.” — in Missouri.

    THE FACTS:

    Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months — a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

    To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.

    The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

    Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond “one-time charges.”

    He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

    The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.

   OBAMA: “I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term.” — in Missouri.

    THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that “sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching.” It said that “although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.”

    And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care “could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame.”

    OBAMA: “You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax.” — in Missouri.

    THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

    That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.

    Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate — for a total of 12.4 percent — on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.

    Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.

This, folks, is the truth. 

Simply stated, Barack Obama has no problem at all in spoon-feeding lie after lie to his adoring disciples.  He reads his teleprompter, points his finger, sticks out his chin, and blames the consequences of his actions on the previous administration. 

And your job, if you choose to accept it (which, frighteningly enough, many still do) is to be a mind-numbed zombie who reflexively nods agreement every time he does it.

Thank you Calvin Woodward, for speaking truth to BS.  And let's all hope that people start waking up and seeing what is right in front of their eyes.

Ken Berwitz

From www.powerlineblog.com's John Hinderaker, without any comment from me:

Ken Berwitz

Here is an excerpt from an article written by CBS News' chief legal analyist Andrew Cohen, which spends a lot of time sneering out condescension aimed at former Vice President Dick Cheney's position on enhanced interrogation and the war on terrorism.  In it, Cohen asks a question which I would like to answer. 

How do we account for Cheney’s failure or refusal to acknowledge all that we have learned about the world since 2002? How do we explain the worldview he continues to share with his camp followers both in and out of power? Do we chalk it up to him being a stubborn, venal, self-righteous man incapable of admitting his own mistakes? Is he truly what Andrew Sullivan calls a “dead-ender?” Do we hang it on his ideology? On his Western individualism that eschews the need for consensus and compromise? Or is he, as many people say, just a dick.

I hereby choose the following explanation. Cheney’s world today is still the world of September 11, 2001, a world where hijacked planes are screaming toward their targets, chaos reigns, and anything goes. It’s a world where civil liberties are endangered, laws are overlooked, and the enemy, for all we know, is truly at the gate. Cheney simply hasn’t moved beyond that mode into the realm of the present. That’s why he cannot accept that the decisions he and others made in the long shadows of that day—water-boarding, indefinite detention, Gitmo, and so on— were short-sighted and even, in some cases, counter-productive.

The answer, Mr. Cohen, is that you are the one who learned nothing.  Today is still the world of September 11, 2001. 

Just as September 11, 2001 was still the world of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the world of the Tanzania and Kenya embassy bombings and the Khobar Towers bombing and the USS Cole attack.  It is also still the world of the major attacks that we were fortunate enough to have prevented since 2001.

It is also the world of the next attack, which might not be prevented. 

And if that happens, what will you say then, Mr. Cohen?  How long will it take you to blame former Vice President Cheney and former President Bush for that attack?  Two seconds?  Or less?

Al qaeda and its pals have no better friend than you.  Because no matter what they do, you and people like you will will eventually convince themselves that the threat no longer exists -- which enables them to more easily strike again.

In short, Mr. Cohen, you may be a smart legal analyst.  But, your opinions about Dick Cheney make you look like an idiot whose partisanship supersedes reality. 

Are you?

Ken Berwitz

As readers of this blog know, I first called the "stimulus package" the "stealfromus package", because at that time (and now) I feel that untold billions were being stolen from us, and they weren't going to stimulate a thing.  I now call it the "stimuless package" because, after almost three months, our economy has not only not been stimulated, but has regressed (unless, of course, you consider 1.3 million more jobs lost, two straight months of lower-than-expected retail figures and almost-doubled oil prices stimulating).

But, to his credit, Mark Steyn has uncovered an area where the economy has, in fact, been stimulated.  I'll let him tell you about it:

Friday, May 22, 2009

Mark Steyn: Statism the only thing being stimulated

We're spending trillions we don't have to create government programs to spend even more trillions we don't have.

Mark Steyn

Syndicated columnist

I was in Vermont the other day and made the mistake of picking up the local paper. Impressively, it contained a quarter-page ad, a rare sight these days. The rest of the page was made up by in-house promotions for the advertising department's special offer on yard-sale announcements, etc. But the one real advertisement was from something called SEVCA. SEVCA is a "nonprofit agency," just like The New York Times, General Motors and the state of California. And it stands for "South-Eastern Vermont Community Action."

Why, they're "community organizers," just like the president! The designated "anti-poverty agency" is taking out quarter-page ads in every local paper because they're "seeking applicants for several positions funded in full or part by the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA)" – that's the "stimulus" to you and me. Isn't it great to see those bazillions of stimulus dollars already out there stimulating the economy? Creating lots of new jobs at SEVCA, in order to fulfill the president's promise to "create or keep" 2.5 million jobs. At SEVCA, he's not just keeping all the existing ones, but creating new ones, too. Of the eight new positions advertised, the first is:

"ARRA Projects Coordinator."

Gotcha. So the first new job created by the stimulus is a job "coordinating" other programs funded by the stimulus. What's next?

"Grantwriter."

That's how they spell it. Like in "Star Wars" – Luke Grantwriter waving his hope saber as instructed by his mentor Obi-Bam Baracki ("May the Funds be with you!"). The Grantwriter will be responsible for writing grant applications "to augment ARRA funds." So the second new job created by stimulus funding funds someone to petition for additional funding for projects funded by the stimulus.

The third job is a "Marketing Specialist" to increase "public awareness of ARRA-funded services." Rural Vermont's economy is set for a serious big-time boom: The critical stimulus-promotion industry, stimulus-coordination industry and stimulus-supplementary-funding industry are growing at an unprecedented rate. The way things are going we'll soon need a Stimulus-Coordination Industry Task Force and Impact Study Group. By the way, these jobs aren't for everyone. "Knowledge of ARRA" is required. So if, say, you're the average United States senator who voted for ARRA without bothering to read it you're not qualified for a job as an ARRA Grantwriter.

I don't want to give the impression that every job funded by the stimulus is a job coordinating the public awareness of programs for grant applications to coordinate the funding of public awareness coordination programs funded by the stimulus. SEVCA is also advertising for a "Job Readiness Program Coordinator." This is a job coordinating the program that gets people ready to get a job. For example, it occurred to me, after reading the ad, that I might like to be a "Job Readiness Program Coordinator." But am I ready for it? Increasing numbers of us are hopelessly unready for jobs. Ever since last November, many Americans have been ready for free health care, free day care, free college, free mortgages – and, once you get a taste for that, it's hardly surprising you're not ready for gainful employment. I only hope there are enough qualified "Job Readiness Program Coordinators" out there, and that they don't have to initiate a Job Readiness Program Coordinator Readiness Program. As the old novelty song once wondered, "Who Takes Care Of The Caretaker's Daughter While The Caretaker's Busy Taking Care?" Who coordinates programs for the Job Readiness Program Coordinator while the Job Readiness Program Coordinator's busy readying for his job? If you hum it, I'll put in for the stimulus funding.

Oh, and let's not forget the new job of "VITA Program Coordinator." VITA? That's "Volunteer Income Tax Assistance." It's an IRS program designed "to help low- and moderate-income taxpayers complete their tax returns at no cost." The words "no cost," by the way, are used in the new Webster's-defined sense of "massive public expenditure." Whoops, I mean massive public "investment." You might think, were you a space alien recently landed from Planet Zongo, that, if tax returns are so complicated that "low- and moderate-income taxpayers" have difficulty filling them in, the obvious solution would be to make the tax code less complex. But that's just the unfamiliar atmosphere on Planet Earth making you lighthearted and prone to cockamamie out-of-this-world fancies. Put in for a Job Readiness Program, and you'll soon get with the program.

Of course, it's not just "low- and moderate-income taxpayers" who have difficulty completing their tax returns. So do high-income taxpayers like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Tragically, they're ineligible for the "Volunteer Income Tax Assistance" program. Indeed, the treasury secretary seemed under the misapprehension that it was a "Volunteer Income Tax" program, which would be a much better idea. But, being ineligible for VITA, Secretary Geithner was forced to splash out $49.95 for TurboTax and, simply by accidentally checking the "No" box instead of "Yes" at selected moments, was able to save himself thousands of dollars in confiscatory taxation! Oops, my mistake, I meant that, tragically, by being unable to complete his tax return due to a lack of Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, Timothy Geithner was the only one of 300 million Americans to pass the Treasury Secretary Job Readiness Program.

SEVCA serves two rural counties with a combined total of a little over 40,000 households. If you wanted to stimulate the economy, you'd take every dime allocated to Windsor and Windham counties under ARRA and divide it between those households. But, if you want to stimulate bureaucracy, dependency and the metastasization of approved quasi-governmental interest-group monopolies as the defining features of American life, then ARRA is the way to go. Oh, you scoff: ARRA, go on, you're only joking. I wish I were. We're spending trillions we don't have to create government programs to coordinate the application for funds to create more programs to spend even more trillions we don't have.

The stimulus will do nothing for the economy, but it will dramatically advance the cause of statism (as Mark Levin rightly calls it). Last week's vote in California is a snapshot of where this leads: The gangster regime in Sacramento is an alliance between a corrupt and/or craven political class wholly owned by a public sector union-bureaucracy extortion racket. So what if the formerly Golden State goes belly-up? They'll pass the buck to Washington, and those of us in nonprofligate jurisdictions will get stuck with the tab. At some point, the dwindling band of citizens still foolish enough to earn a living by making things, selling things or providing services other than government-funded program coordination will have to vote against not just taxes but specific agencies and programs – hundreds and thousands of them.

The bad news is that our children will not enjoy the American Dream. The good news is they'll be able to apply for an American Dream Readiness Assistance Coordination Grantwriter Program. May the Funds be with you!

That, folks, is the stimulus package in action.  Does it make you feel better?  I hope not.

Eventually, due to the cyclical nature of economies rather than this disastrous "stimulus package", the recession will be over.  And the Obama administration will be crowing to us about how they were the ones who turned it around.

But they won't have been the ones who turned it around.  They're the ones who gave us what Mr. Steyn wrote about. 

Maybe you better save his column.....because I wouldn't be counting on our wonderful "neutral" media to be pointing it out.

Ken Berwitz

Michelle Malkin has written an invaluable column about a huge danger to this country that has existed for years and years, but has barely been covered by media:  jails as a training ground for radical islam.

Here it is.  Please read every word, it is important that you do: