Ken Berwitz

I find myself drawn more and more to www.powerlineblog.com, because the three people who write there, John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson and Paul Mirengoff are not just good writers, they are almost always on target in their analyses.

Here is a great example from Paul, who points out, with crystal clarity, the corner President Obama has painted himself into regarding Israel:

A speech I'd like to hear

 

July 31, 2009 Posted by Paul at 4:18 PM

This New York Times editorial calls on President Obama to explain to Israelis why "freezing settlements and reviving peace talks is clearly in their interest." The Times is alarmed because "Israeli leaders do not often risk being at odds with an American president, but polls show broad support for Mr. Netanyahu's resistance" on the settlement issue. Presumably, the Times would like Obama, "a skilled communicator," to speak directly to Israelis through some sort of address, as Israeli leftists have urged.

 

It's a speech I'd like to hear. For in order to persuade Israelis, Obama would first have to connect with them. And to do that, he would have to embrace aspects of the Israeli national narrative.

 

For example, Obama would have to show an appreciation of the Jewish connection to the land of Israel. In his Cairo speech, Obama ignored this history, pointing to the Holocaust as the source of Israel's legitimacy. This didn't bother me. There was no need in that speech for Obama to go back to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob -- it was enough to reaffirm before an Arab audience that the U.S. fully backs Israel's legitimacy.

 

But that wouldn't be enough for an Israeli audience. And it would bring a smile to my face to hear Obama attempt to mollify Israelis by talking about their historical connection to the land of Israel and whatever other conciliatory messages he might throw in.

 

But no amount of flattery is likely to persuade Israelis that they should totally freeze construction in and around well-established settlements in the hope that the Palestinians will one day make peace with them. The Times is correct that Obama is a skilled communicator. He can wow a crowd that is already inclined to agree with him and, perhaps, persuade the undecided. However, he has never shown that he can change the minds of those whose positions have already formed -- a tall order for anyone.

 

The limits of Obama's communication skills are evident in the health care debate. But recall too that even his famous Philadelphia speech about Rev. Wright, however much it was praised by his fans in the MSM, failed to stem the anti-Obama tide that was running through his own party. Obama quickly had to revise his position, and still limped to the finish line, losing most of the important late contests and securing the nomination on the strength of his early successes. And during the general election campaign, Obama wisely focused not on attempting to change the minds of swing voters on key issues, but rather on using his communication skills to make them think he was on their side with respect to these matters.

 

This would not be an option if Obama were to implore Israelis to agree to a total settlement freeze. For a speech to work, Obama would have to moderate his position. There are reports that he is already doing so, in order to reach a compromise with the Israeli government.

 

The upshot is that the speech the Times contemplates is a non-starter. The only speech it makes sense for Obama to deliver in Israel would alienate the Arabs he has worked so hard to win over.

 

As a far more cogent editorial in the Washington Post explains, therein lies the folly of Obama's overbearing demands regarding settlements: it put him in a position where, to be seen in Israel as an honest broker, he now must act in ways that would undermine his status with the Arabs. Had he accepted Israel's concessions on settlements and not overreached, he would not have stumbled into this dilemma.

 

That the New York Times must now ask Obama to salvage the situation by delivering an impossible speech demonstrates not only that the Times is desperate but also that it is clueless.

Unfortunately, President Obama's problem does not appear simply to be bungled diplomacy (though he apparently is something of a master at that).  The problem is that he has found enough ways to give Israel the back of his hand in his short tenure as President so that the only way to extricate himself is by saying things that will absolutely outrage the Arabs he has so carefully cultivated.  As conundrums go, this one is a beaut and a half.

I have often pointed out that, according to the exit polls, 78% of American Jews voted for Mr. Obama last year.  Presumably, most of them support Israel.  While I haven't seen any recent polling by religion, it would not surprise me if his actions are driving Jews away in large numbers (Better late than never, I suppose).

Maybe this will force President Obama to counter his Cairo speech with a Tel Aviv speech.  If so, it would have to be nothing short of amazing.

I agree completely with Paul.  I don't think he can do it.

Ken Berwitz

Take one:

In 2007 then-President George Bush implemented a troop surge in Iraq.  He announced plans for the surge in a speech on January 10, 2007. 

Then-Senator Barack Obama's reaction was:

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

In actuality, the troop surge was a huge success, US casualties plummeted and then-presidential candidate Obama was able to use Mr. Bush's success to make promises about removing troops from Iraq, which he could not have been done without that success.

Take two:

After his successful presidential campaign, which featured attacks on Republicans for not aggressively going after osama bin laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Barack Obama ordered  a troop surge in Afghanistan.  The surge was implemented just months ago.

Now we have this from Reuters:.

KABUL (Reuters) - A U.S. service member was killed as the deadliest month for foreign troops in the Afghanistan war drew to a close, the U.S. military said on Friday, with commanders vowing to continue the fight despite the toll.

The death in southern Afghanistan brought to 40 the number of U.S. troops killed in July, by far the heaviest monthly toll in the 8-year-old war. The worst previous month for U.S. forces was in September 2008, when 26 were killed.

The latest death occurred in a firefight with insurgents in southern Afghanistan on Thursday, the U.S. military said, without giving further details. At least 70 foreign troops have been killed in July.

Britain has suffered its worst battlefield casualties since the 1980s Falklands War, with the 22 troops killed in the month taking its total losses in Afghanistan to 191, 12 more than were killed in the Iraq war.

Casualties spiked after thousands of U.S. and British troops this month launched major operations in southern Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold and the center of Afghanistan's opium production.

There are the two takes.  And here are a few questions:

-Have you heard a word from Barack Obama about finding osama bin laden since the election?

-Is the media treatment afforded George Bush after he announced the Iraq troop surge, similar to the treatment afforded Barack Obama after he announced the Afghanistan troop surge?

-Is the media treatment afforded George Bush after it became clear that the Iraq troop surge was a huge success, similar to the treatment afforded Barack Obama now that the Afghanistan troop surge has not worked at all and things appear even worse than before?

The answers to those three questions go a long way toward explaining the negative (and diminishing) view I have of our media.

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

Ken Berwitz

From ABC News:

The leader of the Islamist sect blamed for days of violence in northern Nigeria has been shot and killed while in police custody, officials said Thursday.

 

The police commander of Borno state announced on state radio that Mohammed Yusuf, the leader of the sect some call the Nigerian Taliban, has "died in police custody."

He gave no further explanation, but the state governor's spokesman Usman Ciroma told The Associated Press: "I saw his body at police headquarters. I believe he was shot while he was trying to escape."

Yusuf's death could provoke more violence, though his followers in the Boko Haram sect may be in disarray after troops shelled his compound in the northern city of Maiduguri on Wednesday. Yusuf, 39, managed to escape with about 300 followers, some of them armed. His deputy, Bukar Shekau, was killed in the attack, according to Army commander Maj. Gen. Saleh Maina.

Troops killed about 100 militants by an AP reporter's count, half of them inside the sect's mosque. Soldiers then launched a manhunt, and Yusuf was reportedly found in a goat's pen at the home of his in-laws.

Human Rights Watch called reports of Yusuf's killing "extremely worrying."

Not that I, personally, have a problem dispatching terrorists any way possible, but.....

Charles Johnson of www.littlegreenfootballs.com, says "Imagine world reaction is Israel responded to Palestinian terrorist attacks like this".

Y'know, he's got a point there.

No reason to be concerned, though.  After all, Human Right Watch has called it "extremely worrying".  That should rock the Nigerian government to its core.

Plus, I am certain that the United Nations, ever vigilant in defense of humanity, will be condemning this action in the strongest of terms, just as they would if Israel took out 100 Palestinian Arab militants, half of them in a mosque. 

Any day now.  An-n-n-n-n-y day.

Ken Berwitz

The Gates/Crowley confrontation has spawned two additional stories about Boston Cops.  Both involve racism and, not surprisingly, neither of them is good.

The first tale concerns a two-year veteran named justin barrett.

From Michael Graham, writing for the Boston Herald:

Barrett is the Boston cop who sent an electronic message to The Boston Globe - then forwarded it to his fellow National Guardsmen - calling the Harvard professor a “banana-eating jungle monkey.” He also said the paper’s reporting was “jungle monkey gibberish,” and wanted to “ax” a question.

 

But, he claimed in a television interview, “I didn’t mean it in a racist way.”

Try to wrap your arms around that one.  The idea is that you're not supposed to get upset by barrett's comment, because he says he "didn't mean it in a racist way"?  Ok, sure.  And when hamas calls Jews the spawn of monkeys and apes, they really don't mean it in an anti-Semitic way either.  Honest.

Forget the overt racism for just a moment:  the level of sheer stupidity here is so high that I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like it in my lifetime.  If President Obama had used the "acted stupidly" line for this guy, the only criticism he'd have gotten would be that it was too kind.

Earlier, I noted that barrett has been on the Boston police force for 2 years.  I wouldn't count on him celebrating year #3.

The second tale concerns what, from all accounts, appears to be a genuinely good cop, and a man with the courage to stand by a fellow cop and friend.  His name is Police Sgt. Leon Lashley.

Mr. Lashley was one of the officers who responded to the possible breaking and entering at Professor Gates' home.  He was there to see and hear what took place.  Based on what he saw and heard, Lashley backed up Sgt. Crowley and said he was 100% justified in arresting Mr. Gates.

And how has this affected Leon Lashley?  From the AP, via the Miami Herald:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- A black sergeant who was at the home of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. when he was arrested says he's been maligned as an "Uncle Tom" for supporting the actions of the white arresting officer.

Cambridge Sgt. Leon Lashley gave a letter to Sgt. James Crowley to give to President Barack Obama during their so-called beer summit with Gates on Thursday night at the White House.

In the letter, which was also sent to CNN, Lashley says Gates "may have caused grave and potentially irreparable harm to the struggle for racial harmony."

Lashley says he has become known as a traitor to his heritage by some because he "spoke the truth" about the arrest.

Wonderful.  Just Wonderful. 

In supporting Sgt. Crowley, Sgt. Lashley displayed two of the most admirable traits there are - honesty and loyalty.  And, for his trouble, he is being called an Uncle Tom and a traitor to his race. 

Would Sgt. Lashley be called those ugly names if he took the easy way out and either refused to provide his account of what happened at Professor Gates' home, or just lied about it on behalf of Gates?  Would anyone be calling him those names if Henry Louis Gates was White?

Sadly, this is every bit as much a racist event as the idiotic ravings of Officer barrett.

So there you have it.  Two additional, racism-soaked tales as a direct result of the Crowley/Gates incident. 

I 100% hope they will be the last two.  (And 0% expect that to be the case).

Ken Berwitz

Four guys, two of whom undoubtedly resent each other, sitting around a table in suits, with beer and nuts brought by the White House staff, and every journalist within 400 miles taking pictures.

If this isn't the most strained, contrived photo-op I've ever seen, it is definitely in the top 3.

For god sake, who did they think they were kidding?  This event was to sincerity what woollen outerwear is to Death Valley.

Here's some advice for Barack Obama, straight from a cop's playbook:  If you don't know, don't blow.  Because if you do, you'll wind up with your foot in your mouth long before that sip of beer and handful of peanuts.

Ken Berwitz

Here is another blog dedicated to the 78% of American Jews who voted for Barack Obama - most of whom, presumably, support Israel. 

I didn't expect to have a second such blog tonight.  But I just looked at a post by Paul Mirengoff of  www.powerlineblog.com, and read this:

Ken Berwitz

This blog is dedicated to the 78% of American Jews who voted for Barack Obama -- most of whom, presumably, support Israel.  It comes to us from Jennifer Rubin, writing for Commentary Magazine.  Do not expect to see this synopsis of mary ronbinson's past in almost any mainstream  media:

Author of Durban I Gets Medal of Freedom

Jennifer Rubin - 07.30.2009 - 1:49 PM

Mary Robinson, U.N. Commissioner and former president of Ireland, is being awarded the Medal of Freedom by Obama. Well, isn’t that just dandy. Who is Mary Robinson? You may remember her role in presiding over the infamous Durban I Conference. At the time she joined Rashid Khalidi at Columbia University (no, you can’t make this up), this report summarized the objections to her hiring, given her record in overseeing the infamous Israel-bashing event:

Columbia has “become a hotbed of anti-Israel haters,” said the president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein. “It’s especially astonishing that a school with such a large Jewish population would insult Jewish people by hiring these haters of the Jewish state of Israel.”

The groups also blame Ms. Robinson for allowing the Durban conference to become a global platform for anti-Israel venting. Ms. Robinson, as the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, rejected many American demands to remove anti-Israel language from final conference documents.

“Under Mary Robinson’s leadership the Human Rights Commission was one-sided and extremist. In her tenure at the HRC, she lacked fairness in her approach to the Israeli/Palestinian issue,” said the chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, James Tisch. “I am hopeful — for the sake of her students and the reputation of Columbia — that as she enters the world of academia she will demonstrate more balance in her views.”

Recently deceased congressman and human-rights champion Tom Lantos had this to say:

Mary Robinson’s lack of leadership was a major contributing factor to the debacle in Durban. Her yearning to have a “dialogue among civilizations” blinded her to the reality that the noble goals of her conference had been usurped by some of the world’s least tolerant and most repressive states, wielding human rights claims as a weapon in a political dispute.

But Durban was not the only blot on her record. As Michael Rubin pointed out in this 2002 column, in her capacity as president of Ireland, she also happily provided millions of dollars of support to the PLO, which were used in terror attacks:

During the last four years of Robinson’s tenure, the European Union donated large sums of money to the Palestinian Authority. Ireland even held the presidency of the European Union for the second half of 1996. During this time, Arafat siphoned large amounts of European aid money away to pay for terror. Robinson can plead ignorance, but documents seized during the recent Israeli incursion into the West Bank revealed that the Palestinian Authority spent approximately $9 million of European Union aid money each month on the salaries of those organizing terror attacks against civilians. While European officials like Robinson looked the other way, the Palestinian Authority regularly converted millions of dollars of aid money into shekels at rates about 20 percent below normal, allowing the Palestinian chairman to divert millions of dollars worth of aid into his personal slush fund.

And then in her post-Durban career, she proceeded on the same Israel-bashing course that has made her infamous among supporters of Israel:

Robinson’s post-Durban record is little better. On April 15, Robinson’s commission voted on a decision that condoned suicide bombings as a legitimate means to establish Palestinian statehood (six European Union members voted in favor including, not surprisingly, France and Belgium). The vote came after Robinson initiated a drive to become a fact finder to investigate the now-famous massacre in Jenin (also known as “the massacre that never happened”).

There are no words to describe how atrocious a selection this is. But it does speak volumes about the president’s sympathies. And now, will the same voices that condemned her appointment to Columbia step forward? We hope. Somewhere, Tom Lantos is weeping.

Speaking to the 78% of Jews who voted for Barack Obama:  Are you happy with what you got?

As one of the other 22%, I can assure you that I am not.

Ken Berwitz

Let me preface this with a couple of things I have said over and over and over again:

-I do not claim to know whether or not Barack Obama is legally eligible to be President of the United States.

-I do claim that when someone can prove his eligibility with virtually no effort or cost by producing his birth certificate, but instead expends a huge amount of both to prevent anyone from seeing it, or his college records or his school enrollment information, the single most logical reason is that there are one or more things on those documents that he does not want us to see. 

A lot of people I respect a great deal are petitioning for so-called "birthers" to move on.  From a purely practical perspective I don't blame them either.  I cannot forsee a way Barack Obama will be ousted as President (it would turn this country upside down in two seconds flat).  Plus, since people who question his eligibility have been so completely demonized in every possible way over the past year, they are going to be seen as unreconstructed nutcakes no matter how factual and logical their arguments are.

One such petitioner is Charles Johnson at www.littlegreenfootballs.com. 

Readers of this blog know my respect level for Mr. Johnson, by the number of times I use his material.  Not surprisingly, he and I agree on most issues.

But Charles is one of the people who demand that the eligibility issue be dropped.  He has gone from simply believing Barack Obama is a natural citizen, to ridiculing the people who think otherwise, to an almost pathological fervor against any mention of the possibility that Mr. Obama is not eligible to be President. 

Charles disdainfully calls people who disagree with him "Nirthers" and refers to the document they are demanding to see as a "nirth certifikit" (I'm not exactly sure of what that means, since he often uses the term with a with a picture of a sea lion holding the "nirth certifikit", but I guess he does).

This brings us to his blog today. 

First let me show you what Charles put up.  If you have any trouble seeing the two documents it refers to, just click here:

Debunking a Corollary to the Nirth Certifikit Theory

Weird | Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:34:32 pm PDT

Even among people who accept that Barack Obama is a US citizen, a sort of “spinoff” idea keeps coming up in our discussions of the Nirther craziness: that Barack Obama “won’t release” his original birth certificate (some people refer to it as a “long form” certificate) because there’s something on it he wants to hide.

The two most common explanations suggested by LGF commenters for this “hidden info” are that the birth certificate: 1) lists Obama’s religion as “Muslim,” or 2) lists his race as “black” or “white” (both possibilities have been argued).

Here’s an image pointed out by LGF reader “keithgabryelski” that definitively debunks the Hidden Info corollary to the Nirth Certifikit Theory.

The image shows an original state of Hawaii “Certificate of Live Birth” from 1962, posted at a site that provides information on obtaining passports, as an example of a valid birth certificate. It’s a reasonable assumption that the Hawaii birth certificate form didn’t change much (or at all) from August 1961 (when Barack Obama was born) to June 1962, and that Obama’s original birth certificate had the same information on it.

Note that there is no space on the form for any kind of religion, and no space for either the religion or the race of the baby, although the race of both parents is listed. (NOTE: Click the blank space to see the birth certificate.)

If you compare this to the officially stamped “Certification of Live Birth” for Barack Obama released by the Hawaii Health Department, you see that all of the vital information from the original form is indeed listed on the Obama document — both parents’ races included — and nothing important has been left out.

Status: debunked.

Fascinating.

As you can see, Charles' point is that a "Certification Of Live Birth (COLB) and an original birth certificate have a couple of pieces of the same vital information. 

Ok, as far as it goes.  But what about the rest of what is on the original birth certificate?  Charles says nothing has been left out. 

Baloney.

One of the key arguments Charles and others have made against the so-called "birthers" is that the COLB and the actual birth certificate are either one and the same (Chris Matthews loves to tell us as much, and he's far from the only one) or that it doesn't matter because both documents have the same information.

Oh yeah?  Well LOOK at them.  Notice that the original has the name of a hospital.  The name of the doctor.  The address of the parents.  Their occupations.  And maybe other stuff as well (you can check for yourself).

The COLB offered up by Barack Obama has none of this information. 

Wouldn't it be helpful to know what hospital Mr. Obama was born in?  He has claimed two different ones over the past several months.

Wouldn't it be helpful to find out the name of the Doctor who delivered Mr. Obama?  For all we know he might still be alive.  If he were, say, 35 then, he'd be only 82 now.  It certainly is feasible. 

One thing is sure;  no doctor has come forth to take credit for delivering a President of the USA.  Nor has any nurse, nor any administrative person nor any other hospital personnel right down to a 17 year old candy-striper who would be just 65 today.  Did they all die, every one of them? 

And I would especially love to see the address on his birth certificate, since no one can be found who remembers the Obamas living at the address in those fortuitous birth announcements we've been shown.  In fact, the only person I've heard of who did live there at the time - the next door neighbor, Beatrice Arakaki, who still lives there - has no remembrance of them at all.

Isn't information like that available for journalists who cared to know for sure?  Wouldn't it be easy to check public records and find out who lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, in August, 1961, when Barack Obama was born?  Don't you wonder why no one (at least so far as we know) has bothered to check.  How remarkable. 

Regarding Ms. Arakaki, I suppose you could make the argument that it is unfair to expect her to remember an inconsequential couple who lived next door almost a half century ago.  But given the extremely unusual household - an 18 year old Caucasian female and an older Black African male - in a state with almost no Black population at the time (and only a very small one even now) - I think it is fair to assume Ms. Arakaki would likely remember them.

So, as they used to say in those old StarKist tuna commercials, "sorry, Charlie".  Juxtaposing a long form and COLB doesn't resolve this issue, it highlights the reasons that the issue exists.

I still don't know what the truth is when it comes to Barack Obama's citizenship status.  But I remain very suspicious of it.  And I don't think you need to be a "birther" to feel this way.

Ken Berwitz

Apropos of nothing:

Did you know that Art Linkletter, the long-time TV personality is still alive and (so far as I know) well?

Did you know that about two weeks ago, (July 17th) Mr. Linkletter celebrated his 97th birthday?

And did you know that he married his wife, the former Lois Foerster, on November 25, 1935?  That means, fates willing, that this November will be their 74th wedding anniversary.

Congratulations to him  74 times over, and another 26 for good measure!

Ok, now back to politics.

Ken Berwitz

This is how the pelosi wing of the Democratic Party does it.

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday ramped up her criticism of insurance companies, accusing them of unethical behavior and working to kill a plan to create a new government-run health plan.

"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding, "They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."

Got it?  It isn't their half-baked "plans" that the people see for what they are.  It isn't the smirking insistence that Republicans have no say in legislation because "we won".  It isn't the additional trillions of dollars of cost, on top of trillions of dollars already spent for a failed "stimulus package"

Nope, it is none of that.  It is the insurance companies.  And it is also George Bush (not said this time, but you can count on it being there soon enough - it always is).

Their problem is, that this doesn't appear to be working anymore.  They might (gasp!) have to come up with real alternative solutions instead of picking a target and whining out their bogeyman/demon routine.

Omigod, they might even have to invite Republicans into the process and treat them as though they were elected congresspeople too. 

As Mona Lisa Vito said in "My Cousin Vinny"...."what a #$%@ in' nightmare!"

Ken Berwitz

This one is for the poll lovers in the house.

First a quick explanation of what you are seeing:  Rasmussen Research uses a three day rolling average comprising 1,500 likely voters.  In other words, Today's data are the result of combining 500 interviews from Monday, 500 from Tuesday and 500 from Wednesday.  Friday's data will eliminate Monday and add today (Thursday), Saturday's data will eliminate Tuesday and add Friday, and so on. 

Ok, now you know what you're looking at.  So here are Rasmussen's latest data on Barack Obama's approval ratings, compared to one and two months ago.  See if you notice any kind of trend: 

Date	Presidential Approval Index	Strongly Approve	Strongly Disapprove	Total Approve	Total Disapprove
05/30/2009	+9	37%	28%	58%	41%
06/30/2009	-2	31%	33%	54%	46%
07/30/2009	-12	28%	40%	48%	51%

 If you're into free-fall, you should love these data. 

Let's do some analyzing:

-Over the last two months, the percentage of likely voters who strongly approve of Barack Obama's performance has dropped from 37% to 28%.  That is a drop of 9% in the total sample, comprising 24% of the "strongly approve" people";

-Concomitantly, the percentage who strongly disapprove of Barack Obama's performance has risen from 28% to 40%.  A 12% increase in the total sample, comprising 43% more "strongly disapprove" people than there were two months ago.

-In overall approval and disapproval, Mr. Obama has gone from 58% approval to 48% (10% drop, comprising 17% of all approvers) and risen from 41% disapproval to 51% (10% rise, comprising an additional 24% who disapprove).

As you can see, not only is there a precipitous drop in Barack Obama's overall approval ratings, but it is even greater among people with the hardest feelings (strong approval/disapproval). 

Yikes. 

Why is this happening?  You tell me:

-Is it the failed "stimulus package"? 

-Is it the debacle on health care that even has many of his fellow democrats in a state of mutiny? 

-Is it the going-nowhere cap-and-trade that would raise all our energy costs? 

-Is it the "acted stupidly" comment?   

-Is it the continual blaming of President Bush for the failure of his own legislation?

-Is it some combination of these, or other, reasons?

Regardless of what it is, the point is that it is.  Not just in Rasmussen, but in Gallup, Quinnipiac, Battleground, NBC, AP/Gfk, Diageo/Hotline and virtually ever other major poll.

Maybe it would be a good idea for Mr. Obama to rethink a thing or two about what he is doing......

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

UPDATE:  Gallup, like Rasmussen, uses a three day rolling average.  Its new numbers, released at 1PM,  show 52% approval for President Obama and 41% disapproval - the worst showing of his presidency.  By contrast, just 11 days ago (July 19th) Gallup was at 61% - 32% .  That's a 29% spread between approval and disapproval, dropping to 11%  in less than two weeks. Ouch.

Ken Berwitz

I've written a lot recently about how President Obama is "chavezing" the United States, by grasping more and more power for the government - the government he leads and his party currently dominates.

I thought it would be good to remind you of what the term means.  So here, courtesy of Agence France Presse, is the latest example of what I mean:

Chavez hits at Venezuelan media with new laws July 29 03:03 PM US/Eastern

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is taking steps to tighten restrictions on the media despite mounting opposition by private media to a series of proposed reforms that would expose them to criminal prosecution.

Chavez supporters argue that the measures limiting broadcasting rights for radio and television will lead to a significant "democratization" of the media, which has been controlled by a handful of owners.

 

"We will launch a strong fight for the democratization of communication, to break the media oligarchy in Venezuela," Communication and Information Minister Blanca Eekhout said recently.

In a recent report, National Telecommunications Commission (Conatel) chief Diosdado Cabello said 27 families have "privileged ownership" of 32 percent of the radio broadcast industry.

But for Chavez's opposition, this "now or never" approach to the media is just the latest onslaught on press freedoms by the firebrand leftist leader, who has never forgiven the privately owned media for backing a failed coup against him in 2002.

"The only player that exposes many of the things the government is doing is the media, and the government feels it has to regulate them," professor Marcelino Bisbal, editor of the book "Communication Hegemony and Control," told AFP.

He said the government is developing eight new laws or reforms of existing laws that will have an impact on the media, including one that creates a new set of "media crimes" punishable with prison sentences.

Until now media companies and executives have been subjected to administrative penalties, but if the proposed changes are adopted they could face criminal charges in the future

The government essentially taking over media, in the name of "democracy"?   Where have we seen that recently?

In the financial sector?  In the automobile sector?  In the energy sector (legislation pending)?  In the health care sector (legislation pending)?

I rest my case.

Ken Berwitz

That's a strange title, isn't it?  How can voter intimidation be acceptable?  This is the United States of America.  That makes no sense.

But under Attorney General eric holder, the obsequious toad running our justice department, it not only is acceptable, but it's even ok when the accused do not contest the charges.

Yesterday's Washington Times has an excellent editorial which describes this travesty.  Please read every word, especially the parts I've put in bold print:

EDITORIAL: Return of the Black Panther

Justice is stonewalling on voter intimidation

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Rarely does the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights vote unanimously on anything.

A partisan divide has made the commission contentious in recent years. Yet the Department of Justice's decision to forfeit its voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and three individual defendants drew a 6-0 vote with one abstention by the commission. What unified the commission was outrage at the Justice Department for letting the Black Panthers off the hook.

The Civil Rights Commission has sent two letters -- on June 16 and June 22 -- to Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, asking for an explanation, but it has not received a response. Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, sent a June 8 letter demanding an explanation, but the congressman told us he has yet to receive an answer from the department one month later.

The Civil Rights Commission's first letter expressed its "great confusion" over the department's decision. After all, "defendants were caught on video blocking access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing voters during the November 4, 2008 general election." The video showed "one of them actually brandished a nightstick in plain view of voters and poll observers ... defendants 'made statements containing racial threats and racial insults.' "

The commission's letter quoted "Veteran of the civil rights movement, Bartle Bull" calling the defendants' actions "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encountered in my life in political campaigns in many states, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960s."

The commission summed up the case in its June 16 letter to Ms. King: "Though it had basically won the case ... the [Department of Justice's Civil Rights] Division took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the charges .... In its notice of dismissal, the Division cites as its rationale only the fact that defendants failed to appear and respond ... the Division's public rationale would send the wrong message entirely - that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated and will not be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups or individuals who engage in them fail to respond to the charges leveled against them."

Lenore Ostrowsky, a commission spokesman, told us, "It is rare for a letter from the commission over the last four years to be sent out without any dissent." There's good reason for today's unanimity. One of the Black Panther defendants, Jerry Jackson, is an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party when the intimidation occurred. We agree with the concern at the Civil Rights Commission. The Justice Department needs to explain why it is not pursuing charges against these thugs.

To sum up:  they were charged with voter intimidation, they didn't even bother to defend themselves against the charge (thus the government had a default judgement in its hands) and the eric holder justice department said "oh, that's ok guys".

Now, the question is why this was done? 

-Is it because the Attorney General and the thugs are all Democrats?  If so, it is odious. 

-Is it because the Attorney General and the thugs are all Black?  If so, it is even more odious.

Suppose those were three White Republican men intimidating voters and a White Republican Attorney General gave them a free pass to do it?  What would our wonderful "neutral" media have called it?  What would they have said about the White Attorney General?

If we're going to discuss race seriously, maybe that should be part of the discussion, wouldn't you say?

Ken Berwitz

Why do we fight radical Islam?  Maybe this story, from Agence France Presse will help to explain:

Sudan court adjourns 'lashes for trousers' case

By Peter Martell (AFP) – 19 hours ago

 

KHARTOUM — A Sudanese court on Wednesday adjourned the case of a woman journalist facing 40 lashes for wearing "indecent" trousers, with 10 women already whipped for similar offences against Islamic law.

The judge deferred the case to Tuesday after Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, who works for the left-wing Al-Sahafa newspaper and for the media department of the United Nations Mission in Sudan, waived the immunity given to UN workers.

 

"The court gave Lubna the choice either to accept immunity from the UN or to waive that and go on with the trial," her lawyer Nabil Adeeb told AFP.

 

"I wish to resign from the UN, I wish this court case to continue," Hussein told a packed courtroom before the judge adjourned the case to August 4.

 

Hussein, who wears a hijab or Islamic headscarf, faces 40 lashes and a fine of 250 Sudanese pounds (100 dollars) if found guilty.

 

She wore the same clothes to court as when she was arrested -- moss-green slacks with a loose floral top and green headscarf.

 

She waved defiantly to crowds as she left the court.

 

Hussein said she was at a restaurant on July 3 when police came in and ordered 13 women wearing trousers to follow them to the police station.

 

Ten of the women were summoned to a police station two days later and were lashed 10 times each, according to Hussein.

 

The women whipped earlier this month included some from animist and Christian south Sudan where the Muslim north's Islamic or sharia law does not apply.

 

Scores of people crammed into the courthouse to hear the ruling, many of them female supporters -- some of them also wearing trousers out of solidarity.

 

Some held up placards on the street outside. "A woman is not for flogging," read one in Arabic.

 

"We are here to support Lubna, because this treatment of women is arbitrary and not correct," said Zuhal Mohammed Elamin, a law professor in Khartoum. "Women should not be humiliated in this manner."

 

Police have also cracked down on another woman journalist, Amal Habbani, after she wrote an article condemning Hussein's treatment.

 

Habbani wrote an article for Ajrass Al-Horreya newspaper following the arrests entitled "Lubna, a case of subduing a woman's body."

 

"I am waiting for a decision," Habbani told AFP after she was charged with defaming police, a charge which can carry a fine of up to several hundred thousand dollars.

 

The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information said the charge against Habbani stemmed from her claim that Hussein's arrest was "not about fashion but a political tactic to intimidate and terrorise opponents."

 

Unlike many other Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf, women have a prominent place in Sudanese public life.

 

Nevertheless, human rights organisations say some of Sudan's laws discriminate against women.

 

In December 2007, British teacher Gillian Gibbons faced 40 lashes after being convicted of insulting religion by allowing her pupils to name a teddy bear Mohammed.

 

Gibbons, 54 at the time, was eventually sentenced to 15 days in prison but was pardoned by Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir following the mediation of two Muslim members of Britain's upper house of parliament.

If we fight radical Islam we may win and we may lose.  But if we don't fight, we will most assuredly lose, because radical Islam will keep fighting regardless.

And if that were to happen, western civilization as we know it would end.  To be replaced by what?  A society where women who dare to wear pants are summarily taken by police and beaten for doing so?  A society where a teacher barely escapes 40 lashes - and winds up serving 15 days in jail -  because the children in her class named a teddy bear?

There may be people who want to live this way.  And if they do, they're welcome to it.  But I don't.  And I suspect that you don't either.

That is why we fight.

Ken Berwitz

When the colorful, exuberant Ed Koch was mayor of New York City, he'd go out among the people and one of his signature lines was "How'm I doin'?".  Given that Mr. Koch was very popular (elected for three terms), the answers he got tended to be the ones he wanted to hear.

I wonder if President Obama would go out among the people and ask that question right now.

Here is a short, very nicely put together blog by Byron York of the Washington Examiner, which may answer the question:

As Obama's ratings go down, down, down, Republicans attack, attack, attack

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
07/29/09 11:16 AM EDT

As he heads into an August recess that could be a make-or-break moment for his health care makeover, Barack Obama's job approval ratings continue to slip, little by little.  The newest poll, done by the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for National Public Radio, has Obama's job approval rating at 53 percent, with 42 percent disapproval.  In the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Obama is at 54.0 approval, 41.1 disapproval.  (As it happens, his disapproval in the RCP average topped 40 percent for the first time last Wednesday, the day of his health care/Gatesgate news conference.)

Just look at the last ten polls listed in the RCP average.  If you take out the two extremes, the most recent ABC/Washington Post poll, which had Obama at 59 percent approval, and the Rasmussen, which had him at 49 percent, this is the trend in Obama's job approval rating in the last three weeks:

57 - 56 - 55 - 55 - 54 - 54 - 53 - 53

In July 2001, I wrote an article for National Review on George W. Bush's job approval ratings, which I said were "wandering listlessly in the low 50 percent range."  Bush pollster Matthew Dowd gave me the full confidence talk, claiming that "Fifty-two or 53 percent is basically [Bush's] equilibrium point."  But the clear feeling among Republicans at the time was concern that Bush, who had won office by the tiniest margin imaginable, after an extended recount and court battle, was unable to rise above the low 50s in job approval. Now, we have a president who won by a solid margin amid great acclamation, and he's at nearly the same point. 

Back in 2001, I asked a well-connected Democratic strategist what Bush's low-50s numbers meant for Democrats.  The answer I got is outdated in its details but spot-on about what falling poll numbers mean.  "The numbers…tell Tom Daschle to push full steam ahead on patients' bill of rights and make Bush veto it," the strategist said.  "They tell Dick Gephardt to push full steam ahead on a discharge petition and a vote on campaign finance reform and make the president veto it.  They tell Democrats to push full steam ahead on the environment."

Weeks later, September 11 changed the calculation for Bush.  But when a president's job approval numbers are falling, heading toward 50 percent, the message the opposition takes from that is as clear today as it was then: attack, attack, attack.

Although Mr. York eliminated the lowest poll number (Rasmussen) it is worth looking at by itself,  The latest data show 49% approval  for Mr. Obama versus 50% dispapproval.  But, the day after being inaugurated, Barack Obama was at 65% - 30% in that same poll.   If these data are accurate, therefore, Mr. Obama has dropped 16% in approval and risen 20% in disapproval in just one half year.

You might ask "Is it because the Republican strategy is working?"  I would answer "WHAT strategy?" 

Nope, it's not the Republican strategy at all.  Barack Obama's problems are almost completely self-inflicted.

When you take over the presidency and your huge-majority congress literally shuts the door on any input from the other party, one of two things is likely to happen:

-Either things work out well, and you get all the credit, or

-Things don't work out well and you get all the blame.

Now think about how President Obama is doin' - on unemployment, cap and trade, health care, etc. etc. etc.

If you want to understand why Mr. Obama's poll numbers have headed so far south so fast, that just might have something to do with it.

Ken Berwitz

Michelle Malkin's latest column is shown below.  I won't leave out a word and I don't need to comment on it afterwards.

The only people who need to read this are those who care about whether the US government is being run democratically or mafia-style.  If you're one of them, this is for you:

Bully boys: A brief history of White House thuggery
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

 

Six months into the Obama administration, it should now be clear to all Americans: Hope and Change came to the White House wrapped in brass knuckles.

 

Ask the Congressional Budget Office. Last week, President Obama spilled the beans on the Today Show that he had met with CBO director Douglas Elmendorf – just as the number-crunchers were casting ruinous doubt on White House cost-saving claims. Yes, question the timing. The CBO is supposed to be a neutral score-keeper – not a water boy for the White House. But when the meeting failed to stop the CBO from issuing more analysis undercutting the health care savings claims, Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag played the heavy.

 

Orszag warned the CBO in a public letter that it risked feeding the perception that it was “exaggerating costs and underestimating savings.” Message: Leave the number-fudging to the boss. Capiche?

 

President Obama issued an even more explicit order to unleash the hounds on Blue Dog Democrats during his health care press conference. “Keep up the heat” translated into Organizing for America/Democrat National Committee attack ads on moderate Democrats who have revolted against Obamacare’s high costs and expansive government powers over medical decisions.

 

Looks like there won’t be a health care beer summit any time soon.

 

The CBO and the Blue Dogs got off easy compared to inspectors generals targeted by Team Obama goons. Gerald Walpin, the former Americorps inspector general was slimed as mentally incompetent (“confused” and “disoriented”) after blowing the whistle on several cases of community service tax fraud, including the case of Obama crony Kevin Johnson. As I’ve reported previously, Johnson’s the NBA star-turned-Sacramento Democrat mayor who ran a federally-funded non-profit group employing AmeriCorps volunteers that were exploited to perform campaign work for Johnson and provided personal services (car washes, errands) to Johnson and his staff.

 

Walpin filed suit last week to get his job back – and to defend the integrity and independence of inspector generals system-wide. But he faces hardball tactics from both the West Wing and the East Wing, where First Lady Michelle Obama has been intimately involved in personnel decisions at AmeriCorps, according to youth service program insiders.

 

At the Environmental Protection Agency, top Obama officials muzzled veteran researcher Alan Carlin, who dared to question the conventional wisdom on global warming. The economist with a physics degree was trashed as a non-scientist know-nothing.

 

Obama Treasury officials forced banks to take TARP bailout money they didn’t want and obstructed banks that wanted to pay back TARP money from doing so. The administration strong-armed Chrysler creditors and strong-armed Chrysler dealers using politicized tactics that united both House Democrats and Republicans, who passed an amendment last week reversing President Obama on the closure of nearly 800 Chrysler car dealerships and more than 2,000 GM dealerships.

 

At the Justice Department, Obama lawyers are now blocking a House inquiry into the suspicious decision to dismiss default judgments against radical New Black Panther Party activists who intimidated voters and poll workers on Election Day in Philadelphia. The DOJ is preventing Virginia Republican Rep. Frank Wolf from meeting with the trial team in the case. Rep. Wolf has been pressing for answers on what communications Attorney General Eric Holder and his deputies conducted with third-party interest groups and other political appointees about the case. So far: radio silence.

 

In the mafia culture, the bully boys depend on a code of silence and allegiance – omerta — not only among their brethren, but also from the victims. The victims of Obama thugocracy are no longer cooperating. Perhaps it won’t be long until some of the enforcers start to sing, too.

Ken Berwitz

Did Henry Louis Gates lie about his encounter with Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley?  And do the tapes which have been made public prove that he lied?

Andrew Cline, editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union-Leader (a newspaper with a conservative editorial position) thinks so.  Here is his case.  You decide:

Gates Lied

By Andrew Cline on 7.29.09 @ 6:07AM

Henry Louis Gates Jr., director of Harvard's W.E.B. Dubois Institute for African and African-American Research, said he hoped his arrest for disorderly conduct on July 16 would be a teachable moment for America. Boy, has it ever been. 

 Monday, the City of Cambridge released the 911 and arrest tapes from the incident in which Gates was arrested by white police officer James Crowley. It is no wonder that Gates has begun to back down from his allegations of racism. The tapes show no such motivation, and they confirm that Gates was being disorderly, which he had denied.

 The tapes reveal a couple of crucial points. 1) the woman who reported the possible break-in at Gates' home never mentioned black males at all. 2) Gates was in fact shouting, despite his claim that this was impossible. 

 Gates' allegations of being racially profiled by a lying, racist officer collapse upon the tapes' revelations. Officer Crowley was not looking for black men. He had no idea what race the suspects were. And Gates was indeed being disorderly. 

 In a July 21 interview published on The Root, a website Gates founded, he said, "The police report says I was engaged in loud and tumultuous behavior. That's a joke. Because I have a severe bronchial infection which I contracted in China and for which I was treated and have a doctor's report from the Peninsula hotel in Beijing. So I couldn't have yelled. I can't yell even today, I'm not fully cured." 

 In the tapes, Gates can clearly be heard shouting in the background. 

 He told his daughter in a July 22 interview on The Daily Beast:

 If I had been white this incident never would have happened. He would have asked at the door, "Excuse me, are you okay? Because there are two black men around here try'na rob you" .... So race definitely played a role. Whether he's an individual racist? I don't know -- I don't know him. But I think he stereotyped me. 

 And that's what racial profiling is all about. I was cast by him in a narrative and he didn't know how to get out of it...  

The tapes reveal that on the way to the house, Crowley asked what race the suspects were. Dispatch reported, "unknown on the race, one may be Hispanic, (unintelligible) I'm not sure." 

 The only one cast in a pre-conceived narrative that day was Officer Crowley. Gates acknowledged in his Root interview that he saw Crowley and immediately feared for his own safety.   

All of a sudden, there was a policeman on my porch. And I thought, "This is strange." So I went over to the front porch still holding the phone, and I said "Officer, can I help you?" And he said, "Would you step outside onto the porch." And the way he said it, I knew he wasn't canvassing for the police benevolent association. All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, "No, I will not." 

 He further explained:  

Now it's clear that he had a narrative in his head: A black man was inside someone's house, probably a white person's house, and this black man had broken and entered, and this black man was me.  

 But the evidence strongly suggests that it was Gates who had the pre-fabricated narrative in his head. And that narrative was that a racist white cop was confronting him because he was black. 

 Gates began peddling that theory immediately -- literally. He shouted to the bystanders who had gathered before his house upon hearing the commotion, "This is what happens to black men in America!" He threatened a lawsuit and he told anyone who would listen that he was arrested for being black. 

 Like Woody Allen seeing anti-Semitism everywhere in Annie Hall, Gates projected his own prejudice onto Sgt. Crowley. The moment Sgt. Crowley appeared in his sight, Gates "knew" why: racism. 

 Thankfully, there were witnesses. Two other police officers who were there -- one Hispanic, one black -- confirmed Crowley's account and defended the arrest. The Gates neighbor who snapped the now famous photo of the professor on his porch in handcuffs said, "I know he (Gates) was tired and upset, but someone of his stature and education should be a little more understanding." 

 The recordings support the accounts provided by the officers and witnesses. The tapes answer the two most important questions. No, no one reported a break-in by black men, and yes, Gates did shout at Crowley. 

 The evidence against Gates' story is so compelling that on Monday the black mayor of Cambridge, Denise Simmons, said upon the release of the tapes, "I strongly support our commissioner Bob Haas." That would be Police Commissioner Robert Haas, who fully backs Crowley. Haas said yesterday, "the tapes speak for themselves." 

 In his Daily Beast interview, Gates said, "Well, the police report was an act of pure fiction. One designed to protect him, Sgt. Crowley, from unethical behavior. I was astonished at the audacity of the lies in the police report, and almost the whole thing from start to finish was just pure fabrication."

 No, it wasn't. 

 This episode was indeed a teaching moment, but the lesson is not what Gates envisioned. It is the lesson taught in David Mamet's Oleana and Philip Roth's The Human Stain. People conditioned to see others not as individuals but as representatives of a whole race or class will do exactly that. In the process, individuality is erased. There are no human-to-human encounters, but only larger clashes between races or classes. Every interaction between people of different races, even the most mundane or innocent, has a larger political meaning. All actions are seen through distorting lenses until the individuals involved disappear entirely and all that is left are blurred hues of dark and light. 

 That is the world Henry Louis Gates Jr. seems to have created for himself. In that world, Officer James Crowley doesn't exist. The real James Crowley was hand-picked by a black police commissioner to teach new recruits how not to racially profile, tried to save the life of a black Boston Celtics star, and has the unqualified backing of the black officers who know and serve with him. The instant he was perceived through the eyes of Henry Louis Gates Jr., however, Officer James Crowley ceased to exist. In his place was White Officer Questioning An Innocent Black Man. 

 The lesson America ought to learn from this incident is that Gates' image of the world as a place in which individuals are little more than pawns in the greater historical conflict between the races is fatally misconceived. It is a projection of a hopelessly erroneous political theory that, from time to time, reality disproves in a grand way. 

I will add one personal note which, I suppose might affect your take on this piece (though I hope it doesn't).  I heard a segment of the tapes on the Today show this morning, and it sounded like someone was yelling, or at the very least saying something with a raised voice, in the background.  Since I am not that familiar with Professor Gates' voice and the words themselves were not clearly audible, I do not know whether or not it was him.

Ken Berwitz

Want to know how desperate Democrats are to scam you into believing the "stimulus package" is working?  Read this excerpt from an article by Ryon Kost of the Associated Press and find out:

SPIN METER: 'Help Wanted' counting stimulus jobs

By RYAN KOST (AP) – 1 day ago

 

PORTLAND, Ore. — How much are politicians straining to convince people that the government is stimulating the economy? In Oregon, where lawmakers are spending $176 million to supplement the federal stimulus, Democrats are taking credit for a remarkable feat: creating 3,236 new jobs in the program's first three months.

 

But those jobs lasted on average only 35 hours, or about one work week. After that, those workers were effectively back unemployed, according to an Associated Press analysis of state spending and hiring data. By the state's accounting, a job is a job, whether it lasts three hours, three days, three months, or a lifetime.

 

"Sometimes some work for an individual is better than no work," said Oregon's Senate president, Peter Courtney.

With the economy in tatters and unemployment rising, Oregon's inventive math underscores the urgency for politicians across the country to show that spending programs designed to stimulate the economy are working — even if that means stretching the facts.

 

At the federal level, President Barack Obama has said the federal stimulus has created 150,000 jobs, a number based on a misused formula and which is so murky it can't be verified.

Are they lying to your face?  Using the narrowest interpretation possible, they are not.  If someone works for a week, he/she has been employed.

But does this bear any relation whatsoever to the jobs the "stimulus" package was supposed to create?  No.  You cannot find a context narrow enough for that.

So are these data a scam to into believing the "stimulus package" is working?  You bet it is.

These people will pull BS like this 24/7 if media don't call them to account on it.  And, despite the AP story I just excerpted, I didn't see a thing about this on the Today show this morning (ok, maybe I missed it.  But I don't think so).  And it isn't in the NY Times either.

I also checked the Portland Oregonian's web page.  There is no mention of the scam there either.  However, there was room for a story about the Portland Zoo's new elephant. 

I guess the 800 lb. gorilla I am calling "stimulus scamulus" was less important.

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

Ken Berwitz

If Fox News Channel (FNC) finds keith olbermann an obnoxious, tasteless, viciously offensive loudmouth - as well they should - why did they hire his right wing clone and hand him a show?

glen beck is an obnoxious, tasteless, viciously offensive loudmouth. 

Does he have some facts that are indisputable and is he sometimes right in his conclusions?  Yes and yes - just as olbermann does and is (a broken clock is sometimes right too).  But that doesn't change what glen beck is or how he comports himself.

Here, excerpted from an Associated Press article, is the latest example of what I'm talking about (among many to choose from):

Fox's Glenn Beck: President Obama is a racist

By DAVID BAUDER (AP)

 

NEW YORK — Fox News Channel commentator Glenn Beck said he believes President Barack Obama is a racist.

Beck made the statement during a guest appearance Tuesday on the "Fox & Friends" morning show. He said Obama has exposed himself as a person with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture."

His remarks came during a discussion of Obama's reaction to the arrest of Harvard University scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. Gates is black and was arrested for disorderly conduct by a white policeman over a misunderstanding about a break-in at Gates' home.

 

An Obama spokesman, William Burton, said the White House had no comment on Beck.

 

Beck's statement was challenged on the air by Fox host Brian Kilmeade, who noted that most of the people who work for the nation's first black president are white.

 

"I'm not saying he doesn't like white people," Beck said. "He has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."

Good for Brian Kilmeade, whose challenge to beck's imbecilic mouthings was a needed breath of fresh air.

It is true that beck's ratings are very high, and rapidly moving even higher.  Why?  I think it is partly because people who like his point of view have no alternative in that time slot, coupled with the fact that the competition he does have is CNN's unexciting Wolf Blitzer and MSNBC's perrenial cellar-dweller Chris Matthews.  How fortuitous.

Given his success so far, the only way beck will be taken off the air is if he keeps making even more obnoxious, tasteless, offensive comments, to the point where FNC will have to cut him loose.  But this is a ratings-driven business, therefore I would not count on that happening any time soon.

So, for the forseeable future glen beck is, and will remain, an affront to good taste and an embarrassment to FNC.

Ken Berwitz

We haven't played "Name That Party!" in a while.  But last week's sting in New Jersey that resulted in 44 arrests has provided an excellent opportunity for another episode of the game. 

About half the people arrested (21 of the 44) are involved in politics, from mayors to assembly members to aides to strategists (one of whom is now dead and may have committed suicide).  I have waited several days for mainstream media to identify them by party - something I would think everyone would like to know.  But, other than the Associated Press (to its credit), virtually no one has. 

So it is time to play......Name That Party!

Here, contestants, are the names of every political person who was arrested:

Jersey City Council President Mariano Vega, who is also a Jersey City Housing Authority commissioner and Director of Parks, Engineering and Planning for Hudson County

Former Jersey City Councilman and former state Assemblyman L. Harvey Smith

Assemblyman Daniel Van Pelt

Former Jersey City City Council Lori Serrano

Vincent Tabbachino

Ridgefield Mayor Anthony Suarez

Secaucus Mayor Dennis Elwell

Jersey City Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini

Political operative Joseph Cardwell

Former Hoboken Councilman Michael Schaffer, who now works for North Hudson Sewerage Authority

Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano III

Former Jersey City Council candidate Guy Catrillo

Political operative Jack Shaw

Hudson County Affirmative Action officer Edward Cheatam, also a Jersey City Housing Authority commissioner

Former Jersey City City Council candidate LaVern Webb-Washington

Former state Assemblyman and perennial candidate Lou Manzo

Former Jersey City City Council candidate Michael J. Manzo

Ron Manzo, brother of Lou Manzo

Richard Greene, former aide to L. Harvey Smith

Former 13th District congressional candidate John Guarini, also a city taxi inspector

Former 32nd District Senate candidate Denis Jaslow

Can you...Name That Party?????  Remember, I didn't ask if you can guess (and I'm betting you'll guess right just about every time).  Can you name the party for each of these arrested politicos?

...............................................................................BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ    Time's up.

Ok, let me give you a hint.  There are 21 names on the list.  See that guy Daniel Van Pelt?  The assemblyman who is third from the top?  He is a Republican.

See the other 20 names?  They're not Republicans.  They are Democrats.  Every one of them.

In other words, of the 21 politicians/political workers arrested.  20 of them are Democrats.  And our wonderful "neutral" media has buried this fact so deep that you'd have to fire a rocket ship from China to find it.

By contrast, the fact that many of the remaining 23 were Syrian Jews and several among them were rabbis?  Try to find a news account that didn't make sure to mention it.  Feel free to draw your own conclusions

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

Ken Berwitz

National anthems are supposed to tell us what is in the heart and soul of the countries/territories which take them as their own.

Below are two anthems which do just that.  One is "Hatikvah" (The Hope), Israel's national anthem.  The other is the Palestinian national anthem.

Read the words and you will understand where each side is coming from -- and why peace is so hard to accomplish:  

The Israeli National Anthem (Hatikvah)

 

As long as deep in the heart,
The soul of a Jew yearns,
And forward to the East
To Zion, an eye looks
Our hope will not be lost,
The hope of two thousand years,
To be a free nation in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

 

 

The Palestinian National Anthem:

 

My country , my country
My country, the land of my grand fathers
My country, my country
My country, my nation, the nation of eternity
With my determination, my fire and the volcano of my revenge
The longing of my blood to my land and home
I have climbed the mountains and fought the wars
I have conquered the impossible, and crossed the frontiers
My country, my country, the nation of eternity
With the resolve of the winds and the fire of the guns
And the determination of my nation in the land of struggle
Palestine is my home, Palestine is my fire, Palestine is my revenge and the land of eternal
My country, my country, the nation of eternity
I swear under the shade of the flag
To my land and nation, and the fire of pain
I will live as a guerrilla, I will go on as guerrilla, I will expire as guerrilla until I will be back
My country, my country, the nation of eternity

Notice any difference in outlook between these two anthems?  I thought you would.

Ken Berwitz

Ever vigilant to make hugo chavez happy, here is the latest favor President Obama has accorded his protegé, ousted Honduran President manuel zelaya:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The State Department says it has revoked the diplomatic visas of four Honduran officials working in its interim government.  

The announcement comes as the United States has been pressing for Honduras to allow the return of exiled President Manuel Zelaya.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly did not specify Tuesday the names of the four officials, who he said are not in the United States. Kelly said that the department is reviewing the visas of all members of the interim government.

He said the revocations was in keeping with the U.S. policy of not recognizing the interim government

When chavez stops laughing, I'm sure he'll be smart enough to send a thank-you note. 

Now, when will President Obama be smart enough to support the people who followed Honduras' constitution, rather than the guy who proactively trashed it so he could become a dictator?

Ken Berwitz

Take a look at this 7 year old  (I initially read he was 7, but, to me, he looks no more than 4 or so years old) dance, and decide for yourself:

Ken Berwitz

If you've been led to believe that the only people who hate are "rightwingers/wingnuts/rabid right/etc. etc. etc.", this latest blog by Michelle Malkin should be quite a revelation:

E-mails of the day

By Michelle Malkin  •  July 28, 2009 12:01 AM

 

My appearance on FNC’s Hannity show last night (vid at Hot Air) to talk about Culture of Corruption prompted many bitter e-mails from Obama-bots, but this one takes the cake:

 

from Del Hughes delhughes@suddenlink.net
to writemalkin@gmail.com
date Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:42 PM
subject Book
mailed-by suddenlink.net

 

How do you, an Oriental, get on national TV and say and write such hard things about the President and several of his staff without being sued for slander? If you wrote about me like you have written about all these other people, I would sue you for slander in heartbeat.

 

“Orientals” on TV! Appalling!

 

Guess what? Del Hughes was not alone in his/her dismay over a brown-skinned critic of Obama on the TV.

Look:

 

from barou yoplo yoplo54@yahoo.com
to writemalkin@gmail.com
date Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:27 PM

subject Don’t Forget Where You Coming From
mailed-by yahoo.com
signed-by yahoo.com

 

Miss,

 

I follow your steps since the election and apparently you forgot where you coming from.

I will be glad to have a debate with about your book, your vision, and you being an Asian who forgot where she is coming from.

 

You and your friends are not in a good position to judge anyone, nor having the right to assume someone is corrupted without a concrete proof. So be careful for what you wish for.

 

And here’s yet another race-based missive that landed in the in-box tonight. This one earns special recognition for creative spelling:

 

from Chatora8@aol.com
to writemalkin@gmail.com
date Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM
subject (no subject)
mailed-by aol.com

 

Michelle Malkin you are a stupid asian BITCH.The only reason you are on t.v is because americans feel so so sorry for you.

 

It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

So go and sell your body some more.

 

So that you can send money back home to support your slummish asian family.

 

Michelle A.K.A undercover HORE.

 

Hey, so much for post-racial America! Why don’t we all just have a beer and stop racial profiling, hmmm?

I have nothing to add here.  That little sampling should bring it home pretty clearly. 

Ken Berwitz

"One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an ear full of cider":  Guys & Dolls:  Sky Masterson, relating his father's advice about making bets.

When there were a bunch of going-nowhere lawsuits, but no likelihood that any of them would result in Barack Obama's original birth certificate being made public, the Director of Hawaii's Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, issued this statement:

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record"

 

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures"

As you can see, Dr. Fukino said that Barack Obama's original birth certificate is on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.  She did not say that it shows Barack Obama is eligible to be President of the United States.  

Since Mr. Obama's eligibility was the only reason anyone was clamoring for a look at his original birth certificate, I conclude Dr. Fukino intentionally worded her response to make it seem as though this issue was addressed, without actually saying one way or the other.  

If so, it certainly worked.  Countless talking heads have claimed her statement ended the eligibility issue, even though it clearly did not.

But now that mainstream people are increasingly insistent (have increasingly been embarrassed into acknowledging) that the issue remains unresolved, and are wondering out loud why the birth certificate is being hidden at all costs, Dr. Fukino has made another statement:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago ... “

Based on this new statement, I no longer believe there is any value to seeing Barack Obama's original birth certificate.  Because as sure as you stand there, the document Dr. Fukino produces will say exactly what she is now claiming.

I will wipe the cider from my ear and move on.

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

ADDENDUM:  It just hit me:  I am not predicting this. But:

-If in the near future Barack Obama - who spent a fortune over the past year to hide his original birth certificate - comes out with something along the lines of "Look, I've tried not to do this because I know I'm natural born and the whole thing was so silly, but since it isn't ending I'm instructing Dr. Fukino to release my original birth certificate, then I don't want to hear about this again"...

-...and an original materializes that confirms he is natural born, which he could just as easily have shown us all this time...

-...I will smell a rat from here to Seattle (and I live in New Jersey).

Ken Berwitz

Steve Gilbert, at www.sweetness-light.com is amazing.  No other way to describe him.  Look at what he finds.  Look at the information he comes up with, all from credible sources - which our wonderful "neutral" mainstream media ever seem to be able to put together.

Today's subject is health care.  And Steve shows Hawaii's attempt at what President Obama would like - nationalized  health care (in Hawaii's case that would be "state-ized" I suppose) - and how it has worked out.

I'll let Steve take it from here:

Remember Hawaii’s Health Care Lessons

July 28th, 2009

Just 16 years ago Hawaii was held up as a model for national universal health-care. Now it is broke and even its vaunted employer mandated coverage is not guaranteeing everyone is getting coverage.

From the archives of the New York Times:

Hawaii Health Care Is Called a Model for U.S.

May 19, 1993

Hawaii’s universal health-care system, which insures 96.5 percent of the state’s residents and costs less than health care in other states and Canada, could serve as a national model, health officials from Hawaii say in a new report.

The report also says that requiring employers to provide insurance for employees who work at least 20 hours a week has not bankrupted small businesses, as some feared when the plan went into effect 19 years ago.

"In fact, some indirect indicators suggest that the effect may be positive," said the report, to be published on Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association…

Hawaiians rank at or near the top in health status compared with other Americans, the health officials said.

"We believe a considerable amount of this success is attributable to direct and indirect effects of Hawaii’s employer mandate," they said, adding that the state’s approach receive serious attention as a task force headed by Hillary Rodham Clinton considers health-care changes…

Hawaii was also held up as as a model during the recent debate about expanding the federal State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), since it was the only state universal child health care program in the country.

But that didn’t last too long.

From the Associated Press:

Hawaii Ends Universal Child Health Care 7 Months After Start

Saturday , October 18, 2008

HONOLULU — Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.

Gov. Linda Lingle’s administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don’t believe that was the intent of the program." …

Hawaii lawmakers approved the health plan in 2007 as a way to ensure every child can get basic medical help. The Keiki (child) Care program aimed to cover every child from birth to 18 years old who didn’t already have health insurance..

State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn’t need it.

The Republican governor signed Keiki Care into law in 2007, but it and many other government services are facing cuts as the state deals with a projected $900 million general fund shortfall by 2011…

Families with children currently enrolled in the universal system are being encouraged to seek more comprehensive Medicaid coverage, which may be available to children in a family of four earning up to $73,000 annually.

These children also could sign up for the HMSA Children’s Plan, which costs about $55 a month…

Despite Hawaii’s experience, the expansion of SCHIP was still rammed through Congress as soon as the Obama administration was sworn in.

Meanwhile Hawaii’s hospitals have losing money for eight years and are going broke.

From the Associated Press:

Hospitals in Hawaii report $150 million in ’07 losses

October 24, 2008

HONOLULU (AP) – Hawaii hospitals suffered operating losses of $150 million last year and expect the situation to worsen in the near future…

Hawaii Medical Center, which operates two former St. Francis hospitals on Oahu, filed for bankruptcy this year and cut the number of beds it offers.

The state’s publicly subsidized hospital network, Hawaii Health Systems Corp., has had to request millions in emergency funding from the state to stay afloat.

Kona Community Hospital, part of the network, laid off 10 percent of its workers. Also on the Big Island, the privately run North Hawaii Community Hospital laid off 12.6 percent of its staff.

A Ernst & Young LLP report released Thursday, and prepared for the Healthcare Association, shows hospitals as a group have sustained operating losses for eight consecutive years.

Reimbursements from Medicare, which represent about one-third of Hawaii patient charges, only covered 77 percent of costs. Medicaid/ Quest payments covered about 71 percent of costs.

Payments from private insurers such as the Hawaii Medical Service Association cover slightly more than expenses, but they are not enough to make up for losses produced in providing medical services to Medicare and Medicaid/Quest patients…

And, on top of everything else, it turns out that Hawaii’s wonderful employer mandated health-care isn’t working out so well, after all.

Strangely enough, businesses have found ways to get around it. Such as hiring fewer than 20 employees.

From the Honolulu Advertiser:

Isle health care law questioned

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

A law enacted in Hawai’i in 1974 that requires employers to provide health insurance for employees working at least 20 hours a week is being cited by researchers who are skeptical of similar mandates being suggested in the argument for universal health care.

The result of Hawai’i’s Prepaid Health Care Act has been that businesses have relied more on employees who work fewer than 20 hours a week and thus aren’t covered under the requirement, wrote San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank research adviser Rob Valletta and co-authors Tom Buchmueller and John DiNardo, both University of Michigan professors.

The results of the research into health insurance coverage in Hawai’i "imply that an employer mandate is not an effective means for achieving universal coverage," they wrote.

"Although overall insurance coverage rates are unusually high in Hawai’i, a substantial number of people remain uninsured, suggesting a need for alternative approaches if universal coverage is the ultimate goal," they said…

So the solution is obvious – stricter mandates from the Federal Government.

By the way, the Heritage Foundation had challenged the idea of using Hawaii as a model for any national system back in 1994.

Here is the conclusions of one of their reports at the time:

A Critique of the Hawaii Health Care System

by Hellreich, Phillip D., Dr.
Heritage Lecture #496

August 4, 1994

… In conclusion, Hawaii has had most of the components of the Clinton health care proposals in effect since the enactment of its Prepaid Health Care Act in 1974.

It has failed in its two major goals of 1) decreasing the number of Hawaii’s population that were uninsured and 2) curtailing the ever-rising costs of health care delivery.

In order to control spiraling health care costs, it has just instituted its Health Quest Program, which will severely ration care and deprive most of the citizens of our state of their right to be treated by the physician of their choice. In light of this information, the American people and members of Congress should think long and hard before enacting a health care proposal which shares so many features of Hawaii’s Prepaid Health Care Act.

Isn’t it odd how we no longer hear about Hawaii being the model for a US system of healthcare?

Probably because it turned out to show us all too clearly where we will be headed under its favorite son’s ‘Obama-Care,’ after all.

There it is.  Right on the 50 yard line.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Ken Berwitz

This gem was picked up by www.cnsnews.com.  It quotes John Conyers, the long-time, near-unremovable congressperson from Detroit (the one who illegally used his staff for his personal needs and whose wife just resigned from the Detroit City Council in disgrace after admitting that she accepted bribe money).

And what does Mr. Conyers have to say?  Well he is discussing whether or not he should read legislation before voting on it.

Huh?

Nope, that is no misprint.  That is what he is discussing.  And here's what he has to say:

Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them
Monday, July 27, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) - During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

. If you didn't see this you wouldn't believe it.

His answer to not having anywhere enough time to read monumentally expensive and important legislation before voting on it is to be given enough time to read it through and know what is being voted on to just not read it because, after all, what good would that do.

Oh, in case you're wondering:  This genius, who has been in congress since first being elected in 1964, is chairman of the house judiciary committee. 

God help us.

Ken Berwitz

Chris Dodd is a disgrace.  He has been a disgrace for a long time in many different ways.  And he has always been protected by the fact that he is a Democrat and, for the most part, a political liberal.  But how much can even a compromised media take?

It looks like the Washington Post is now off Dodd's wagon.  And it's about time.

Here is the beginning of yesterday's article, detailing one of the various examples of Dodd's misfeasance and fraudulence:

AP IMPACT:  Dodd, Conrad told deals were sweetened

By LARRY MARGASAK

The Associated Press
Monday, July 27, 2009; 9:52 PM

 

WASHINGTON -- Despite their denials, influential Democratic  Sens. Kent Conrad and  Chris Dodd were told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.

 

Both senators have said that at the time the mortgages were being written they didn't know they were getting unique deals from Countrywide Financial Corp., the company that went on to lose billions of dollars on home loans to credit-strapped borrowers. Dodd still maintains he got no preferential treatment.

 

Dodd got two Countrywide mortgages in 2003, refinancing his home in Connecticut and another residence in Washington. Conrad's two Countrywide mortgages in 2004 were for a beach house in Delaware and an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck in his home state of North Dakota.

 

Robert Feinberg, who worked in Countrywide's VIP section, told congressional investigators last month that the two senators were made aware that "who you know is basically how you're coming in here."

 

"You don't say 'no' to the VIP," Feinberg told Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press.

 

The next day, Feinberg testified before the Senate Ethics Committee, an indication the panel is actively investigating two of the chamber's more powerful members:

 

- Dodd heads the Banking Committee and is a major player in two big areas: solving the housing foreclosure and financial crises and putting together an overhaul of the U.S. health care system. A five-term senator, he is in a tough fight for re-election in 2010, partly because of the controversy over his mortgages.

 

- Conrad chairs the Budget Committee. He, too, shares an important role in the health care debate, as well as on legislation to curb global warming.

 

Both senators were VIP borrowers in the program known as "friends of Angelo." Angelo Mozilo was chief executive of Countrywide, which played a big part in the foreclosure crisis triggered by defaults on subprime loans. The Calabasas, Calif.-based company was bought last July by Bank of America Corp. for about $2.5 billion.

 

Mozilo has been charged with civil fraud and illegal insider trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission. He denies any wrongdoing.

 

Asked by a House Oversight investigator if Conrad, the North Dakota senator, "was aware that he was getting preferential treatment?" Feinberg answered: "Yes, he was aware."

Yes, Dodd's fellow Democratic Senator Kent Conrad appears just as guilty.  But this particular blog is centering on Chris Dodd.

-He was neck-deep in the Enron scandal.

-He was neck-deep in the sub-prime mortgage disaster.

-He personally inserted language in the so-called "stimulus package" that enabled those AIG bonuses we were all so outraged over - and then lied about doing so before finally admitting the truth.

-He lied about the value (thus tax implications) of his property in Ireland.

-He lied about Countrywide.

-And this is before we get to the, er, benefits his position as chairperson of the senate banking committee appear to have provided for his wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd (read about it here).

If Chris Dodd were a Republican he would have been hounded out of office years ago - and rightfully so.  But he isn't a Republican, so there he is, like a bad piece of roast beef in your stomach at 3AM.

Maybe the voters of Connecticut will take care of this stain on the senate next year.  We can only hope.

Ken Berwitz

How do you think Jews (or anyone else) would react to being told there are parts of their own country where they cannot live?

That, literally, is what President Obama demands of Israeli Jews when he tells them they cannot live in East Jerusalem - which comprises half of Israel's capital city.

Here are the particulars, courtesy of Aaron Klein, writing for www.worldnetdaily.com:

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Obama slammed as 'racist' at Jerusalem rally
'This insolence will bring about the downfall of the American leadership'

---

Posted: July 27, 2009
3:55 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

Jerusalem:  President Obama’s policies against Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem and the strategic West Bank were slammed as "racist" today by participants in a rally drawing about 2,000 Israelis in front of the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem.

 

"George Mitchell go home!" yelled protestors in front of the U.S. government building.

 

Mitchell, Obama's envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is here discussing the American administration's call for a halt to all Jewish settlement activity, including natural growth or accommodating the needs of existing Jewish populations in the areas in question.

 

"Obama should not be pressing Israel to compromise and freeze building in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem," protest organizer Yaacov Steinberg told WND.

 

Israel already done for? Read Aaron Klein's "The Late Great State of Israel"

 

"All these steps in the past just brought more Palestinian terror and showed Israeli weakness," said Steinberg, director of a coalition of West Bank Jewish organizations.

 

Speaking at the rally, Rabbi Eliezer Waldman, who heads the prestigious "Nir" Torah seminary in the West Bank city of Kiryat Arba, called Obama a "racist."

 

"How dare he tell the Jews where they can or can't live! The era when Jews were banned from living in different places has ended," Waldman exclaimed. "Obama beware. This insolence will bring about the downfall of the American leadership. Anyone who dares give an order to prevent Israeli life in Jerusalem or anywhere else in the land of Israel is destined to fall," he said.

 

Pinchas Wallerstein, director of the Yesha council of Jewish communities in the West Bank, told the crowds, "This week the American pressure reached new highs that are a shame to democratic societies."

 

Wallerstein was referring to the summoning of Israel's ambassador to Washington last week by the State Department to demand a Jewish construction project in eastern Jerusalem be immediately halted.

 

"It's absolutely an outrageously racist policy," Mort Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, told WND. "Especially in light of how Obama should be sensitive when it comes to anything that would remotely constitute discrimination of people based on ethnicity or religion."

 

The construction project at the center of attention, financed by Miami Beach philanthropist Irving Moskowitz, is located just meters from Israel's national police headquarters and other government ministries. It is a few blocks from the country's prestigious Hebrew University, underscoring the centrality of the Jewish real estate being condemned by the U.S.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly rejected the State Department demand, telling a cabinet meeting Sunday that Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem was not a matter up for discussion.

 

"Imagine what would happen if someone were to suggest Jews could not live in or purchase [property] in certain neighborhoods in London, New York, Paris or Rome," he said.

 

"The international community would certainly raise protest. Likewise, we cannot accept such a ruling on East Jerusalem," Netanyahu told ministers.

 

In a statement released to WND, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, long considered one of the most powerful Jewish groups in the U.S., took strong issue with the U.S. demand against Jewish construction in Jerusalem.

 

"We find disturbing the objections raised to the proposed construction of residential units on property that was legally purchased and approved by the appropriate authorities. The area in question houses major Israeli governmental agencies, including the national police headquarters."

 

"The U.S. has in the past and recently raised objections to the removal of illegal structures built by Arabs in eastern Jerusalem even though they were built in violation of zoning and other requirements often on usurped land," read the statement.

 

The group's statement pointed out Moskowitz's housing project formerly was the house of the infamous mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who spent the war years in Berlin as a close ally of Adolf Hitler, aiding and abetting the Nazi extermination of Jews.

 

Al-Husseini was also linked to the 1929 massacre of Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron and to other acts of incitement that resulted in death and destruction in what was then called Palestine. Some Palestinians have expressed a desire to preserve the building as a tribute to Husseini.

 

Historically, there was never any separation between eastern and western Jerusalem. The terminology came after Jordan occupied the eastern section of the city, including the Temple Mount, from 1947 until it used the territory to attack the Jewish state in 1967. Israel reunited Jerusalem when it won the 1967 Six Day War.

Amazing, isn't it?  A Black President demanding that a group of people be segregated out of parts of a city.  The imagery is beyond disturbing. 

Is it a crime for Blacks to be deprived this way, but ok for Jews? 

And if Mr. Obama feels that Jews cannot live in "Palestinian" parts of Jerusalem, does he also demand that Arabs be forced out of the many areas within Israel that Jews and Arabs live together?  Or should Jews just get out of the whole country and leave it for them? 

In the the last election, exit polls showed that 78% of Jews voted for Barack Obama.  Presumably, most of them support Israel.  I hope they're happy with what they got.

Speaking as one of the other 22%, I assure you I am not. 

Ken Berwitz

Paul Mirengoff writes for www.powerlineblog.com.  He also is now writing for the Washington Examiner.

Here is his latest column, in the form of Godfather-like advice to President Obama:

Paul Mirengoff: What President Obama can learn from the Godfather

By: Paul Mirengoff
Sunday Reflections Contributor
July 26, 2009

It was the Godfather who said "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Though President Obama seems to be following the second part of this dictate, assuming he understands that Hugo Chavez and Russia's leaders are our adversaries, he is not keeping America's friends close. Instead, he seems to be going out of his way to alienate them.

Consider Great Britain, our staunch ally through two World Wars, the Cold War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush didn't agree on much, but both carefully cultivated our "special relationship" with Britain, and for good reason - the relationship serves our military, diplomatic, intelligence gathering, and trading interests. There's much to be said for having a powerful nation consistently in our corner.

Yet Obama signaled right away that, in his view, there was nothing special about our relationship with Great Britain. He had little to say about Britain in his early foreign policy speeches, and his first meaningful act towards the British consisted of returning a bust of Winston Churchill. The bust had been loaned to the White House after the 9/11 attacks as a demonstration of solidarity with the United States.

Later, when Obama met in Washington with Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister received neither a full-blown press conference, nor a formal dinner. And when the two exchanged gifts, Obama gave Brown a 25-box DVD set of classic American films. The gift was sufficiently embarrassing that the British government tried to keep it a secret.

The administration attempted to excuse Obama's shabby treatment of Brown, claiming that the president was "overwhelmed" by the domestic economic situation. But a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit was probably closer to the mark when he told an English newspaper: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

Obama's ham-handed treatment of Britain has been confined, as far as we know, to symbolic matters. This cannot be said of his dealings with Israel.

The president wasted little time in picking a fight with the Israeli government over West Bank settlements. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed not to build new "outpost" settlements on the West Bank and, indeed, to tear down such settlements.

Obama, though, demanded that Israel cease any construction within its existing core settlements. This included "natural growth" construction to accommodate the grown children of settlers.

Obama thereby reneged on a U.S. commitment regarding settlements contained in a 2004 letter. The Israeli Knesset relied on this commitment when it voted to approve the removal of all settlements from Gaza.

Obama's demand may have impressed Arab governments and the Palestinians, but it did nothing to advance his stated purpose of facilitating a Middle East peace agreement. Netanyahu flatly rejected Obama's position and Israeli public overwhelmingly supported him.

Meanwhile, Israeli politicians across much of the political spectrum questioned whether the Obama administration, having reneged on a commitment made to induce Israel to "take risks for peace," was a reliable go-between in any future peace initiatives.

But Obama wasn't done. As his diplomats scrambled to resolve the impasse created by his demand regarding West Bank settlements, Obama picked a new fight. He demanded that Israel freeze construction in an east Jerusalem housing complex, in the heart of the city, where a mere 20 units are slated to be built.

With this demand, Obama walked away from a U.S. commitment contained in an act of Congress. The 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital and declares that the city should "remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected."

Israel, for its part, protects the rights of Arabs to build in Jerusalem. As the Israeli Foreign Minister noted, thousands of Arab families build houses in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. By insisting that Jews be discriminated against in Jerusalem, of all places, Obama risked not just losing his status as a good faith intermediary, but becoming a laughingstock in Israel.

Great Britain was once a colonial power and Israel is despised by many leftists. But India, which answers to neither description, might have expected warmer treatment from Obama. It is, after all, a rising power in a key part of the world and a natural ally with whom President Bush was able to forge bold energy and trade deals.

Nonetheless, India fell victim to Obama's ally-alienating last week when Secretary of State Clinton attempted to pressure it to accept binding limits on carbon emissions. Clinton did so despite the fact that (1) India's carbon emissions are among the lowest in the world on a per capita basis and (2) its economy has been wracked by the global financial crisis.

India might be able to write off Obama's arrogant meddling as the product of climate panic - a case of cultural imperialism to be sure, but nothing personal. However, this will require India to overlook the fact that, with all of Obama's traveling since taking office, he has yet to visit India. Similarly, during Hillary Clinton's first trip to East Asia as secretary of state, she blew off India, citing scheduling problems. That's not keeping your friends close.

Why has Obama violated the intuitively obvious portion of the Godfather's adage? Perhaps there is a side of him that harbors contempt for nations that find large amounts of common ground with the U.S., a country for which Obama himself feels the need constantly to apologize.

Or perhaps, Obama sees himself as a philosopher king, a "neutral" who stands above the "usual politics" of favoring particular nations. From this lofty, ahistorical perch, it may be possible to view Britain as "the same as the other 190 countries in the world."

But the laws of history, including the importance of true allies, still apply. If Obama tries to escape them he will likely find himself echoing Michael Corleone's lament: "just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."

That's damn good advice.  Let's hope President Obama accepts it like Don Vito Corleone would.  Not like Sonny.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a new twist to the Henry Louis Gates incident:  Lucia Whalen, the woman who called 911 about a possible break-in which prompted the police at Professor Gates' home, now has hired a lawyer.  And the lawyer insists she never said the men were Black. 

From today's Boston Herald:

The 40-year-old woman whose emergency call to Cambridge police sparked the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and a raging national debate on race relations claims she never said “black” men were breaking into his house.

“This woman is 100 percent clear on what she said,” said attorney Wendy J. Murphy, who is representing 911 caller Lucia Whalen. “She never said she saw two black men. She said, ‘It never crossed my mind that there were two black men.’ ”

In fact, Whalen, who wants the world to know she is not a racist, isn’t even white - as had been widely reported - but has “olive-colored skin and is of Portuguese descent,” Murphy said.

“She has worked in Cambridge for more than 15 years, about 100 yards from where Mr. Gates resides, and was aware of several recent break-ins in the area,” when she phoned police July 16 to say she saw two men forcing open the front door of a home on Ware Street, Murphy said.

The address turned out to be Gates’ home, where he and his driver were trying to get through his jammed front door. Whalen said she couldn’t have reported the color of the men’s skin, because she was too far away and viewing them from behind, Murphy said.

Cambridge police have yet to release the 911 recording of Whalen’s call

I have a few questions:

-Why does Lucia Whalen need a lawyer?   All she did was call police about seeing a possible break-in.  And, not realizing one of the men owned the house, that is exactly what she did see.  Is this some kind of a problem?  If so, to whom?

 

-Assuming she was telling the truth, why would it be a problem if Ms. Whalen identified the men correctly, including whether one or both were Black?   

..If she couldn't identify their skin color, and said so, (which is what actually happened), she would have been right.

 

..If she saw they were Black, and said so, she would have been right.

 

..But suppose she saw the men were Black and didn't say so out of some kind of fear that she'd be thought of as a racist.  Then she would have intentionally been withholding important information from the police.  What is the sense of that?

 Suppose there really were burglars trying to break into the Gates home and Ms. Whalen saw their skin color.  Wouldn't that be an integral part of their description - just like height, weight, the clothes they were wearing and whether they had any facial hair?  What would be racist about providing the information?  And what would be accomplished by not providing it, other than helping the burglars?

 

-Days ago, Ms. Whalen made a point of telling us she was "olive-skinned" Why should I care about her skin color?  What in the world has this to do with whether she saw two men apparently trying to break into the Gates house and told police what they looked like? 

 

Is her point that, if she's a bit darker, she can't be accused of racism for calling in a possible breaking/entering?  If so, that didn't work, did it?

 

Regardless of Ms. Whalen’s personal skin tone, how would it have been an act of racism to tell police there were Black people breaking into a home if that's what she saw?  If they were women, would telling the police be anti-women?  If they were older, would it be an ageism issue?   How idiotic can it get?

This is what happens when people are so fearful of being called racist - even for doing something that is not in any way racist - that they have to protect themselves as ridiculously as Lucia Whalen did.

That's a part of the racial dialogue that doesn't get enough play.  Too bad.  We should all be thinking about it.

Ken Berwitz

From www.sweetness-light.com (if you can't see the exhibits, just click in the empty spaces and they'll appear):

Gates ‘Charity’ Gives Money To His Pals

July 26th, 2009

Our old friend Dan Riehl at Riehl World View has uncovered an interesting detail about Mr. Gates.

He has his very own personal tax supported 501c3 ‘charity,’ which he operates out of his own (or rather Harvard’s own) house.

From Inkwell’s 2007 Form 990 (a pdf file): (if you can't see the exhibit, just click the empty space below)

(Click images to enlarge.)

Here is the Inkwell Foundation’s  ‘mission statement’:

The purpose of the foundation is to provide grants to other charitable organizations and to promote programs that educate the general public and encourage academic interest regarding African and African-American literature, art, history, and culture.

To that noble end they have raised $205,543 in 2007 alone.  (if you can't see the exhibit, just click the empty space below)

But as you can see, only $27,500 of this money has actually been expended.

As Mr. Riehl rightly notes, the money somehow seems to have found its way to Mr. Gates employees and friends – pretty much exclusively.

All but four of the ‘grants’ that were doled out during 2007 were for the paltry sum of $500. (It’s hard to see how much scholarship that can buy.)

The larger grants, however, seem to have gone to Mr. Gates’ inner circle, with the largest – at $10,000 – having gone to his very own personal assistant, Joanne Kendall  (if you can't see the exhibit, just click the empty space below):

The next largest grant ($6,000) appears to have gone to an apparent Gates’ friend, Angela Deleon.

One of the two $1,000 grants was given to Dell Hamilton, who reportedly worked for Mr. Gates as an Events coordinator for the Dubois Institute at Harvard.

One of the $500 recipients, Nancy Brigham Cyr , also seems to have worked for Gates, as an administrator.

Mr. Riehl has found several more friends and former employees of Gates on the list of grantees.

Perhaps this is yet another ‘teachable moment.’

In any case, we fully expect our watchdog media to ferret out the rest of the details about this somewhat suspicious set of circumstances.

Any minute now.

.Barack Obama said that Sgt. Crowley "acted stupidly" without knowing what happened.

Well, we can all see what happened with the "Inkwell Foundation".  I wonder when the President will be giving us his evaluation this time......

Ken Berwitz

What did Vice Pesident Joe Biden do this time? 

This time he has managed to insult Russia, just as President Obama is trying to make nice to its leaders. 

From the Associated Press:

MOSCOW – An interview U.S. Vice President Joe Biden gave to an American newspaper was front-page news Monday in Moscow, where his characterization of Russia as a weakened nation hit a raw nerve.

 

Biden said Russia's economic difficulties are likely to make the Kremlin more willing to cooperate with the United States on a range of national security issues.

 

"I think we vastly underestimate the hand that we hold," he said in an interview to The Wall Street Journal published Saturday.

 

Biden's comments appeared to catch the Kremlin by surprise, coming less than three weeks after President Barack Obama said on a visit to Moscow that the U.S. wants to see a "strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia."

 

"It raises the question: Who is shaping U.S. foreign policy? The president or members of his team, even the most respected ones?" said Kremlin foreign policy adviser Sergei Prikhodko.

Joe Biden, let's remember, is the egotist who thinks of himself as a foreign policy expert.  The only thing he is expert at is opening that big, stupid mouth of his and putting his foot in it right up to the ankle..

Can you even begin to imagine what the media would have done with this if it were, say, Dan Quayle or Dick Cheney?  Well as a point of reference, I just checked the New York Times and guess what?  On Sunday there was an article about it  -- buried at the bottom of page 8.  Today?  Not one word.  According to "the paper of record", therefore, this is a one-day-and-outer.

Someone find Vice President Biden a muzzle.  Make it an extra large.  Please. 

And while you're at it see if you can locate any journalistic integrity.  The Times can use all you come up with.

Ken Berwitz

Are you into unreconstructed, unadulterated anti-Semitic lunacy?  If so, you'll love this one.

From UPI:

Farrakhan calls Jackson 'messianic voice.'

Published: July 27, 2009 at 12:40 PM

 

CHICAGO, July 27 (UPI) -- Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan says entertainer Michael Jackson was a victim of Zionist leaders, the U.S. government and the media.

In a wide-ranging, two-hour speech Sunday at a Chicago mosque, Farrakhan, 76, provided few details of what he saw as a conspiracy against Jackson, who died June 25 in Los Angeles at 50, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday.

Addressing 2,000 followers, Farrakhan described Jackson as a "messianic voice" and an "archangel of sound, song and dance," the Chicago Tribune reported.

Jay Tcath, senior vice president of the Jewish United Fund, said he was surprised by how many people rationalize Farrakhan's continuing anti-Semitism, the Tribune reported.

Blaming Jews by invoking the euphemism of 'Zionists' is a traditional theme of Farrakhan's whenever he wants to blame something on somebody else, Tcath told the Tribune.

"Farrakhan has continued to enjoy a respectability and mainstream acceptance that no one else with a 25-plus-year track record of bigotry could ever enjoy," Tcath said, calling Farrakahn "unrepentant hater."

Michael Jackson was a victim of "Zionist leaders"??????  The US government (just curious:  does that include the current President)?????  The media????? 

Didn't he leave out Elijah Muhammad's Mother Plane with its Mother Wheel***?  Just oversight I guess. 

For the record, louis farrakhan is that nice loving fellow who got the 2007 Lifetime Achievement award from President Obama's church -- the man whom President Obama's then-Reverend Jeremiah Wright said "epitomized greatness". 

Can we hope to get an "acted stupidly" description out of Mr. Obama about this?  Or are those reserved only for Cambridge, MA Police Sergeants who respond to 911 calls?

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

***From farrakhan's 1996 speech at Mosque Maryam in Chicago.  (read the entire speech by clicking here):

The Honorable Elijah Muhammad told us of a giant Motherplane that is made like the universe, spheres within spheres. White people call them unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Ezekial, in the Old Testament, saw a wheel that looked like a cloud by day but a pillar of fire by night. The Hon. Elijah Muhammad said that that wheel was built on the island of Nippon, which is now called Japan, by some of the original scientists. It took 15 billion dollars in gold at that time to build it. It is made of the toughest steel. America does not yet know the composition of the steel used to make an instrument like it. It is a circular plane, and the Bible says that it never makes turns. Because of its circular nature it can stop and travel in all directions at speeds of thousands of miles per hour. He said there are 1,500 small wheels in this mother wheel which is a half mile by a half mile. This Mother Wheel is like a small human built planet. Each one of these small planes carry three bombs.....

.....That Mother Wheel is a dreadful looking thing. White folks are making movies now to make these planes look like fiction, but it is based on something real. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that Mother Plane is so powerful that with sound reverberating in he atmosphere, just with a sound, she can crumble buildings. And the final act of destruction will be that Allah will make a wall out of the atmosphere over and around North America. You will see it, but you won't be able to penetrate it. He said Allah (God) will cut a shortage in gravity and a fire will start from 13-layers up and burn down, burning the atmosphere. When it gets to the earth, it will burn everything. It will burn for 310 years and take 690 years to cool off.

Ken Berwitz

Suppose I told you that the New York Times wasted op-ed space today on a column that attempts to read the minds of Professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley, and then offers conclusions about both of them based on the mind-reading?  You'd think I was nuts, right?

Wrong.

Here is Judith Warner's column on today's op-ed page.  I kid you not.  The alice-in-wonderland column is Ms. Warner's.  The bold print is Mr. Berwitz's:

A New York Times Blog

July 26, 2009, 10:00 pm

A Lot Said, and Unsaid, About Race

Perhaps the most telling moment in Sgt. James Crowley’s account of his now epoch-defining arrest of the Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. occurs about three-quarters of the way through the report that the officer subsequently filed with the Cambridge Police Department.

In his story of their verbal tussle, Crowley describes himself as overwhelmed by the noise in Gates’s kitchen, as the black professor loudly accused the white cop of racial profiling. Seeing that Gates could not be persuaded to use an inside voice, Crowley retreated to the street, inviting Gates to join him outdoors.

“Ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside,” Gates allegedly told him.

Gates denied referring to Crowley’s mama. “The idea that I would, in a vulnerable position talk about the man’s mother is absurd,” he told Gayle King of Sirius radio. “I don’t talk about people’s mothers … You could get killed talking about somebody’s mother in the barbershop, let alone with a white police officer … I think they did some historical research, and watched some episodes of ‘Good Times.’ ”

I think there’s more to it than that. I think it’s very likely that Crowley really does believe he heard the insult to his mother. And that’s because Gates wasn’t the only one in that house, on that day, whose thoughts were traveling well-worn grooves chiseled by race. Both men were, consciously or not, following scripts in their heads, stories of vulnerability and grievance much more meaningful than their actual exchange.

At this point in the news cycle, President Obama and Gates himself have asked us to dial down the drama and, as Gates himself put it, to “move on.”

But I don’t think we should be so quick to reduce this sad, important and deeply symbolic incident to what the French would call a fait divers.

The clash in Cambridge about ID and racial profiling, about identity and expectation and respect was just a snippet of our culture’s ongoing meta-narrative about race. Its major themes played through the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, and showed up , last week, when Barack Obama, speaking for once not as the apotheosis of “post-racial” America but instead as a man who’s spent nearly 48 years Living While Black, was labeled “unpresidential.” Each chapter in this larger story shows us, time and again, what Sotomayor’s critics refused to concede: that how we all think, what we see, how we reason and react are directly determined by who we are. And some of who we are is conditioned by our race.

Had Gates been a white man, approached in his home and abruptly told to step outside, he might well have bristled at the cold officiousness of the officer’s tone, but he probably wouldn’t have thought, or known, that to leave the haven of his house would expose him to the possibility of sudden arrest.

Had he been white, a request for ID would probably not have sounded like an insult, or worse, a potential danger. It would probably not have stirred up memories of black men like Amadou Diallo, the Guinean immigrant who in 1999 was killed by police in the Bronx as he reached for his wallet. He very likely would not have seen what Gates was sure he saw in Crowley’s face, as the cop scanned the professor’s Harvard ID, trying to take in the fact that the man before him was not an intruder. “He’s trying to unpack a narrative … He was so sure that he had a catch,” Gates recalled to King. “That is when everything turned.”

We don’t know precisely what was going through Crowley’s mind. But his report and later statements seem to attest to a greatly outsized sense of vulnerability and victimization.

Crowley demanded that the small, slight, cane-carrying professor come outside, he said, because he feared not living to make it home to his wife and children. A remark by Gates — “That’s none of your business” — appeared to sting him to the quick. And then there was that matter of his mama. “Speaking about my mother,” he said sadly to a sympathetic local pair of radio talk show hosts, “it’s just beyond words.”

In Crowley’s excessive ultimate reaction to Gates’s angry accusations, I was reminded of the story candidate Obama told in his race speech in Philadelphia last year, when he talked of beleaguered working- and middle-class white Americans who don’t “feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race” and who, when held accountable for institutional racism, respond with a long-nursed “resentment.”

Obama warned that for America to move forward, both blacks and whites need to listen to each other’s narratives, and stop reflexively dismissing them either as paranoia or simple prejudice.

The “He said/He said” of Ware Street in Cambridge might be just the place to start.

Where to begin, where to begin:

-First off, it is a fantasy.  Warner herself admits not knowing what happened.  So why is she writing about it.

-Next, let's note something that isn't written - While Sgt. Crowley is accused of, and judged by, what Warner fantasizes he was thinking, Henry Louis Gates is not.  Gates is in the real world.  Only Crowley is in the dream world.  He's the culprit, dear readers; 

-Then we have the insertion of Sonia Sotomayor.  What does she have to do with this?  When did she get into the act?  The same time, I guess, as Amadou Diallo. 

Tell me:  if Henry Louis Gates feared becoming the next Amadou Diallo, might Sgt. Crowley have feared being the next Steve Pagones - the Asst. DA in Duchess County, NY whose life was ruined by the fraudulent attacks on him by al sharpton during the tawana brawley hoax?  Funny, no mention of that from Ms. Warner;

-We do learn from Ms. Warner's fantasy, though, that Sgt. Crowley had an "outsized sense of vulnerability and victimization".  But not Professor Gates.  His sense of vulnerability and victimization was just fine.

Simply stated, this column is vomit.  It is the invention of someone who is not analyzing a situation, but doing a term paper on her racial preconceptions. 

And since her racial preconceptions mesh so well with those of the New York Times?  Badda bing, badda boom.  One op-ed piece, piping hot, served just for you.

Then they wonder why people call them biased.......

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday Sarah Palin stepped down as Governor of Alaska.  She made a very strong, very emotion-gripping speech which touched on the nonstop, way-beyond-bounds attacks leveled at Ms. Palin and her family;  attacks which continue to this moment and may or may not abate now that she is out of public office.

One of the main reasons Ms. Palin left is that, since the presidential campaign, she has been inundated with frivolous, baseless ethics complaints, filed one after the other, citing anything that Palin haters could dream up, no matter how ridiculous. 

So far, ALMOST EVERY ONE HAS BEEN TOSSED OUT OF COURT.  But that is of little consolation to the Palins since, although it costs next to nothing to file a suit, the cost of a public figure defending herself is huge - both monetarily and, I am certain, emotionally.  Current estimates are that the state of Alaska is out millions of dollars and about a half million has come out of the Palins' own pockets.

Of the 20 or so complaints filed so far, a half dozen were filed by one Palin hater alone - a Republican named andree mcCloud who may have been turned down by Palin when she looked for a job in the administration.  (There is a very instructive piece about mccloud at www.alaskapride.blogspot.com, which was written in May - by which time she had already filed four of her BS complaints against Ms. Palin.  If you want to read it, just click here).

Are you surprised that a Republican would feel this way about Sarah Palin?  If so, don't be.  A lot of Republicans hate her guts.  The reason is that when Ms. Palin took office she went straight after Republican corruption in Alaska (of which there was plenty).   Another of Palin's Republican blood enemies is Senator Lisa Murkowski, whose father Frank, the corrupt previous Governor, was defeated by Ms. Palin in the last primary.

This is what we are supposed to appreciate and revere, isn't it?  A politician who ignores party affiliation when fighting corruption. 

But not if the person doing it is a conservative woman who then dares to run for national office.  For Ms. Palin it has meant open season on her and her family.  No holds barred.

In any event, the title of this blog refers to the Associated Press account of these complaints.  So let me get to that now.

Here is what the AP said about them, in its entirety:

Nearly 20 ethics complaints had been filed against Palin, and the outgoing governor cited the resulting investigation's financial toll—both on her and the state—for stepping down. An independent investigator looking into the complaints found evidence she may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position as she sought money for lawyer fees, according to a report obtained recently by The Associated Press.

Do you see anything there about the fact that almost all of these complaints have been dismissed, and the furthest that her haters have gotten on any of them is "probable cause", which is not a conviction and probably will not result in one?  Me neither.

But wait, there's more.  Here is some information about the investigator who rendered the "probable cause" ruling.  It comes to us from Fox News (who did you expect?  The NY Times?  The network news shows?)

See if you find anything about him that might have been worth mentioning by the AP:

The independent investigator who has accused Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin of violating state ethics laws is a major donor to the Democratic Party as well as a partner in a law firm that represented Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

Thomas Daniel was hired by the Alaska Personnel Board in late April to investigate several complaints against Palin, including one filed by an Alaska resident who claims the governor used her official position for personal gain by authorizing the creation of a trust to use as her legal defense fund.

In a July 14 report leaked to The Associated Press and major news organizations, Daniel accused Palin of drawing improper gifts and unwarranted benefits. His report recommended that Palin refuse to accept payment from the defense fund and settle the complaint to avoid a formal hearing before the board.

Palin's supporters say the governor, who will resign on Sunday, needs the legal fund because of a quirk in Alaska law that prevents state officials from defending the state's chief executive against ethics allegations.

"The whole situation is nuts," said John Coale, a prominent Washington attorney who helped set up the legal fund, which so far has accepted $500,000 in donations. "Alaska has an ethics law that is unsustainable."

Coale also accused the personnel board of being "either vicious or idiotic" to hire Daniel, whose law firm is closely tied to the Democratic Party.

Daniel has contributed $3,500 in recent years to Democratic causes, including $1,500 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004 and $1,000 to Alaska Sen. Mark Begich's senatorial campaign last year.

The law firm where he is a partner, Perkins Coie, serves as counsel of record for the Democratic Party and its candidates, and attorneys there recently represented Obama's presidential campaign.

Translation:  out of all this BS, the one favorable ruling they have against Ms. Palin was rendered by an investigator who just happens to be a Democratic activist/contributor and whose law firm works for Democrats.  Very credible, I'm sure. 

I close by noting that, when david letterman was forced to "apologize" for saying Sarah Palin looked like a "slutty flight attendant" and that her (14 year old) daughter was "knocked up by Alex Rodriguez" when they attended a New York Yankee game together, he whined about how put upon he was as a talk show host.  Incredibly, letterman acted as if HE were the victim. 

Poor baby.

I wish this vicious, arrogant jerk could spend some time as a Republican conservative woman being judged by our wonderful "neutral" media.  Then he'd have something to whine about.
=========================================================

UPDATE:  Click Here to see a video that shows just how orchestrated the attacks on Sarah Palin have been, and how Democrats and leftward bloggers conspired on them -- with the complicity of our wonderful "neutral" media.

You would think the same media that spent years trying to dig up proof of whether President Bush missed a few meaniungless (by their standards) national guard meetings in the early 1970's would be interested in this.  But you would be wrong.

Then they wonder why people call them biased.

Ken Berwitz

Noel Sheppard of www.newsbusters.org details how even usually reliable Obama-supporting venues like the Washington Post cannot play ball with him on the proposed health care legislation:

WaPo Shocker: President Is Hiding Costs of Obamacare

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
July 26, 2009 - 14:45 ET

 

What was a terrible week for Barack Obama likely worsened Sunday when the Washington Post editorial board accused the President of withholding from the public the true costs of the healthcare reform he so eagerly seeks.

Makes one wonder if the White House will view the Post's criticisms much as former President Lyndon Johnson did Walter Cronkite's 1968 declaration that the Vietnam War was a stalement.

 

With as much as Obama has on the line with this agenda item, these words from the Post have to hurt (h/t Jake Tapper):

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA sometimes presents health-care reform as a pain-free proposition, as simple as choosing the red pill over the blue -- one that's no more effective but costs twice as much...This all-gain-no-pain stance may be politically advisable; people are increasingly edgy about how reform will affect their own health care. A new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that that the percentage of those who believe they will be worse off if reform passes (21 percent) has doubled since February.

 

But Mr. Obama's soothing bedside manner masks the reality that getting health costs under control will require making difficult choices about what procedures and medications to cover. It will require saying no, or having the patient pay more, at times when the extra expense is not justified by the marginal improvement in care. Mr. Obama is right that sticking with the status quo is a bad alternative, but he isn't leveling about the consequences of change.

 

Checking that link right now to make sure this really was a Washington Post editorial? I quite understand...but it gets better:

 

Take Mr. Obama's red pill-blue pill example. What if the pricey blue pill is actually better than the cheaper red one? What if it's better but just a little bit? What happens when a yellow pill comes along, costing twice as much as the blue? What happens if there's a new procedure that cures the ailment, but at an even bigger cost? [...]     

The fundamental driver of health-care inflation is technological innovation. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that new technology accounts for about half the increase in health-care costs over the past several decades.

 

This is, for the most part, a good thing. Adjusted for inflation, health-care spending per person is six times what it was 40 years ago. But no one today would settle for 1960s-style medicine. Treating patients with heart disease was inexpensive then, because there wasn't a great way to detect problems before a heart attack and not much to do afterward. Today, angiograms can diagnose blockages. Bypasses and angioplasty can fix them. Drugs such as beta blockers can prevent repeat heart attacks. So spending for coronary care has soared, along with survival rates. Some medical innovations can save money, but the general arc has been better treatment -- at higher costs.

 

Exactly, and this is what folks on the left and most of their media minions don't get.

 

Of course healthcare costs have dramatically increased in the last 40 years as have health insurance premiums. But what do you get for the extra expense now?

 

There's a reason why the fastest growing segment of our population is over the age of 80: medical advances are making us all live longer.

 

But that comes with a price, a cost most are willing to accept, for nothing is more valuable than health and well-being. The Post addressed this seemingly obvious concept:

 

As CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified in February, "Given the central role of medical technology in cost growth, reducing or slowing spending over the long term would probably require decreasing the pace of adopting new treatments and procedures or limiting the breadth of their application."

 

In other words, you can't always get what you want -- at least not if you want costs to be lower. This would require an enormous change from current practice, particularly in Medicare, which under existing rules covers all treatments with net medical benefits, regardless of cost. Private insurers, certainly, have much more leeway in making coverage determinations, but the backlash from the managed-care experience of the 1990s and pressure to follow Medicare policies restricts insurers' willingness to limit coverage.

 

The current system is untenable and getting worse, with employers dropping insurance and premiums rising for those who still have it. Reform is essential. But Mr. Obama does the public a disservice by acting as if it will not require anything from them in return.

 

Bravo!

The Democratic Party controls the Presidency and has enormous majorities in both houses of congress.  Therefore Obamacare of one kind or another will almost certainly pass the congress and be enacted into law in some form. 

But it is becoming clearer and clearer that it won't be in the form presently being proosed, or anything close.  And it won't be done before anyone has time to read the legislation and think about it - the way the disastrous "stimulus package" sailed through.

Bad news for Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of those who demand that we commit ourselves first, and know what we're commiting to later. 

Good news for us.

Ken Berwitz

In case there was any doubt in your mind about what Obamacare is all about......

From Sher Zieve writing for www.canadafreepress.com: (bold print is mine).

Dems Ensure Illegal Aliens Included in ObamaCare and Other Atrocities

By Sher Zieve  Friday, July 24, 2009

 

The Heller Amendment—which would have removed from ObamaCare those who have entered and are living in the USA illegally—has been defeated 26-15 (along straight Party lines) by the Democrat controlled House Ways and Means Committee.  So, along with all of their other “break-the-bank-and-everything-else” programs, our Usurper and Dictator in Chief Obama and his Democrat minions are demanding that we US citizens pay for illegals.  Note:  Another interesting datum included in the Socio-fascist ObamaCare package is that US citizens wanting to keep their current health insurance will be fined approximately $2,500/year.  But, Obama’s illegals will NOT be penalized a penny.

 

Other atrocities associated with ObamaCare are rationing of medical services and a push towards “no-more-health-care-for-you” euthanasia (deceptively referred to as “Advance Care Planning”) for those Obama considers elderly.  End of life counseling—every five years until they finally die due to lack of provided health services—for said elderly (ostensibly once one is in his or her 60s) will also be mandatory.  Note:  One wonders if said euthanasia will also soon extend to his growing political “enemies” list.  And to ensure against discrimination, the beginnings of life are also covered under ObamaLifeSnuffOut.  We will be forced to pay for abortions under ObamaCare.

 

By design, ObamaCare is also racist.  Two of the myriad agencies the patients must maneuver through are the “Office of Civil Rights” and “Office of Minority Health.” Presumably, if one is not an ObamaMinority, one will not receive as “suitable” health care as do Obama’s select.  Note:  These days Obama continues to light the fires of racism wherever he seems to go.  As witnessed with his ill-advised (dare I say “stupid?”) comments regarding the Cambridge Police Department, perhaps Obama just can’t help himself.  And this is the man acting as POTUS—the one who still refuses to produce a true and viable birth certificate?  Scary stuff.

 

There is so much anti-Health legislation contained in ObamaCare’s 1018 pages (see link below) that it would be impossible to list them all here.  But, some of them that Robert Wenzel and Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) discovered include:

 

Government (by ObamaThugs) auditing of the books and fining of businesses who opt to continue private health care

 

The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your healthcare Benefits for you. You have no choice!

 

Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Health card will be issued

 

Government rationing of healthcare

 

No company can sue the government on “price fixing.” No “judicial review” against Govt monopoly

 

An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the Government public plan

Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor will be affected.  Note:  One wonders if only Obama’s “non-minority” seniors, low income and poor folks will be penalized

 

There are thousands more appalling examples of tyrannical control of We-the-People contained in the ObamaCare plan.  Coupled with the ObamaCon Cap ’n Tax, Obama’s control of US citizens, their finances and all of their actions will be complete.  The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has already said that the unsustainable costs of this latest Obama-Folly do not match Obama’s and Pelosi’s promises.  In other words, Obama and Pelosi continue to lie—and lie—and lie. 

 

In a few short months (it actually only feels like a lifetime) Obama has almost—again by design—bankrupted the country.  ObamaCare and his Cap ‘n Con ‘n Tax should complete his job of destroying the country and the American people.  ObamaCare—alone—will drive the tax rate to at least 50% and upward paid to the government—that means Obama and his adherents.  And please do not forget that Obama, his family and friends, all three branches of government and government employees are NOT subject to ObamaCare.  These are the “political elite” who are not subject to oppressions of the more “common folk.” Congress, alone, will maintain their premium choice of twelve (that’s 12 folks) private health care plans.

This is why Mr. Obama is getting all kinds of flak from the so-called "blue dog Democrats - people who, unlike him, risk losing their congressional seats next year.

It is also one of the key reasons - maybe the single biggest reason - his poll numbers have fallen through a trap door over the past two months.

But the hard-left wing of his party still pushes to vote this ugly, discriminatory, unfair bill through before the summer recess.  And, blue-dog Democrats notwithstanding, they very well may have enough votes to do so.

We deserve this, folks.  We elected what amounts to one-party government and that is what we got.

The 2010 elections cannot come soon enough.

Ken Berwitz

Having been part of a major racial firestorm for the better (worse?) part of a week, Henry Louis Gates is now calling for (begging for) us to "move on". 

I can't speak for Mr. Gates' motives in suddenly trying to make this all go away, but I can't help thinking it might have something to do with the fact that, with all this attention on him,  people are taking a look at the man himself. 

And, in doing so, facts about his so-called charity, The Inkwell Foundation, are starting to come out.

What's that? You don't know what I'm talking about?  Ok, here are key excerpts from a terrific, detailed piece on this "charity" from www.riehlworldview.com .  Prepare to be appalled:

A Gatesgate At Henry Gates' "Bogus" Charity?

Henry Louis Gates, Jr controls a tax-exempt, non-profit charity, Inkwell Foundation, Inc, that managed to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct support in one year, yet only gave out $27,500 in grants, the bulk of which went to Gates' employees and Harvard colleagues. Also, as recently as September 2008, the Boston Globe reported that Gates' charity was not in compliance with the law for failing to register the proper paperwork, despite the charity existing since 2005. The charge at the time was that it was "bogus," as you'll see below. In fact, the state Attorney General's office told the Globe the charity was likely either inactive, or dissolved. Yet, documents below show the charity is healthy, wealthy and active.

Is it possible that Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was acting strange when law enforcement showed up at his door because he didn't want the story below to come out? It may take a tax lawyer to answer that question, but based on this research, it can't be ruled out. We know the press has questioned Gates about the charity in the past and gotten no response.

Scroll all the way to the bottom at this link for the actual documents, including the real estate information. Gates uses Harvard (12 Quincy St.) as his home address on the charity paperwork, as opposed to the same one as his charity, which is where he actually lives and was at when the recent police incident took place. It would seem to be incorrect. A wiki has this Inkwell below as it's center item and reports that a Globe reporter has accused it of being a "bogus" charity. That story also below.

Corporate Filing

Business Information
Filing Number: 000908494
Name: INKWELL FOUNDATION, INC.
Name Type: LEGAL
principal corporate address: 17 WARE ST
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138-4004
Business Type: NONPROFIT CORPORATION
Reference Number: 000908494
Status: ACTIVE
Place Incorporated: MASSACHUSETTS
Date Incorporated: 10/27/2005
For Profit: YES
Additional Information: Annual Report Required: YES

Officers - As Of - 07/14/2009
Name   Standardized Address Original Address
GATES JR, HENRY LOUIS
Title: PRESIDENT
  12 QUINCY ST
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138-3804 12 QUINCY ST.
CAMBRIDGE MA

In September of 2008, the Boston Globe did an item (see second short item in story linked here - also in full below) claiming Professor Gates' charity was not in compliance with the law at that time, in essence suggesting it was phony.

In 2005, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., known to all as "Skip," set up the nonprofit Inkwell Foundation, named after a famous beach/gathering place for African-Americans on Martha's Vineyard. Skip talked about the foundation in a recent interview with Martha's Vineyard magazine and touted it when he launched his for-profit business, AfricanDNA.com, last year. "The precedent-setting site is the only company in the field of genetic genealogy that will provide African Americans with family tree research in addition to DNA testing," its initial press release declared, adding that "a percentage of all profits will be donated to the Inkwell Foundation, dedicated to reforming the teaching of science and history in inner city schools using genetic and genealogical ancestry tracing."

Public records indicate that the charity, domiciled in Gates's Cambridge home, has been dormant since its inception. Jill Butterworth, a spokeswoman for the state Attorney General's Office, says Inkwell has never filed the required, annual form PC, for public charities. "They are currently not in compliance," Butterworth said. "It's possible they are inactive or have dissolved. We are checking into it." Gates declined to comment.

According to this 20 page pdf (h/t Joseph Culligan of Web of Deception) - which seems to be the public and open for inspection 2007 tax return for Inkwell Foundation, Inc. Given the 2007 return date and 2008 Globe story date, the return seems to be from during the same time period for which the charity wasn't properly registered. 

Gates was unable to complete the form, requesting an extension. This does not mean he hasn't since filed the missing form PC paperwork cited above. But evidently it wasn't filed when the charity began - and for at least three years, thus including the year of the tax filing, it would seem.

In records, it claims to own $14,625 worth of artwork and historical objects - see page 4 of pdf linked above.

But there's still more I discovered down below. Excerpt from page 21:

7 State in detail why you need the extension ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED TO GATHER THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO PREPARE A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE RETURN.

On page one line 1e, the document declares the charity received $205,400 in direct support, but declares only $27,600 in total expenditures for program services. Twenty-seven-five-hundred dollars went out in contracts to 23 individuals. See page 3 for that total. The charity claims to hold assets of $177,943 from direct contributions it seemingly hadn't spent at time of filing - see page 4. That's a shame, given its charge.

THE PURPOSE OF THE FOUNDATION IS TO PROVIDE GRANTS TO OTHER CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS AND TO PROMOTE PROGRAMS THAT EDUCATE THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ENCOURAGE ACADEMIC INTEREST REGARDING AFRICAN AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN LITERATURE, ART, HISTORY, AND CULTURE.

I urge you to click on the link I've provided and read riehl's entire piece.

Maybe, just maybe, this is why Henry Louis Gates wants to be out of the spotlight.  Maybe, just maybe, he doesn't like where it is about to shine.

Heck, this could become so widespread across the blogosphere, that even our wonderful "neutral" media (other than a couple of in-passing articles by the Boston Globe) will be forced, kicking and screaming, to talk about it.

I end by preemptively apologizing for being a racist.  Not that anything I've said here qualifies in that regard, but since I have been called a racist for daring to question Barack Obama's eligibility to be President, I don't doubt I will be called a racist for looking at Henry Louis Gates' Inkwell Foundation. 

What a world........

Ken Berwitz

Here is a Reuters report on the situation in Honduras, from the perspective of hugo chavez.  See what you think of it:

Venezuela's Chavez blasts U.S., allies on Honduras

Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:53pm EDT

 

Chavez says U.S. stalling return of deposed Honduran

* He says U.S. wants de facto government to win election

CARACAS, July 25 (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday the United States wanted Honduras' de facto government to consolidate power and win upcoming elections but that he would recognize only the government deposed in a coup last month.

Chavez, a socialist anti-U.S. firebrand, said the United States and its regional allies were stalling the return of deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, his ally.

"What they are trying to do is freeze the battle until the election in November, when the coup (leaders) will wash their hands," Chavez told the national assembly in the capital, Caracas.

"Any government that comes out of that coup, that comes out of elections even, we will never recognize it as the government of Honduras," Chavez said.

The United States, the United Nations and Latin American presidents have roundly condemned Zelaya's forced removal from power on June 28 and demand he be reinstated.

But Chavez said a mediation process by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias had been a trap and that the de facto government should not have been given recognition by inviting it to the negotiating table.

"What the government of the United States and its allies want is simply for the coup (leaders) to consolidate themselves and be recognized, if not by law, then de facto," Chavez told legislators.

Zelaya, a timber magnate known for his trademark cowboy hat, had angered the traditionally conservative ruling elite and business interests in Honduras by allying himself with Chavez.

The interim government of Roberto Micheletti insists Zelaya was acting illegally by trying to extend term limits and his removal was in accordance with Honduran law. It accuses Chavez of instigating violence in Honduras.

Chavez applauded Zelaya for taking a symbolic step inside Honduran territory on Friday and ridiculed U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for saying the move was reckless. (Reporting by Raymond Colitt; Editing by Eric Beech)

How interesting.  What did we find out here?

-hugo chavez is whining that the United States is some kind of a villain here.  Poor baby. 

-Zelaya was ousted in a coup, instead of being removed legally, by order of Honduras' supreme court (which is exactly what did happen);

-The point of contention is that "the interim government insists" Zelaya was acting illegally by trying to extend term limits.  That's it?  What about the fact that Zelaya intentionally used the military to force an illegal referendum on the people and become a dictator in perpetuity - which is why the supreme court ruled that, according to the country's laws, he had to be removed from office?  How did they miss that?

This, folks, is how Reuters "covers" the Honduran story.  Do you feel more informed?

Ken Berwitz

Earlier today I challenged the premise that no one questions New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine's personal ethics.  At that time I promised to detail Mr. Corzine's relationship with Carla Katz, former President of local 1034, Communication Workers of America.

Time to make good on that promise.

This says-it-all timeline, published over two years ago, comes to use from www.enlightennj.blogspot.com:

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

The Jon Corzine, Carla Katz Timeline

Carla Katz, president of New Jersey’s largest state worker union and Governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, have had a very unusual relationship. The following is a Corzine – Katz timeline.

Shortly after Corzine’s 24-year career as a bond trader and executive ended abruptly with his 1999 ouster from Goldman Sachs, he launched his Senate campaign.

Corzine met Katz in 1999 during his campaign for a U.S. Senate seat to represent New Jersey.

Jon Corzine wins election to the U.S. Senate, November 2000.

Katz, a mother of two children, divorced her husband Larry McKim in November 2001.

In March 2002, Corzine announced his separation from Joanne, his wife of 33 years.

December 18, 2002, Corzine provided a $470,000 mortgage to Katz through JSC Investments, a company owned solely by Corzine. Katz used the money to buy her ex-husband’s share of their Hunterdon County home.

Corzine’s divorce from his wife, Joanne, became final in November 2003. Joanne Corzine later told the reporters that her ex-husband's affair with Carla Katz led to the breakup of their marriage.

Corzine and Katz have stated their romantic relationship ended in July 2004.

December 9, 2004, one week after Corzine formally began his candidacy for Governor of New Jersey, Corzine forgave the $470,000 loan and paid the gift taxes, totaling more than $160,000.

In April, 2005 Katz won a state exemption from building restrictions in the Highlands preservation zone. That cleared the way for planned major renovations of the 19th-century farmhouse, situated on 10 acres in Hunterdon County.

On June 27, 2005 Katz’s state employee union endorsed Corzine for Governor. Kicking off the ceremony in Atlantic City. Katz introduced Corzine by giving him a peck on the cheek and telling an anecdote about the first time they met.

August 4, 2005 the New York Times reveals Corzine’s $630,000 gift (loan, plus taxes) to Katz. Corzine said the transaction was completely above board and disclosed as required by senate ethics rules.

August 8, 2005, Corzine said he wrote off the loan because Katz couldn't afford to repay it. He was adamant that his financial relationship with Katz had ended: "We have no additional gifts still outstanding."

August 2005, it was discovered that Corzine failed to report the loan to Katz on senate financial disclosure forms.

August 2005, Corzine claimed, on the advice of legal counsel, he did not believe he was obligated to report the loan because his relationship and loan to Carla Katz were personal.

August 2005, it was reported Corzine had properly disclosed at least two other personal loans made to female friends during the same time period as the loan made to Katz. Corzine explained the difference in his loan disclosures with "I knew them as human beings, not as romantic, serious relationships."

In late August 2005, a complaint was filed with the Senate Ethics Committee accusing Senator Corzine with falsifying a federal disclosure document and committing a federal felony by failing to disclose a $470,000 loan he made to a state employee union president, Carla Katz.

November 2005, Corzine wins election for New Jersey Governor.

December 2006, Katz bought the rental condo, which she has used as a part-time residence for at least two years, through a newly formed corporation, Neruda Hoboken LLC, for $1.1 million. State and county records show Katz is the sole corporate officer listed in the company's registration. The company's name is listed on the deed as owner, but Katz signed the settlement papers. The filing in Hudson County shows no mortgage on the property.

January 2007, just weeks after Katz bought the $1.1 million condominium, she began a 3,200-square-foot addition and extensive renovations on her Hunterdon farmhouse.

March 4, 2007, Corzine admits to the Star-Ledger that he gave Katz substantial gifts beyond what he previously disclosed and hinted that he “pre-funded” them to avoid "ongoing financial connections".

March 7, 2007, the Star-Ledger reports Katz’ $1.1 million condo purchase came at the same time negotiators for her union and the Corzine administration were entering intense negotiations over a new contract for state workers. Katz is president of the largest of five Communications Workers of America locals that are about to vote on the four-year deal.

 So tell me:  what do you think of Jon Corzine's personal ethics? 

Ken Berwitz

Earlier today I blogged about the huge New Jersey sting operation that has resulted in dozens of arrests.  Most of those arrests are politicians and almost all the politicians are Democrats, not Republicans.

Who initiated this hugely successful sting?  Jon Corzine's opponent for Governor, Chris Christie.  Under whose watch did these goings-on take place?  Chris Christies opponent for Governor, Jon Corzine.

It isn't hard to see who this benefits.

From today's New York Daily News:

Corruption arrests in N.J. hurt Gov. Corzine's re-election bid, thrill GOP

BY David Saltonstall
DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

     Saturday, July 25th 2009, 12:14 AM

New Jersey Republicans tried to hide their glee on Friday over a corruption probe that could send many Democrats to jail - and GOPer Chris Christie to the governor's office.

Christie, a former U.S. attorney running a strong challenge to Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, wasted little time putting up a new TV ad touting his suddenly spot-on law-and-order background.

"I put corrupt public officials in jail - Republicans and Democrats," Christie said in the ad. "As governor, I'll make the same tough, independent decisions."

Left unmentioned was that Christie, who left his Justice Department post seven months ago, initiated the probe that led to bribery charges against dozens of political insiders, most of them Democrats.

The sweep is unquestionably bad news for Corzine, who was not implicated, but will have to explain how such wide-ranging corruption was allowed to flourish on his watch, experts said.

"It is huge," said Steve Adubato, Jr., a Jersey political analyst and co-host of a popular public affairs show, "Inside Trenton." "It now frames the governor's race very clearly around the issue of political corruption."

Yesterday, Corzine called on all implicated officials - among them three mayors and two state assemblymen - to resign their posts.

"I think the appearance, let alone the fact, means people ought to step aside," he said in Newark.

Corzine's comments came as allies leaked word that today he would name reformist state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a 74-year-old, to run as his lieutenant governor on the ballot. Earlier, Corzine unleashed the biggest Democrat of all - President Obama, who wrote a letter in support of the ex-chairman of Wall St. powerhouse Goldman Sachs.

"I hope to work with him for years to come," Obama wrote.

Many saw the presidential missive as a clear signal that Corzine had no intention of stepping down.

Even before the arrests, Corzine was trailing Christie by 12 percentage points, the most recent Quinnipiac University poll showed.

That's led some nervous Dems to mull possible replacements, among them Newark Mayor Cory Booker, one insider told the Daily News. For now, even Republicans expect Corzine to fight on.

"Nobody questions Corzine's personal ethics," said one GOP strategist. "But I think people are starting to say he's done nothing to change the old rules of the game."

Wow. 

Corzine was in trouble anyway, because of the lousy situation New Jersey is right now.  But, given a combination of factors - he has unlimited personal resources, he has bought elections in the past and the Republican Party of New Jersey is beyond incompetent - I expected him to win anyway.

This changes the calculus completely.

What is Corzine going to do?  The best he can say is that he personally was not involved (which begs the issue of how it could happen while he was in charge). 

He can also say that the fact almost all politicians arrested were Democrats means Christie was engaged in a partisan witchhunt.  But that forces him to produce Republicans who should also have been arrested, which requires some kind of proof, doesn't it?  And it also keeps this issue right on the front page, exactly where Christie wants it to be.

Corzine, and the New Jersey Democratic Party, are in a very, very bad spot.

One other thing:  I take issue with one part of the Daily News' otherwise excellent article:  Jon Corzine's ethics most certainly have been questioned.  In another blog I will detail the sorry story of his personal relationship with Carla Katz, former President of local 1034 of the CWA (Communications Workers of America), and how much money he gave her to shut her up when it ended.

Ken Berwitz

When a President takes one position on an issue and then another one that is entirely opposite of the first, you'd think the media would be covering it pretty heavily.

When the position regards a war in progress, you'd think the media would be giving it lead story status.

But this is President Obama and these is our wonderful "neutral" media of today.  So I had to go to www.sweetness-light.com for some honest coverage:

Obama: Victory Not Goal in Afghanistan

July 24th, 2009

From ABC News (via YouTube) and Fox News:

Obama: ‘Victory’ Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan

 President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn’t necessarily the United States’ goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.

 "I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

 The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn’t so clearly defined, he explained.

 "We’re not dealing with nation states at this point. We’re concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda’s allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can’t attack the United States." …

 "We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development … those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical," Obama told ABC News…

 Pressure from the public and opposition politicians is growing as soldiers’ bodies return home, and a poll released Thursday shows majorities in Britain, Germany and Canada oppose increasing their own troop levels in Afghanistan.

 Europeans and Canadians are growing weary of the war — or at least their involvement in combat operations — even as Obama is shifting military resources to Afghanistan away from Iraq.

 The United States, which runs the NATO-led force, has about 59,000 troops in Afghanistan — nearly double the number a year ago — and thousands more are on the way. There are about 32,000 other international troops in the country…

 The leaders of the largest contributors to the coalition find themselves having to justify both their reasons for deploying troops and their management of the war effort…

 And yet, as we noted at the time, almost exactly a year ago Mr. Obama was singing a very different tune.

 From the Associated Press:

 Obama says Afghanistan ‘a war that we have to win’

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

July 15, 2008

 WASHINGTON – Contending that the U.S. is not pursuing a sound strategy for keeping Americans safe, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Tuesday that fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan would be his top priority after ending the war in Iraq.

 "This is a war that we have to win," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery at the International Trade Center in Washington…

 Of course Mr. Obama was campaigning for the Presidency back in July.

 Also remember how the Democrats, including of course Mr. Obama, always claimed that we should be concentrating on Afghanistan. And, just as importantly, we should have  more of our allies fighting alongside us in the war.

 Finally the Democrats have now gotten both of their purported wishes. The right war in the right place – with plenty of other Western countries helping us.

 And yet, look at how poorly things are going. Any minute now our ‘allies’ will turn tail and pull out. Which will give Mr. Obama an excuse to do the same.

 Which, come to think of it, was surely the Democrat plan all along.

I do not have a reasonable basis for agreeing with sweetness-light.com on this being the Democratic plan all along.  That one falls by the wayside.

But is President Obama not completely reversing field on his position here?  And if he is, where are the rest of our media?  Or are they too busy trying to explain away his freefalling poll numbers? 

How about a little professionalism here?  A little neutrality?  A little JOURNALISM?

Too much to ask?

Ken Berwitz

This is not your average, run-of-the-mill media bias.  This is in its own league.

From www.mediabistro.com:

Friday, Jul 24

Man Bites Dog: U.S. Navy Commander Files Sex Complaint Against Female Miami

FishbowlDC Exclusive: US Navy Commander Jeffrey D. Gordon has filed a sexual harassment complaint against the Miami Herald's Carol Rosenberg.

 

FishbowlDC obtained a copy of the July 22, 2009 letter addressed to Miami Herald Senior VP and Executive Editor Anders Gyllenhaal. In the complaint, Gordon calls for a "thorough investigation" to put an end to Rosenberg's "appalling behavior" that includes comments about the Commander's sexual orientation.

 

The complaint outlines examples of Rosenberg's alleged "abusive and degrading, comments of an explicitly sexual nature."

 

Gordon writes:

 

To me, in front of another journalist with reference to why 9/11 co-defendant Mustafa Al Hawsawi was seated on a pillow in court:

 

"Have you ever had a red hot poker shoved up your a**? Have you ever had a broomstick shoved up your a**? Have you ever had anything in your a**? How would you know how it feels if it never happened to you? Admit it, you liked it? No wonder why you like to stay in South Beach on your Miami visits."

 

Rosenberg, to CNN's Jamie McIntyre in front of roughly 15 journalists in the Guantanamo Commission's press center:

 

To Jamie - "Aren't you in the BOQ (Bachelor Officers Quarters)? I didn't think you were in tent city because these people (military public affairs escorts) are so far up your ass that I figured you must be in the BOQ."

 

To Me [Gordon] - "Why isn't he in the BOQ? You're kissing his ass so much that I can't believe that you're letting him stay with the rest of us. Do you love him?"

 

The Commander claims that Rosenberg said to members of the press and enlisted military men and women: "Seeing him [Gordon] topless in tent city was the most repulsive sight I've ever seen in my life." Most recently, while walking to court, Gordon says that Rosenberg obstructed an AP pool photographer from taking his picture, saying "Well, I know you like to have your picture taken to show people you are actually working down here, but guess what, not today..."

 

Gordon, who also serves as the Pentagon Spokesman for Western Hemisphere and Guantanamo issues also accuses Rosenberg of "bullying" reporters from various outlets including New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, CBC, Der Siegel and Al Jazeera. He claims that over the years, Rosenberg has labeled her peers in the press and Gordon's colleagues "bitches," "stupid," "lazy," "incompetent," "Nazis," and "Saddam Hussein-like."

 

A full copy of Gordon's complaint here.

 

*The Miami Herald was not available for comment when FishbowlDC contacted them. We'll continue to update as this story unfolds.

If this is even remotely close to true (and there are a lot witnesses being claimed, so I suspect it is), this reporter should be summarily fired and the Miami Herald needs a front page apology to its readers for anything she's ever written for the paper.

As for Carol Rosenberg - again assuming any of this is true - maybe she can go on tour with former New York Times writer Jayson Blair. 

What interesting stories they would tell.

Ken Berwitz

When I was in my teens, I read a very funny story in Playboy magazine (I only looked at the literary stuff in Playboy.  Honest.).  It was about the "Cold War" between the USA and the then-USSR, and described a neutral country's flag as "A hammer and sickle on a field of red, white and blue, with the words 'In God We Trust....if there is one".  It was a hilarious way of showing the near-impossibility of demonstrating neutrality in those times.

I was reminded of that story a couple of days ago, when I read about Sgt. Leon Lashley - a Black police officer who is inadvertently thrust into the middle of "Gates-gate".

Here, from the Associated Press (via the Chicago Tribune) is Sgt. Lashley's dilemma, and how he is trying to walk a nearly impossible tightrope between his status as a police officer, acquaintance (maybe friend, I don't know) of Sgt. Crowley, and a Black man stuck in the middle of a racial incident in a city with a rich history of racial tensions:

Black officer at Gates home during arrest said scholar acted strange, supports arrest

BOB SALSBERG | Associated Press Writer

12:57 PM CDT, July 24, 2009

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — A black police officer who was at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s home when the black Harvard scholar was arrested says he fully supports how his white fellow officer handled the situation.

Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary. Lashley says Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."

Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said supported Crowley "100 percent."

Gates has said he was the victim of racial profiling.

President Barack Obama says the officers "acted stupidly." Lashley called Obama's remark "unfortunate" and said he should be allowed to take it back.

How unfair to Sgt. Lashley.  He has to simultaneously evaluate the quality of both Sgt Crowley's police work and Professor Gates' behavior, with his fellow officers and his fellow Black citizens scrutinizing and evaluating him on every word.  Little wonder he is trying so hard to be so diplomatic.

My advice, for Sgt. Lashley, for whatever it's worth, is that, no matter what he says, he's probably going to please some of the players here and outrage others.  That liberates him to just be as honest as he can.  So do it.

Ken Berwitz

Investigations of corruption aren't exactly unknown to New Jersey. But this may well be the biggest of them all, involving literally dozens of politicians from state assembly to city mayors -- and a group of rabbis involved with the Syrian Jewish communities of Deal, New Jersey and Brookyn, NY.

This is from www.nj.com (the Newark Star-Ledger web site).  Be sure to click on its link to get additional details:

Massive N.J. corruption sting targets mayors, legislators, rabbis

by Ted Sherman and Joe Ryan/The Star-Ledger

Friday July 24, 2009, 5:05 AM

 

NEWARK -- The bribes went down in diners, living rooms and parking lots. New Jersey Assemblymen took them, mayors took them, and so did dozens of others.

 

Orthodox rabbis, acting more like crime bosses than religious leaders, laundered millions through synagogues and yeshivas in Deal, one of the state's wealthiest towns. And a Realtor tried to sell an informant a black market kidney for $160,000.

 

 Those were some of the allegations federal prosecutors made today in what could prove to be the biggest New Jersey scandal of them all.

 

The revelations came after hundreds of federal agents swept across the state, arresting public servants and religious leaders as part of a two-year investigation into corruption and international money-laundering that authorities described as unprecedented - even in a state known for its scandals.

 

Full Star-Ledger coverage of the New Jersey corruption arrests

 

It was a sting operation that could have been taken from the pages of an Elmore Leonard novel: the FBI and IRS agents arrested five rabbis, two New Jersey state legislators, three mayors, political operatives, and many others, as part of a probe that spanned from Hoboken to Israel.

 

Other records were taken from Saint Peter's College in Jersey City and from at least one synagogue in Deal. Meanwhile, a top member of the Corzine administration unexpectedly resigned after agents arrived at his home and office with evidence boxes.

 

The arrests were the result of two separate investigations that used the same informant, a man who moved easily between the world of the rabbis and the world of Jersey politics. The rabbis are charged with operating money laundering network by funneling cash through yeshivas and non-profit organizations they were associated with. The politicians are accused of taking outright bribes in exchange for favors.

 

And at the center of it all was an unnamed informant who sources and defendants later identified as Solomon Dwek - once a high-flying Monmouth County developer and son of a prominent Monmouth County rabbi who remains on bail for a 2006 bank fraud case that has never come to trial. Dwek , according to the federal complaint, secretly taped those targeted in the investigation for more than two years.

 

Prosecutors said the case began when the informant infiltrated an existing international money laundering network being run by a group of rabbis in New York and New Jersey. It then expanded into a public corruption case through a middleman who moved in both worlds, officials said.

 

Some of the bribes to elected officials were paid through political contributions, the complaint said, often through "straw" donors who wrote checks in their names or businesses to comply with campaign finance regulations.

 

Acting U.S. Attorney Ralph Marra Jr. said the arrests underscored the continuing pervasiveness of public corruption in New Jersey, where more than 130 public officials have been prosecuted in recent years.

"For these defendants, corruption was a way of life," Marra said. "They existed in an ethics free zone. And they exploited giant loopholes in the state's campaign contribution rules."

 

 Among those charged included newly elected Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano, 32, and rabbi Saul Kassin, the 87-year-old spiritual leader of the close-knit Syrian Sephardic Jewish community in Deal and Brooklyn.

 

Others were Secaucus Mayor Dennis Elwell, 64; Anthony Suarez, 42, the mayor of Ridgefield; Leona Beldini, 74, the Jersey City deputy mayor; Assemblymen L. Harvey Smith (D-Hudson), 60 and Daniel Van Pelt (R-Ocean), 44; rabbi Edmund Nahum, 56, of Deal; and rabbi Eliahu Ben Haim, 58, of Long Branch. In all, 44 people were charged, 29 of them from New Jersey.

Bribes.  The selling of body parts for $$$.  Elected officials in handcuffs.  "Spiritual leaders" in handcuffs.  It doesn't get much worse than that.

We'll wait to see how this all plays out.  But the stain on New Jersey, and especially on a segment of its Jewish community, already is large, ugly and, I suspect, likely to spread a lot further.

Ken Berwitz

This is a woman who knows about health care.  And when she speaks we should all be listening.

Here is the latest from Betsy, courtesy of Paul Mirengoff at www.powerlineblog.com.  She describes the nightmare scenario for senior citizens of Obamacare should ever pass:

Obama's assault on seniors

July 24, 2009 Posted by Paul at 4:21 PM

 

 Betsy McCaughey, who helped lead the charge against the Clintons' health care legislation, has a must-read column about "Obamacare" in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Her piece is called "GovernmentCare's Assault on Seniors" and the title is apt. McCaughey argues persuasively that the legislation currently being pushed in Congress would "reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years."

 

McCaughey notes that the House bill shifts resources from specialty medicine to primary care based on the notion that Americans overuse specialist care and drive up costs in the process. But this, she argues, is a misconception. For example, "heart-disease patients treated by generalists instead of specialists are often misdiagnosed and treated incorrectly." As a result, "they are readmitted to the hospital more frequently, and die sooner."

 

The Democrats seem to be operating on the premise that longevity is a burden to society. Thus, they have pushed for "comparative effectiveness research," which McCaughey calls "code for limiting care based on the patient's age." In Britain, comparative effectiveness formulas had led to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.

 

McCaughey points out, however, that "a patient who dies at 67 spends three times as much on health care at the end of life as a patient who lives to 90." The real cost to society results when the elderly become disabled. For it turns out that nondisabled seniors use only one-seventh as much health care as disabled seniors (they don't need nursing homes, vast amounts of intensive care, etc.). Moreover, medical procedures such as heart valve replacement and knee and hip replacement have had a major impact on steadily reducing disability rates, thus decreasing costs.

 

By shifting resources away from specialty care, by cutting Medicare by $500 billion, and eventually by rationing health care based on the concept of comparative effectiveness, "Obamacare" would put an end to this virtuous cycle. It would also substantially reduce the quality of life for seniors.

 

But don't worry; McCaughey notes that Obamacare will provide seniors with counseling on end-of-life options, including refusing nutrition where state law allows it.

 

UPDATE: A reader writes:

 

I'm reminded of my Dad's experience, which will resonate with many of your readers I suspect. My Dad had a valve replacement operation at 72. Before the operation he could not walk 10 feet and his quality of life had deteriorated to a very poor state. Afterwards, he was fit again and enjoyed another 16+ years of high quality, low medical bill life, finally dying just shy of 90.

 

It scares me to think that some bureaucrat might have said to him, "Sorry but you're too old for this surgery. Let us talk with you about your right to forego nourishment so as not to burden your family for too long."

 

(The euthanasia centers in "Soylent Green" were quite nice, on the other hand...)

If you want a catastrophic health care system that you will curse every day it is in place - unless you're a senior citizen, in which case you may not be here to curse it at all - President Obama and his merry Democratic cohorts in congress have just what you've been waiting for.  Do you? 

If you yourself are a senior citizen, I would think the answer is no.  If you have a parent, or grandparent, or uncle, or aunt, or anyone else you care about who is elderly, I would think the answer is no as well.

But if you are an illegal immigrant who wants free medical care regardless of who it is taken from?  Obamacare will be Christmas every day.

Ken Berwitz

Good for you, guys!  This little toad was begging for the comeuppance you gave them!  (The bold print is mine).

From www.thehill.com:

House healthcare talks break down in anger By Jared Allen, Mike Soraghan and Lauren Burke

Posted: 07/24/09 03:27 PM [ET]

House healthcare negotiations dissolved in acrimony on Friday, with Blue Dog Democrats saying they were “lied” to by their Democratic leaders.

In advance of a subsequent press conference called by House leadership, Blue Dog liaison Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) said the healthcare bill should be staying in committee.

 

"I expect the committee process to proceed," Cardoza said.

 

The seven Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee stormed out of a Friday meeting with their committee chairman, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), saying Waxman had been negotiating in bad faith over a number of provisions Blue Dogs demanded be changed in the stalled healthcare bill.

“I’ve been lied to,” Blue Dog Coalition Co-Chairman Charlie Melancon (D-La.) said on Friday. “We have not had legitimate negotiations.

“Mr. Waxman has decided to sever discussions with the Blue Dogs who are trying to make this bill work for America,” Melancon said.

Although those Blue Dogs were supposed to be headed back into another meeting of the Energy and Commerce Democrats, their anger was visible.

If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, the only hope for passage of the bill in the House will be to go straight to the floor, an option leaders shied away from endorsing but said was an option.

But the Blue Dogs issued dire warnings to leaders contemplating that approach.

"Waxman simply does not have votes in committee and process should not be bypassed to bring the bill straight to floor,” Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the lead Blue Dog negotiator, said on Friday. “We are trying to save this bill and trying to save this party.”

Melancon said there would be 40-45 “solid no” votes from the 52-strong Blue Dogs, among other problems throughout the caucus. And Melancon said there are more Democrats who will vote against the bill.

“If they try to bring it to the floor, I think they’ll find out they have more problems than the Blue Dogs.”

A leadership aide said no decisions have been made on how to proceed.

That comment about trying to save the party is worth thinking about.  A demonstrable move back from the far left (i.e. more towards the so-called 'blue dog Democrats) may be their ticket to staving off an electoral bloodbath in 2010.

Stay tuned.

Ken Berwitz

I watched about two minutes of Chris Matthews' "Hardball" show before.  And in those two minutes he offered a comparative - which he may have been quoting from someone else - to the Henry Louis Gates incident.  

Matthews asked what would have happened if it had been Henry Kissinger, and a Black police officer accosted him in his own house...  He then assured us that the Black officer would have been seen in 100% negative terms and gushed about how "brilliantly" this brings home the difference. (the show is repeated at 7PM Eastern on MSNBC - If you care to, watch the first 5-10 minutes to hear it for yourself).

Accosted him in his own house?  That's Chris Matthews' "brilliant" comparative?

Er, Chris:  Professor Gates was not "accosted in his own house".  A police officer was summoned to his house because a neighbor made a 911 call about two Black men trying to break into it (which is exactly what happened:  Gates had trouble opening his front door so he asked his driver to help and they were both trying to jimmy it open).

Here's a great idea for Matthews:  How about a Black officer coming to Kissinger's door, telling him there was a report of a possible breaking and entering in progress, and asking him for identification - which IS the comparative.  Do you think Kissinger would go into a screaming rampage and loudly insult the officer for trying to protect his home until he was arrested?

What a prejudiced, big-mouthed dope Matthews is.  No wonder his show remains in the ratings dump after all this time.

Ken Berwitz

First off, I should mention that I like Jon Klein, the President of CNN.  I, along with my co-author Barry Sinrod (from a studio in Florida), did a segment on CNN International a couple of years ago and I met him before it aired.  He was very personable - we shared a joke or two about the statue of Christopher Columbus visible outside his window,  ("I would have thought he'd look older...") and engaged in a little small talk.  I left him with a copy of our book, which he might or might not have read.

But Jon is way, way off base on the Barack Obama birth certificate issue. 

From the LA Times:

CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead'

11:03 AM PT, Jul 24 2009

 

CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers at the cable news network Thursday night that the supposed controversy regarding the legitimacy of President Obama’s birth certificate is a “dead” story after anchor Lou Dobbs drew attention for raising the issue repeatedly on his radio program.

 

The website TVNewser reported today that Klein sent an e-mail to staffers of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” just as the program went to air, informing them that CNN researchers had determined that Hawaiian officials discarded all paper documents in 2001. A long-form birth certificate with details about the doctor who delivered Obama no longer exists, they reported. The shorter Certificate of Live Birth noting Obama’s birth on Aug. 4, 1961, that has been made public is the official record.

 

“It seems to definitively answer the question,” Klein wrote, according to TVNewser. “Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead -- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef.”

 

In his show Thursday, Dobbs did note the explanation from Hawaiian officials, though he went on to devote another segment to the topic, interviewing CNN contributor Roland Martin and Rep. Ted Poe, a co-sponsor of a bill that would require future presidential candidates to produce their birth certificates.

 

Here's Dobbs' opening:

 

“President Obama promised transparency and openness in his administration. Yet, he's chosen not to release his original birth certificate or a copy of it. And a number of Americans are asking, why not? The left-wing media has attacked me because I simply asked the question. Meanwhile, the state of Hawaii says it can't release a paper copy of the president's original birth certificate because they say the state government discarded the original document when the health department records went electronic some eight years ago. That explanation, however, has not satisfied some critics.”

 

In the segment, Dobbs stressed that he has said repeatedly that he believes Obama is a citizen, something that he said his critics in the “left-wing media” ignore.

 

But he continued to press the question of why Obama has not shown a long-form birth certificate. “When this could be dispelled so quickly, and -- and simply by producing it, why not do it?” Dobbs asked.

Oh, really? 

Here is the verbatim statement from Dr. Chiyome Fukino, who heads Hawaii's Department of Health.  See if it jibes with what Jon said:

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,"

Does that say the paper version is no longer in existence?  Nope. It does not.

Even if you assume that "on record" is supposed to communicate there is no paper, does this say that the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is all that is "on record"?  Nope.  It says ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, plain as day.  That ain't a COLB.

Now:  are you comfortable with CNN's President shutting up and censoring one of its on air personalities so that he won't talk about this?  I hope the answer to that is "Nope" too.

The more they try to bury this, the more suspicious I get.

And before you assume (as some people do, I know first-hand) that I'm some kind of a "birther" cultist, please note the following:

-I belong to no "birther" group, and concede that some of the people involved in this are nutcakes;

-I do not claim to know whether or not Mr. Obama is legally eligible for the Presidency, but I am more than a little suspicious; 

-One key reason for my suspicion (not the only one) is that, as a matter of simple logic, the more effort someone expends to hide a document from me, the more likely there is something on that document that they don't want me to see. 

-And if all that is on Barack Obama's birth certificate is what he says, I assume he would obtain a copy (which he can do with virtually no effort), show it to the world and laugh at the skeptics who think he is not legal.  But, instead, he has spent something like $1,000,000 on lawyers whose job is to keep that birth certificate from our view.  Why would he do that? 

Fair enough?

Ken Berwitz

For the poll lovers in the house:

-Today's Rasmussen poll shows President Obama's approval rating at 49%. 

-Today's just-released Zogby interactive poll shows President Obama at 48%.

This is the first time either poll has dipped below the 50% mark - and, I believe, the first time any major poll has.  However, just about all the majors show Mr. Obama dropping from the low to mid 60's down to the mid 50's over the past month or two.

If these data are accurate (with poll numbers you never know) not only is the honeymoon over, but we're starting to sleep in separate bedrooms.

Ken Berwitz

I watched about 5 minutes of TV during the day (while eating lunch) and caught a former (and, presumably current) media professional named David Walker, who runs a web site called. www.thegrio.com. 

I don't know why he didn't fully spell out "the griot" (if you type it, you get to his site anyway).  But that's his business, I suppose.

Griot is an African word for oral historian.  Not surprisingly therefore, www.thegrio.com is a Black-oriented site.  The reason I am mentioning it here is because it is probably the best such site I have seen.  And, unlike most racial and/or political sites, the comments made by visitors appear to cover a wide range of opinion; they don't just "second the motion" of what is written there.

Now that I've found www.thegrio.com, I will be visiting it often.  You might want to as well.  Your call.

Ken Berwitz

I've said it many times in here and it bears repeating now:  We elected what amounts to one-party government.  And we are getting what we deserve from it.

Here is the latest example of unbridled abuse of power, from Ed Morrissey of www.hotair.com.  The disgraceful behavior is supplied by that little toad who (like his pal Barney Frank) is in terminal love with his gavel, henry waxman:

Waxman threatens to bypass own committee on ObamaCare

posted at 2:55 pm on July 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Henry Waxman had to pull a lot of strings to get the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House, kicking longtime chair John Dingell out for his moderate stance on cap-and-trade.  However, his most controversial action in the ECC hasn’t come on cap-and-trade but on Barack Obama’s push to get a health-care reform bill passed before the August recess.  Waxman has threatened renegade Democrats on the panel that he will allow Pelosi to bypass them if they don’t fall into line:

Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) says there is “no alternative” but to have healthcare legislation bypass his Energy and Commerce Committee if Blue Dog Democrats don’t accept a deal worked out Friday.

Waxman is now playing a game of legislative chicken with the Blue Dogs. He’s  hoping the inclusion of a study on Medicare reimbursement rates in the healthcare overhaul will be enough to placate the centrist Democrats, who say the government program short-changes hospitals and physicians in their rural districts.

If that’s not, the seven Blue Dogs could join with the committee’s Republicans to “eviscerate” healthcare reform, and that’s something Waxman will not tolerate.

Think of this as a “nuclear option”.  Waxman and Pelosi could get the bill past the ECC moderates, but that would almost certainly provoke a floor fight between Democrats when the bill comes up for a vote.  Moderate Democrats who already have publicly-expressed reservations over ObamaCare will dig in their heels, and at the moment, they have enough votes to kill it.

In all likelihood, this is a big bluff.  With consensus on the bill falling apart at the seams, and with Obama’s approval ratings crashing, the last thing Pelosi needs is a schism among her own troops that could rapidly turn bitter.  After all, she’s not that far removed from her CIA-lied debacle, and a failure of her leadership at this juncture would probably rekindle the impulse to replace her with Steny Hoyer, a steadier and more well-liked leader.

Just as with Rahm Emanuel’s statement this morning on NPR, though, it bears close watching.

Update: Speaking of open and transparent thuggery, don’t miss Jazz Shaw and Bruce McQuain on the Democratic attempt to censor House Republican mailings through the Franking Committee.

Not content with absolutely ignoring Republicans - who, last time I checked, are elected officials too - waxman is now threatening even Democrats. 

henry waxman has as safe a seat as there is and is therefore liberated to be as big a jerk as he cares to be. By contrast, the Democrats he is threatening are worried to death over trying to win re-election if this catastrophe of a bill passes.  As well they should be.  Who will protect them?  waxman?  Barack Obama, whose poll numbers are falling through a trap door, and may not have any coattails for them to latch on to?

But that doesn't concern waxman at all, does it?  He is a classic little man with a big gavel.   Whether or not they get elected, the reflexively liberal elites of Beverly Hills are sure to put him right back in DC.

The next national elections are in 2010.  They can't come soon enough.

Ken Berwitz

If CBS is going to start a feud, I would suggest it pick on someone other than Charles Johnson, who runs the invaluable web site  www.littlegreenfootballs.com.  He's pretty good at answering back - actually very, very good

CBS made the mistake of attacking littlegreenfootballs.com for blogging that President Obama's comments about the Henry Louis Gates incident had a racial component to them.

Look at this blog by Charles, in which he responds to CBS, and tell me which side comes out better:

Ken Berwitz

The Boston Globe has really distinguished itself on the Henry Louis Gates story, let me tell you.

-First it put up an  account complete with the police report I showed you in the previous blog.

-Then it removed the police report.  And its news article concocts a story that, while paraphrasing a few significant parts of the police report, tries mightily to make Henry Louis Gates little other than a sympathetic figure beleaguered by a racist society.  Read it by clicking here and see for yourself.

The Boston Globe is a paper on the verge of going out of business, and desperately needs to retain its base readership - which is largely comprised of liberal Democrats (the Boston Herald is the paper of choice for people on the right).  You have to at least consider the possibility that this is why they removed the police report and wrote their story this way.

Oh, did I mention that the Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times?

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

Ken Berwitz

REVISED BLOG:

Want to see the "not for public release" police report about the Henry Louis Gates incident - the actual report filed with the Cambridge police department?   I pulled it  from www.smokinggun.com.  At one point I was unsure if it was the legitimate report, but, having seen it in several credible places, I now am certain it is. 

You can read a transcription below, which I got from www.newsbusters.org (the bold print is theirs, not mine), or look at the actual document by clicking here.

On Thursday July 16, 2009, Henry Gates, Jr. - -, of Ware Street, Cambridge, MA) was placed under arrest at Ware Street, after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed police officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on the behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed.

...When I arrived at Ware Street I radioed ECC and asked that they have the caller meet me at the front door to this residence. I was told that the caller was already outside. As I was getting this information, I climbed the porch stairs toward the front door. As [reached the door, a female voice called out to me. I looked in the direction of the voice and observed a white female, later identified {} who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the residence, held a wireless telephone in her hand arid told me that it was she who called. She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of• Ware Street. She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry. Since I was the only police officer on location and had my back to the front door as I spoke with her, I asked that she wait for other responding officers while I investigated further.

As I turned and faced the door, I could see an older black male standing in the foyer of {} Ware Street. I made this observation through the glass paned front door. As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied “no I will not”. He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was “Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police” and that I was “investigating a report of a break in progress” at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed “why, because I’m a black man in America?”. I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer. I assured Gates that I was responding to a citizen’s call to the Cambridge Police and that the caller was outside as we spoke. Gates seemed to ignore me and picked up a cordless telephone and dialed an unknown telephone number. As he did so, I radioed on channel I that I was off in the residence with someone who appeared to be a resident but very uncooperative. I then overheard Gates asking the person on the other end of his telephone call to “get the chief’ and “whats the chiefs name?’. Gates was telling the person on the other end of the call that he was dealing with a racist police officer in his home. Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was “messing” with and that I had not heard the last of it. While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.

With the Harvard University identification in hand, I radioed my findings to ECC on channel two and prepared to leave. Gates again asked for my name which I began to provide. Gates began to yell over my spoken words by accusing me of being a racist police officer and leveling threats that he wasn’t someone to mess with. At some point during this exchange, I became aware that Off. Carlos Figueroa was standing behind me. When Gates asked a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times. Gates continued to yell at me. I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence.

As I began walking through the foyer toward the front door, I could hear Gates agai,n demanding my name. I again told Gates that I would speak with him outside. My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units. His reply was “ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside”. When I left the residence, I noted that there were several Cambridge and Harvard University police officers assembled on the sidewalk in front of the residence. Additionally, the caller, md at least seven unidentified passers-by were looking in the direction of Gates, who had followed me outside of the residence.

As I descended the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him. Due to the tumultuous manner Gates had exhibited in his residence as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates’s outburst. For a second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest. I then stepped up the stairs, onto the porch and attempted to place handcuffs on Gates. Gates initially resisted my attempt to handcuff him, yelling that he was “disabled” and would fall without his cane. After the handcuffs were property applied, Gates complained that they were too tight. I ordered Off. Ivey, who was among the responding officers, to handcuff Gates with his arms in front of him for his comfort while I secured a cane for Gates from within the residence. I then asked Gates if he would like an officer to take possession of his house key and secure his front door, which he left wide open. Gates told me that the door was un securable due to a previous break attempt at the residence. Shortly thereafter, a Harvard University maintenance person arrived on scene and appeared familiar with Gates. I asked Gates if he was comfortable with this Harvard University maintenance person securing his residence. He told me that he was.

There it is, without further comment.   Make up your own mind about who is and isn't telling the truth.

Ken Berwitz

I don't know much about Robert Goldberg.  But his questions about health care - questions he wishes Mr. Obama had been asked at Wednesday's press conference - are excellent.

Read them below, and for yourself just how bad the Obamacare proposals really are:

Questions I Never Asked Obama

By Robert M. Goldberg on 7.24.09 @ 6:07AM

Here is a list of questions that reporters wanted to ask President Obama about health care reform at Wednesday night's press conference but were afraid to ask:

1. Why are American taxpayers subsidizing premiums of millions of union members and healthy Americans who already have health insurance at a cost of about $6,000 per person?

2. Why should American taxpayers pay for the health insurance of millions of young single Americans making over $80,000 year who are offered health insurance at work or can afford it but don't get it?

3. Why should American taxpayers pay for the health insurances of millions of illegal immigrants? Shouldn't there be a better way to provide people who are here illegally basic care?

4. Why are American taxpayers paying $10 billion for the health care costs of retirees of big corporations?

5. You talk about using health care reform to control the deficit. But if we targeted help to people who need it most, wouldn't that help?

6. You talk about two-thirds of the money to pay for people who already have health insurance or don't have it even though they can afford it or are eligible or aren't entitled to it (see questions 1-4) or subsidizing a new program (question 5) coming from eliminating "waste in the system" by having a government panel of experts decide what services and treatments are best. Won't that increase waiting times for services and access to new treatments?

7. You also say doctors will decide how they should practice medicine. So who will decide, the panel of experts or my doctor?

8. A follow up, Mr. President. You talk about the red pill being half as expensive as the blue pill (or is it the other way around?) but being just as effective. Sometimes only the blue pill works but in systems where government experts decide, people only get the red pill? Will that happen here?

9. Some of the "experts" have suggested that two-thirds of hospital admissions for people on Medicare in the last two years of life are wasteful because those people are going to die anyway. That includes a lot of cancer patients like Ted Kennedy. Do you think Ted Kennedy should die instead of being readmitted to the hospital? Should anyone else be denied care in order to subsidize paying for the health insurance of people who are not eligible or who can afford care they refuse to pay for?

10. A related question: the care people get in the "last two years of life" continues to extend and improve their lives (that's why we are also living longer as Americans). So wouldn't cutting this care also shorten and reduce quality of life? That's what's happened to cancer and heart patients in other countries.

11. In fact, the health care bills you support would cut payments for hospital readmissions. That could likely increase the number of deaths and shorten the lives of people with cancer, heart disease, and Parkinson's. Isn't that denying coverage for pre-existing conditions?

12. The House health bill, which you support, pays a bonus to doctors who provide less care to healthy, white middle class people in rural area and cuts reimbursement to doctors who provide care to sick, poor black people in inner cities. Doesn't that discriminate against minorities, the chronically sick, and the poor?

13. Another follow up. All the health care bills cut subsidies for low-income people to buy insurance and provide more for wealthy people, including the new retiree health bailout fund. Doesn't that discriminate against minorities and the poor as well?

14. You say if you have health insurance you like you can keep it. But both the CBO and independent studies say that up to 120 million Americans will lose their group coverage at work and join either Medicaid or a government-run plan because government will pay much lower prices to doctors and hospitals. And these doctors will also be paid 30 percent less and denying care based on pre-existing conditions determined by your expert panel. Yet you said the goal is to improve health. I am just a reporter and not used to asking hard questions, so maybe you can explain.

15. Final question Mr. President: If the public option is so good, will you try it out before we do? Like your first ball throw at the All-Star game, your initial response to the question kind sort of fell short and the media didn't cover it very well then either. 

Like his disastrous, pork-laden, failed "stimulus package" and cap and trade legislation, Mr. Obama is desperately trying to ram Obamacare through congress before anyone has a chance to read what it says.  Evidently, he realizes that the less we know about it the more likely it is to pass.

But even with a lopsided majority in both houses of congress, this is so godawful that he probably won't be able to do so, at least not in its current form. 

The bad news, however, is that he probably can come close.  With only minor to moderate changes, we can easily wind up with the same substandard quality of health care that the UK and Canada are getting.

The next national elections are in 2010.  They can't come soon enough.

Ken Berwitz

Here, writing for the Miami Herald, is Florida Senator Mel Martinez on the mess in Honduras - a mess that has been made far worse by President Obama's reaction to it.  Please pay special attention to the segments I've put in bold print: