That is what passes for logic in the happy-horsemanure world if Nancy Pelosi.

And she will most assuredly be re-elected to another term from her house district anyway. She is left wing perfection over there.

But what about Democrats in districts that are not so safe?

That's something they might want to think about before walking the Pelosi plank. She might not be going over the edge: they won't be so lucky. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Ken Berwitz

How hard is President Obama going to work at making sure he is in complete control of how terrorism is fought in this country? 

Based on this Reuters article - via a thoroughly disgusted Steve Gilbert at www.sweetness-light.com - the answer is plenty:

Obama Demands Total Say On 9/11 Trials

February 26th, 2010

From an irony-proof Reuters:

Obama aides push back on venue for terrorism trials

By Jeremy Pelofsky

February 26, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration bluntly urged the Congress on Thursday to steer clear of directing where terrorism suspects should be prosecuted, pushing back against efforts to require military rather than civilian trials.

A bipartisan group of senators has offered legislation aimed at forcing the administration to prosecute terrorism suspects, like the self-professed mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in special military commission trials instead of traditional criminal courts.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder ordered Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators to be tried in a criminal court in Manhattan. But concerns by some lawmakers about security costs and granting full legal rights to the suspects have forced administration officials to reconsider.

Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote leaders in the House of Representatives to express their opposition to legislation directing how and where to prosecute the cases.

"The exercise of prosecutorial discretion has always been and should remain an Executive branch function," they said in the letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican Minority Leader John Boehner.

"We believe it would be unwise and would set a dangerous precedent for Congress to restrict the discretion of our departments to carry out specific terrorism prosecutions," Holder and Gates said…

How is that for chutzpah? 

Didn’t Mr. Holder’s own law firm, Covington & Burling, spend the last seven years of the Bush administration trying to close down the military tribunals at Guantanamo in order to give their terrorist charges civilian trials in federal court?

Moreover, didn’t the Democrats in Congress and on the Supreme Court do everything they could to interfere with the “prosecutorial discretion” of the Executive branch when it was in the hands of President Bush?

If hypocrisy were an Olympic event, the Obama administration would be out there celebrating with the cigars and champagne.

Let me see if I have this straight:  President Obama hands us an Attorney General with a rich history of defending terrorists.  The Attorney Genera, as blogged about last week, is stacking the justice department with similarly sympathetic people.  And when a bipartisan group within congress wants to have a say in this, Mr. Obama tells them to steer clear.

Is this supposed to make us feel safer?  More protected from our enemies - the ones who want our culture destroyed and all of us under shari'a law?  

The 2012 election cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

Is the American Bar Association (ABA) biased?  Read this piece by Paul Mirengoff of www.powerlineblog.com, and you tell me:

The American Bar Association exposes its liberal bias once again

 

February 26, 2010 Posted by Paul at 10:28 PM

I wrote here about Goodwin Liu, the leftist law professor nominated by President Obama for a spot on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Among my observations was that Liu has only practiced law in earnest for two or three years. The rest of his time since graduating from law school has been spent as a law clerk or a law professor.

Moreover, Liu appears to have no trial experience. Nor, as far as I can tell, has he ever argued a case before a court of appeal.

None of this means that Liu is unqualified to be a federal appellate court judge, but it would seem to preclude him from receiving the American Bar Association's coveted "highly qualified" rating. After all, according to the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's explanation of its standards for rating judicial nominees, "a prospective nominee to the federal bench ordinarily should have at least twelve years' experience in the practice of law." Further, "the Committee recognizes that substantial courtroom and trial experience as a lawyer or trial judge is important."

Yet the ABA has rated Liu "highly qualified." To further demonstrate the outlandishness of this rating, consider the ABA's evaluation of Frank Easterbrook who was nominated to the Seventh Circuit by President Reagan and has gone on to become one of the top appellate judges in the country.

As Ed Whelan reminds us, the ABA gave Easterbrook the low rating of "qualified/not qualified." However, Easterbrook had better qualifications than Liu. According to Ed, at the time of his nomination, Easterbrook had been out of law school for 11 years (compared to 12 for Liu). After a judicial clerkship, Easterbrook had spent four years in the Office of the Solicitor General, first as an Assistant to the Solicitor General, then as Deputy Solicitor General. As a government lawyer who dealt on occasion with the Solicitor General's office, I can report that Easterbrook was considered a superstar even as measured by the high standards of that shop.

By the time of his nomination, Easterbrook he had argued 20 cases before the Supreme Court. And he had spent about as much time in academia as Liu.

The only plausible explanation for rating Liu more highly than Easterbrook (never mind significantly more highly) is ideology. Liu is a left-liberal; Easterbrook was and is on the other side of the spectrum.

It's no scoop that the ABA's ratings are a sham. But the Liu/Easterbrook comparison provides a timely reminder of the nauseating degree to which this is the case.

Pathetic enough for you?  Me too.

Ken Berwitz

Did David Paterson bribe David Johnson's girlfriend to shut her up about Johnson's abuse? 

Read this article in today's New York Post and decide for yourself:

Probers eye how ex got a $40K Lexus amid case nix

 

By FREDRIC U. DICKER in Albany and DOUGLAS MONTERO and DAN MANGAN in New York

Last Updated: 8:06 AM, February 27, 2010

Posted: 3:21 AM, February 27, 2010

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating how the Bronx woman at the center of the scandal involving Gov. Paterson came to buy a brand-new, pricey SUV shortly before she dropped her domestic-violence case against a top aide to the governor, The Post has learned.

Cuomo's inquiry into the purchase of the $40,000 Lexus by Sherr-una Booker is part of a broader probe of why Paterson and the State Police contacted her as she pursued a Family Court case against ex-boyfriend David Johnson.

The probe includes subpoenas for NYPD records related to the Oct. 31, 2009, incident that touched off the scandal, a source said. 

The subpoena ranges from police reports to the 911 call and radio transmissions, the source said.

Police say Booker told cops Johnson choked her, ripped her clothes off and pushed her into a mirror.

A key question for Cuomo will be how Booker, who earns just under $57,996 a year from her assistant director's job at Lincoln Hospital, paid for the 2010 Lexus RX350 herself -- or whether someone else gave her the money to buy the SUV, and why.

Before buying the luxury car, Booker was driving a 1998 Ford Escort that, when new, had a base price of a mere $12,580.

Public records show that in recent years Booker had civil judgments entered against her for debts totaling nearly $6,000.

However, in October, Booker reached an out-of-court settlement for an undisclosed sum from her landlord, whom she was suing over a 2006 incident in which she slipped and fell on a sidewalk outside her building.

Booker's lawyer did not respond to requests for comment. The AG's Office declined comment.

Booker, 40, made the complaint against Johnson last Halloween, police said. Two days later, she went to Bronx Family Court and obtained a temporary order of protection against him.

She said that "the state troopers kept calling and harassing me to drop the charges."

At a Nov. 4 hearing, Booker repeated that claim, and said she still wanted court-ordered protection.

But on Dec. 17, a judge told Booker that she had incorrectly attempted delivery of the summons to Johnson, 37, and that she would have to try again. Booker agreed to it.

State Department of Motor Vehicle records show that Booker registered the Lexus, which she had purchased from Prestige Auto in Ramsey, NJ, on Jan. 5. A title to the car was issued in her name -- indicating that she owned it free and clear of any loan -- on Jan. 26.

On Feb. 7 -- a day before her scheduled Family Court hearing -- Booker spoke with Paterson. The next day, she failed to show up at the hearing, and a judge dismissed the matter.

Police said there was no visible sign of injury, so the case was treated as harassment and there was no arrest, although it was logged as a domestic incident. Police said they were unaware of Johnson's link to the governor.

Cops say they served Johnson with an order of protection on Nov. 9. Court transcripts of the hearings show Johnson's lawyer saying he was never served.

Is this circumstantial?  Yes.

Does it stink like a dozen month-old unrefrigerated eggs?  Yes.

Stay tuned.

Ken Berwitz

A very quick blog, drawn from today's Memphis Commercial-Appeal:

NASHVILLE -- Former Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore will join entertainer Dolly Parton and former senator Howard H. Baker Jr. as the only recipients of honorary degrees awarded by the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

The end.

How about a health care summit?

What a ridiculous dog and pony show, apropos of nothing.

Is this supposed to show that President Obama is bipartisan? Please.

Mr. Obama spoke for over one third of the time. Other Democrats spoke for a second third of the time. Republicans got what was left.

Republicans said start over and write a truly bipartisan bill. Democrats said we wrote the entire bill, all 2,700 pages of it, and it stays. But Republicans were welcome to tack on an amendment or two. THAT, folks, is bipartisanship in the age of Obama. How do you like it? Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Yes, I am eager to talk about the health care summit, David Paterson,s sudden decision not to run for a full term as NY Governor, and a bunch of other things....which I will do when I'm able.

Bear with me. Thanks. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Ken Berwitz

Sometimes you can tell how dense someone is by how long it takes that person to catch on to reality.  Here is one such instance.

From Jamie Glazov at www.newsrealblog.com:

Wow, according to Fox News, Janet Napolitano just described what happened at Fort Hood as “violent Islamic extremism.”

 

This is quite a step. How long did it take her to figure this one out?

 

It must be hard, after all, when you’re a person who heads Homeland Security but who has no idea who the 9/11 hijackers were – and thinks that they came from Canada. It’s really difficult when your first instinct after Abdulmutallab almost blew himself up on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, is to say that the airport security “system worked.”

 

Hmmm, I wonder if Napolitano will now confirm that thirteen American heroes lost their lives at Fort Hood precisely because of people like her, who have created a culture in which naming Islamic extremism and crystallizing its roots is disallowed? Major Nidal Malik Hasan would have been thrown out of the army a long time before his shooting spree if members of the army were not afraid to get in trouble for violating “diversity” and felt safe to point a finger at a Muslim who was preaching hate and violence against non-Muslims.

 

Will Napolitano and the Obama administration now make an issue out of where Hasan got his “violent Islamic extremism” from? Indeed, from where oh where could Hasan have possibly got the idea that he was supposed to kill the kafir? Hmmm, could it have been from the Verse of the Sword of the Koran (9:5)?

 

Hmmm, could it have been from all the other Koranic verses? (i.e. 9:29).

 

This is just all so mysterious.

 

Is the Obama administration now going to talk about how Hasan’s and Abdullmutallab’s actions, and, well, you know, things like 9/11, just might have something to do with the fact that 61% of the Koran is devoted to the hatred of non-Muslims, that 75% of the Sira (the life of Mohammed) is devoted to jihad, and that 20% of the Hadith is in reference to the necessity of subjugating and killing the infidel?

 

I wonder, could any of this have anything to do with the fact that nowhere in Islamic theology is there even one positive reference to kafirs and even the slightest suggestion that a Muslim should love them as much as he loves himself?

 

How do we win this terror war if our administration not only refuses to fight the enemy on many realms, but to even name him?

 

The issue here is not to demonize Muslims. Many Muslims, like Tarek Fatah and Irshad Manji, are fighting to reform Islam and to bring it into the modern and democratic world. We must support them. Millions of Muslims suffer from persecution under Sharia Law. We must help them. The key is that it is time to be honest about what Islamic theology inspires and sanctions. The key is that the onus is on the Muslim world to confront these teachings and to negate them if there is to be any possibility for an end to this conflict.

 

Napolitano’s step is a positive one. But do we hold our breath for the Obama administration to step up to the plate and to name not only Islamic jihad as our enemy, but to also name the Islamic theology that spawns it?

That, folks, is Janet Napolitano.  Our secretary of homeland security.  The person charged with protecting us from terrorism.

Feel safer?

Ken Berwitz

Who assassinated the career terrorist mahmoud al-mabhouh?  Was it Mossad, as most people assume?  Quite possibly the answer is yes.

Now:  What about it?  What should Israel do when terrorists, like American Express cards, are accepted everywhere they travel?

Here is the opinion of Political Science Professor Gerald M. Steinberg, writing for the Wall St. Journal.  See if you agree (the bold print is mine):

Does the professor have a point? A damn good one?

What is Israel supposed to do when murdering terrorists can operate freely outside of its county and the world, which fears a cutoff of oil, and the terrorism which emanates from Israel's enemies, far more than the legal channels Israel tries to go through, does nothing to stop it?  How does this country protect itself?

When you judge the action Israel allegedly took, you should keep that in mind.

Ken Berwitz

The editorial writers at the New York Times have decided that John Yoo and James Bybee worked for the Bush administration, so they must be punished.  Even if the Obama administration, whose single greatest accomplishment so far is blaming Bush for its failures, exonerates them.

Here is today's lead editorial on this subject - with my comments in blue:

Editorial

The Torture Lawyers

Published: February 24, 2010

 

Is this really the state of ethics in the American legal profession? Government lawyers who abused their offices to give the president license to get away with torture did nothing that merits a review by the bar?

A five-year inquiry by the Justice Department’s ethics watchdogs recommended a disciplinary review for the two lawyers who produced the infamous torture memos for former President George W. Bush, but they were overruled by a more senior Justice Department official.  Infamous to whom?  The editorial writers at the New York Times, who sit comfy-cozy in their Manhattan aerie peering down at we lesser beings?  Enhanced interrogation after 9/11 sure as hell wasn’t “infamous” to me.

 

The original investigation found that the lawyers, John Yoo and Jay Bybee, had committed “professional misconduct” in a series of memos starting in August 2002. First, they defined torture so narrowly as to make it almost impossible to accuse a jailer of torturing a prisoner, and they finally concluded that President Bush was free to ignore any law on the conduct of war. That is not true.  That is a characterization of what Yoo and Bybee said from a newspaper that hated everything about the administration they worked for.

 

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility said appropriate bar associations should be asked to look at the actions of Mr. Yoo, who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley, and Mr. Bybee, who was rewarded for his political loyalty with a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. It was a credible accounting, especially since some former officials, like Attorney General John Ashcroft, refused to cooperate and e-mails from Mr. Yoo were mysteriously missing.  Which emails, when?  I lose emails too.  So if I were investigated, therefore, the claim of “missing emails” could be made.  I have a feeling that everyone reading this would be in the same boat.  Is the Times saying that specific emails relating to the decision were missing?  If so, why didn’t it say so?  A general claim that “e-mails from Mr. Yoo were mysteriously missing” is entirely non-specific.  Now why do you suppose they wrote it that way?

 

But the more senior official, David Margolis, decided that Mr. Yoo and Mr. Bybee only had shown “poor judgment” and should not be disciplined. Mr. Margolis did not dispute that Mr. Yoo and Mr. Bybee mangled legal reasoning and produced work that ultimately was repudiated by the Bush administration itself. He criticized the professional responsibility office’s investigation on procedural grounds and excused Mr. Yoo and Mr. Bybee by noting that everyone was frightened after Sept. 11, 2001, and that they were in a hurry.  Translation:  Margolis didn’t think they did anything actionable. 

 

Americans were indeed frightened after Sept. 11, and the Bush administration was in a great rush to torture prisoners. Responsible lawyers would have responded with extra vigilance, especially if, like Mr. Yoo and Mr. Bybee, they worked in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. When that office renders an opinion, it has the force of law within the executive branch. Poor judgment is an absurdly dismissive way to describe giving the green light to policies that have badly soiled America’s reputation and made it less safe.  Ooooohhh, President Bush moved heaven and earth to protect this country after the single most deadly terrorist attack in history, and he must be punished.  Do you see anything in the Times’ editorial about the quality of information we got from khalid sheikh mohammed, or how many lives it almost certainly saved?  Irrelevant’n’immaterial.  Bush and his administration achieved a positive result so it must be condemned.

 

As the dealings outlined in the original report underscore, the lawyers did not offer what most people think of as “legal advice.” Mr. Yoo and Mr. Bybee were not acting as fair-minded analysts of the law but as facilitators of a scheme to evade it. The White House decision to brutalize detainees already had been made. Mr. Yoo and Mr. Bybee provided legal cover.  A “scheme”?  SCHEME?  What were they doing, stealing money?  Hurting political rivals?  I could have sworn they were trying to protect the United States from enemies who grew, became strong and installed sleeper cells in the US while Democrat Bill Clinton was President (no editorial on that, is there?).  al qaeda vowed to annihilate us, and killed almost 3,000 innocents on 9/11.  Doing everything possible to fight these people is a “scheme”?  Who the hell is writing editorials for the Times these days?  bin laden or zawahiri?

 

We were glad that the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, Representative John Conyers Jr. and Senator Patrick Leahy, committed to holding hearings after the release of the Justice Department documents.  Now there’s a pair of nonpartisan fellows interested only in neutrality and justice.  Why stop there, why not see if ramsey clark is available…. 

 

The attorney general, Eric Holder Jr., should expand the investigation into “rogue” interrogators he initiated last year to include officials responsible for facilitating torture. While he is at it, Mr. Holder should assign someone to look into the disappearance of Mr. Yoo’s e-mails.  Sure.  Let’s get eric holder, with his rich history of sympathetic recommendations on behalf of terrorists, and his partnership in a law firm, Covington & Burling, which specializes in defending them, to go after the people who worked at protecting us from those terrorists.  That’s like making George Steinbrenner the home plate umpire at a Yankees-Red Sox game.

 

The American Bar Association should decide whether its rules are adequate for deterring and punishing ethical failures by government lawyers.  LGreat idea:  the ABA’s long-time rules won’t get these guys, so let’s change ‘em.

 

The quest for real accountability must continue. The alternative is to leave torture open as a policy option for future administrations.  I have another alternative.  Editorial writers at the New York Times who think before they write.

.

Ken Berwitz

Here it is, short and sweet.

olbermann did a "special comment" tonight in which he graphically described his extremely sick father's medical issues.  He then exploited his father's illness to make a phony point about "death panels", by equating a discussion he had with his father's doctor, to the life and death policy decisions that might have to be made by bureaucrats if tens of millions of new patients forced us to ration health care.

There is something wrong with this man.

Ken Berwitz

To his credit, Donny Deutsch has apologized for calling Florida's Republican candidate for governor, Marco Rubio, a "coconut" (a racial insult, meaning he is dark-skinned on the outside but White on the inside).  He said:

"In discussing Mr. Rubio, I used a word intended to describe his inexperience on the national stage.  I now realize the word has connotations as an ethnic slur, & is therefore inappropriate. I apologize to Mr. Rubio & to anyone else I have offended."

Speaking as someone who was offended, I suspect Deutsch truly did not know it was an ethnic slur and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But one thing I would love to know:  What did Deutsch say about Governor George Allen, when he called a Democratic opposition guy of Indian descent a "macaca" - and made exactly the same claim of not knowing it was an ethnic slur. 

Wouldn't you?

Ken Berwitz

How bad a job is congress doing?  Here are the data and analysis from Rasmussen research:

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
February 19-20, 2010

How would you rate the way Congress is doing its job?
Excellent		1%
Good		9%
Fair		18%
Poor		71%

 Voter unhappiness with Congress has reached the highest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports as 71% now say the legislature is doing a poor job.

 

That’s up ten points from the previous high of 61% reached a month ago.

 

Only 10% of voters say Congress is doing a good or excellent job.

 

Nearly half of Democratic voters (48%) now give Congress a poor rating, up 17 points since January. The vast majority of Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party also give Congress poor ratings.

 

Seventy percent (70%) of voters say Congress has not passed any legislation that would significantly improve life for Americans, up 10 points over the past month and the highest level of dissatisfaction measured in regular tracking in over three years. Only 15% say Congress has passed such legislation.

 

Forty percent (40%) of voters nationwide now say it is at least somewhat likely Congress will seriously address the most important issues facing the nation. That’s down from 59% last March. Only 9% say it is Very Likely Congress will address these issues.

If these data are correct, and I were a congressperson from anywhere but a very safe seat, I would be scared excrementless.

And let's remember that most people understand the current congress is owned and operated by Democrats.  So if I were a Democrat in a competitive district I'd be scared twice as excrementless.

But, in the face of this unprecedented rejection of congress, President Obama, Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi are essentially asking congressional Democrats to walk the plank for them on health care - which virtually every poll shows the country does not want.  Will they do it? 

This gets more interesting by the day.

Ken Berwitz

The Obama administration, and their media toadies seem incredulous that people have turned against "ObamaCare".  After all, it has produced estimates that we will save a bundle of money if it is implemented.

With that in mind, here - courtesy of my pal Bob - is some oil field math from the "Cash for Clunkers" program those same media toadies extolled as such a success:

OIL FIELD MATH

A 15 mpg clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year uses 800 gallons of gas a year. A 25 mpg vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They claim 700,000 clunkers were turned-in, so that's 224 million gallons saved per year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption. More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million. We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved. I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.

Man oh man, what a deal THAT was. 

And now, the administration is parlaying this great "success" with the following health care presentation:

-We will insure an additional 30 - 50 million people (the number varies from day to day depending on which administratoin member is talking);

-This increase will disproportionately be among people who cannot pay for health insurance, and high-risk people who cannot get insurance because of their condition:  both of which must inherently increase costs;

-The number of doctors, nurses and hospitals will not suddenly jump higher to accommodate this huge influx of patients - there will be the same number of each available, but they will be expected to handle health care for 30 - 50 million more people;

These factors, we are told, will result in no difference at all in the quality of health care.  And, as an extra added attraction, the cost of health care will be lower too.

Does that sound credible to you?

Wait: before you answer, let's remember the most important part:  The promise of identical health care at lower prices is being made by.......our government.  Those nice folks who have never come anywhere near budget for anything.  The ones who gave you "Cash for Clunkers".

And media wonder why the people don't believe in ObamaCare?  God help them.

Ken Berwitz

I am so sick of our wonderful "neutral" media jumping on any piece of good news to extol the wonders of President Obama. 

For the last month we have been sold a bill of goods on how much better the economy is and how well along it is to economic recovery.  In particular, The New York Times, which I read every day (I'm starting to think of this as penance of some kind) has done article after article about how indications have turned positive.

I only wish they were right, instead of just flakking for the Obama administration

Yesterday we had this, which I pulled from www.portfolio.com (it is on countless other web sites as well):

Consumer confidence fell off a cliff. Expectations for the future dropped to a 10-month low, and hopes for the near future are at their lowest point in 27 years, according to a new study from The Conference Board, an industry group. Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center, cited "concerns about current business conditions and the job market," where the unemployment rate is 9.7 percent. Stocks tanked on the news.

And today we have this, which I pulled from Reuters:

Sales of newly built U.S. single-family homes unexpectedly fell to a record low in January, according to government data on Wednesday that hinted at potential trouble for the fragile housing market recovery.

The Commerce Department said sales dropped 11.2 percent to a 309,000 unit annual rate, the lowest level since records started in January 1963, from an upwardly revised 348,000 in December.

It was the third straight month that new home sales  fell and the percentage decline in January was the largest in a year.

Does that look like a recovery is in progress to you? 

If so, maybe you work for the Times, or MSNBC, or one of the network news venues. 

If not, you certainly must have a different way of gauging it than a lot of those folks.  But if it's any consolation, I see it the same way you do.  Our economy is in the toilet -- after we went almost a trillion dollars in hock with the "stimulus package" which was supposed to turn it around.

How sad that, according to so many in what passes for journalism these days, saying as much makes me either an unthinking dolt or a racist.

Well, I am neither.  I don't have to be a dolt or a racist to see what is in front of my eyes.

I hope against hope that things will all turn around; and the sooner the better.  But with the current administration in place, I have no confidence at all that this will happen.

Ken Berwitz

For one day I felt like a presidential candidate during the campaign.

In the past 24 hours I have been from Newark, NJ to Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Charlotte, NC and back to Newark, NJ. Not for politics (mercifully), but for business reasons.

But I just took a shower and now I'm completely rejuvenated.

Now back to politics.

Ken Berwitz

Is is becoming more and more clear that leftists get a free pass on racial and ethnic slurs.

Here is the latest, courtesy of Moe Lane at www.redstate.com:

Racist Donny Deutsch slurs Marco Rubio (R CAND, FL-SEN).

Posted by Moe Lane

Tuesday, February 23rd at 6:05PM EST

Via Hot Air, check out the racial sensitivity of MSNBC/CNBC talking head Donnie Deutsch:

‘Coconut,’ for those lucky enough to have missed it up to this point, is a derogatory racial epithet hurled against dark-skinned individuals deemed insufficiently ‘authentic.’ It suggests that the individual in question is ‘brown on the outside, white on the inside.’ When used by someone of the same ethnic identity as the slurred individual, it takes on the additional connotation of ‘race traitor;’ when used by someone of Caucasian ancestry, it typically represents an opportunity to express racial hatreds in a socially acceptable manner. The Other Side has, shall we say, a history of such things; and if we ever have that full and frank discussion of race that’s been promised the first question that I plan to ask is going to be about precisely why this is acceptable behavior among them.

About the only thing mitigating this exercise in public racism is that it appeared on the Joy Behar show, which means that almost nobody saw it anyway.

Neither Donny Deutsch nor Joy Behar need apologize - Deutsch for saying it and Behar for letting it go without any challenge at all.

Hatred and intolerance is just fine when you're with the in crowd.

But consider:  What if it had been Rush Limbaugh?  Or Sean Hannity?  Or Dennis Prager or Michael Medved or Hugh Hewitt or....well, you get the idea.  Would they get a free pass too?

Sure.  And Tiger Woods is retiring from golf to run a dating service.

Ken Berwitz

"I cried because I had no shoes until I met a man who had no feet." -Anonymous.

It can be problematic for someone with my set of beliefs to live where I do among the friends and relatives I have.  Trust me on this one.

But I don't complain, because it could be worse.  I could be a Black conservative.

Here is a fascinating piece by Lachlan Markay of www.newsbusters.org on how the Washington Post (under cover of it's blog, www.theroot.com) sees this group:

Ken Berwitz

What do we lose if we lose Israel?  Among many, many other things, we lose scientific and medicinal advances like this, which comes to us courtesy of Israel National News:

New Israeli Research: How To Boost Memory and Avoid Memory Loss

by Baruch Gordon

(IsraelNN.com) Those who live in industrialized countries have easy access to healthy food and nutritional supplements, but magnesium deficiencies are still common. That's a problem because new research from Tel Aviv University suggests that magnesium, a key nutrient for the functioning of memory, may be even more critical than previously thought for the neurons of children and healthy brain cells in adults. 

 

Dr. Inna Slutsky of TAU's Sackler School of Medicine published results of a 5-year probe which has significant implications for the use of over-the-counter magnesium supplements. 

 

"We've been able to show that today's over-the-counter magnesium supplements don't really work. They do not get into the brain," says Dr. Slutsky.

 

Dr. Slutsky advises people to get their magnesium the old-fashioned way — by eating lots of green leaves, broccoli, almonds, cashews and fruit. The effects on memory won't appear overnight, she cautions, but with this persistent change in diet, memory should improve, and the effects of dementia and other cognitive impairment diseases related to aging may be considerably delayed.

 

"Our results suggest that commercially available magnesium supplements are not effective in boosting magnesium in cerebro-spinal fluid," says dr. Slutsky. "Magnesium is the fourth most abundant mineral in the body, but today half of all people in industrialized countries are living with magnesium deficiencies that may generally impair human health, including cognitive functioning."

 

The research focused on developing a new magnesium supplement, magnesium-L-theronate (MgT), that effectively crosses the blood-brain barrier to inhibit calcium flux in brain neurons. Begun at MIT as a part of a post-doctoral project, Dr. Slutsky's probe evolved to become a multi-center experiment with cooperation of researchers from Tel Aviv University, MIT, the University of Toronto, and Tsighua University in Beijing.

 

Published recently in the scientific journal Neuron, the new study found that the synthetic magnesium compound works on both young and aging animals to enhance memory or prevent its impairment.

 

In the study, two groups of rats ate normal diets containing a healthy amount of magnesium from natural sources. The first group was given a supplement of MgT, while the control group had only its regular diet. Behavioral tests showed that cognitive functioning improved in the rats in the first group and also demonstrated an increase of synapses in the brain — connective nerve endings that carry memories in the form of electrical impulses from one part of the brain to the other.

 

"We've developed a promising new compound which has now taken the first important step towards clinical trials by Prof. Guosong Liu, Director of the Center for Learning and Memory at Tsinghua University and cofounder of Magceutics company," she says.

 

While the effects were not immediate, the researchers in the study were able to assess that the new compound shows improved permeability of the blood-brain barrier. After two weeks of oral administration of the compound in mice, magnesium levels in the cerebral-spinal fluid increased.

 

"It seems counterintuitive to use magnesium for memory improvement because magnesium is a natural blocker of the NMDA receptor, a molecule critical for memory function. But our compound blocks the receptor only during background neuronal activity. As a result, it enhances the brain's 'plasticity' and increases the number of brain synapses that can be switched on," says Dr. Slutsky.

You'll grow old waiting for any of the countries that want to vaporize Israel to provide advances such as this.  

How sad!  How much better it would be if they had a similar dedication to revering and preserving and improving life instead of trying to kill Israelis.

Seriously, think about it:  how many scientific and medical advances - you can include technology and agriculture too if you wish - actually do come from those countries?  By contrast, Israel is one of the world's leaders in every one of them.

That is what we lose if we lose Israel.

Ken Berwitz

How do you define bipartisanship? 

I think most people would say it means that both sides get together, exchange ideas and treat each other's positions with respect, then come to a mutual agreement.

But the Obama administration's definition seems a tad removed from what most people would say.

Read these following excerpts from today's Wall Street Journal editorial and you'll see what I mean.  Please pay special attention to the first and last paragraphs, which I have put in bold print:

A mere three days before President Obama's supposedly bipartisan health-care summit, the White House yesterday released a new blueprint that Democrats say they will ram through Congress with or without Republican support. So after election defeats in Virginia, New Jersey and even Massachusetts, and amid overwhelming public opposition, Democrats have decided to give the voters what they don't want anyway.

Ah, the glory of "progressive" governance and democratic consent.

"The President's Proposal," as the 11-page White House document is headlined, is in one sense a notable achievement: It manages to take the worst of both the House and Senate bills and combine them into something more destructive. It includes more taxes, more subsidies and even less cost control than the Senate bill. And it purports to fix the special-interest favors in the Senate bill not by eliminating them—but by expanding them to everyone.

The coercive flavor that animates this exercise is best captured in the section that purports to accept the Senate's "grandfather clause" allowing people who like their current health plan to keep it. Except that "The President's Proposal adds certain consumer protections to these 'grandfathered' plans. Within months of legislation being enacted, it requires plans . . . prohibits . . . mandates . . . requires . . . the President's Proposal adds new protections that prohibit . . . ban . . . and prohibit . . . The President's Proposal requires . . ." After all of these dictates, no "grandfathered" plan will exist.

While the White House claims to eliminate the "Cornhusker Kickback," the Medicaid bribe that bought Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson's vote, political appearances are deceiving. As with the union payoff, what the White House really does is broaden the same to all states, with all new Medicaid spending through 2017 and 90% after 2020 transferred to the federal balance sheet. Governors will love this ruse, but national taxpayers will pay more.

And more again, because the White House has adopted the House's firehose insurance subsidies. People earning up to 400% of the poverty line—or about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—will qualify for government help, and, naturally, this new entitlement is designed to expand over time.

The Administration also claims to have discarded the House's 5.4-percentage-point surtax on joint-filers earning more than $1 million a year, but it sneaks it back in by expanding the Senate's expansion of the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax to joint income about $250,000. The White House would now apply that tax for the first time to income from "interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents," details to come.

The larger political message of this new proposal is that Mr. Obama and Democrats have no intention of compromising on an incremental reform, or of listening to Republican, or any other, ideas on health care. They want what they want, and they're going to play by Chicago Rules and try to dragoon it into law on a narrow partisan vote via Congressional rules that have never been used for such a major change in national policy. If you want to know why Democratic Washington is "ungovernable," this is it.

There you have it.  No bipartisanship, no flexibility, no nothing except here's the Democratic bill:  take it or leave it.  And they are doing this in the face of polling by just about every reputable organization which shows that voters don't want it - not to mention those losses in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

What do you call it when a President and his people decide they are going to give you what you don't want, and have no intention of listening to anyone else?

For lack of a better expression, I call it CI:  Counterproductive Intractability.  That accurately describes what is happening -- and is a lot cleaner than the alternative descriptions I considered.

If you have a better way of describing Obama & Co., let's see it.

Ken Berwitz

Does Hapless Harry Reid ever think before he talks?

From www.thehill.com:

Reid: 'Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive'

By Michael O'Brien - 02/22/10 06:52 PM ET

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested Monday that domestic violence by men has increased due to U.S. joblessness.

Reid, speaking in the midst of a Senate debate over whether to pass a $15 billion package meant to spur job creation, appeared to argue that joblessness would lead to more domestic violence.

"I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand," Reid said on the Senate floor. "Why? Men don't have jobs.”

 

Reid said that the effects of joblessness on domestic violence were especially pronounced among men, because, Reid said, women tend to be less abusive.

"Women don't have jobs either, but women aren’t abusive, most of the time," he said.

"Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive," the majority leader added. "Our domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are jammed.”

Nice stereotype, Harry.  But I have a few questions:

We can agree that spousal abuse is an ugly reality.  But how do you know that higher unemployment has increased the incidence of such abuse?  Do you have actual data on how much of an increase has taken place?  Aren't domestic crisis centers always jammed, not just in recent months?  

Oh, you're not sure about those questions?  Ok, how about these:  How many women engage in domestic abuse?  How do you know that female spousal abuse has not increased along with male abuse - maybe even more so?  Since, to my knowledge, there are no shelters for abused men to check into, how can you tell?  What basis do you have for your claim that "women aren't abusive, most of the time"?  

Oh, you're not sure about those either?

In that case, I have a great idea.  Why don't you just shut up?  Thanks. 

One last thing:  The only reason anyone cares what you say is that you are a US Senator and the Majority Leader.  If we are very fortunate, after the November elections you'll be able to say whatever you want and no one will have a reason to care at all.

Ken Berwitz

What do you do if you're completely busted as a corrupt, fraudulent organization?

If you're ACORN, you change your name and hope the world is too dumb to notice.

From Matthew Vadum at www.newsrealblog.com:

ACORN’s Relentless Push To Deceive Taxpayers Continues

2010 February 22

by Matthew Vadum

 

It’s the old bait-and-switch con, this time from our friends at ACORN.

 

ACORN is attempting to perpetrate yet another spectacular fraud on the American people in order to keep tax dollars and foundation grants flowing into its coffers.

 

With the fallout lingering from the hidden camera videos that were released last fall, congressional funding of ACORN’s election fraud and racketeering business is no longer guaranteed, so ACORN is trying to pass off various state chapters as ”new” groups.

 

As part of the radical group’s fraudulent rebranding scheme, ACORN has renamed its New York chapter New York Communities for Change. Unlike on the West coast where ACORN is at least pretending its renamed California chapter (Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment or ACCE) is not part of the ACORN network, New York Communities for Change shares the same Nevins Street address as ACORN’s Brooklyn office.

 

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts branch of ACORN has been renamed New England United for Justice. ACORN national president Maude Hurd just happens to be president of the new supposedly independent group, according to articles of incorporation certified by Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Francis Galvin on Jan. 19, 2010.

 

More state-level name changes are expected soon while the basic structure of ACORN, which is controlled from the top using interlocking directorates, remains essentially intact.

 

The ACORN network’s interlocking directorates are deliberately organized to help ACORN escape legal and public scrutiny. “ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate,” according to a report from the Republican investigators of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

 

Under indictment in Nevada for election law violations, ACORN feels it can do all this in the light of day because the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress have no interest in a real investigation of its criminal activities.

 

These improprieties include but are in no way limited to:

 

*a nearly $1 million embezzlement by the brother of founder Wade Rathke that was covered up for eight years while the brother (Dale Rathke) remained on the ACORN payroll

 

*misuse of pension funds

 

*commingling of public funds

 

*illegal loan from ERISA-covered pension fund

 

*failure to pay excise tax on illegal loan

 

*use of public funds on partisan activities

 

*money laundering

 

ACORN doesn’t care about the growing mountain of credible allegations against it because ACORN thinks it is politically untouchable.

I'm particularly intrigued by that last line - i.e. ACORN thinks it is politically untouchable.

The fact is, as long as Barack Obama is President, eric holder is Attorney General and Democrats hold a deathgrip-majority in both houses of congress, they have good reason to feel that way. 

And if you want indisputable proof of President Obama's commitment to ACORN,  Darrell Issa (R-CA) has unearthed video footage of then-Senator Obama fawning over the organization, and assuring us he is completely committed to it.  CLICK HERE and see for yourself. 

And that goes double for 2012.

Ken Berwitz

Is it possible that President Obama has appointed an apologist for shari'a law to an important White House position?

Let me remind you that shari'a law - fundamentalist Islam - wants western civilization ended, treats women as something below barnyard animals, etc. etc. etc.

I read this at the web site for Vijay Kumar, a Republican running for congress in Tennessee's 5th district, and couldn't believe my eyes - how could such a thing be true?  So I followed the link he provided, and then couldn't believe my eyes for a different reason - namely that Mr. Kumar appears to be 100% correct.

Read it for yourself, from this excerpt of an October 8, 2009 article in London's Daily Telegraph.  The bold print is mine:

Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood

President Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.

By Andrew Gilligan and Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 8:00PM BST 08 Oct 2009

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice".

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man-made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism".

They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government".

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West.

She said: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.

"The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.

"The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases."

Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women.

It also includes the controversial "Hadd offences", crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft.

Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women," but added: "Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood."

The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the front page of Hizb ut Tahrir's website.

Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration's determination to reach out to the Muslim world.

She is also the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a project which aims to scientifically sample public opinion in the Muslim world.

During this week's broadcast, she described her White House role as "to convey... to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want."

Is this what the people of the United States want?  Is this the kind of  "adviser" the President of the United States should have?  Do you want him to take advice from someone like this?

The 2012 election cannot come fast enough. 

Ken Berwitz

It gives me no pleasure to post this information.

From the AP:

AP - A NATO airstrike killed at least 27 Afghan civilians, officials said Monday, in the third coalition strike this month to kill noncombatants and draw a sharp rebuke from Afghanistan's government about endangering civilians.

Fighting in a godforsaken place like Marjah, Afghanistan almost guarantees there will be horrific episodes like this one, and the two others which preceded it.  I do not blame Mr. Obama, because that is the nature of war.

That said, however, the objective of our Marjah offensive is to remove the taliban and to destroy the area's many opium fields.  So far, our success appears to be very limited -- if it can be called success at all.

What do we learn from this? 

For one, we learn that criticizing the previous administration for how poorly it fought the taliban was far easier for Barack Obama to read off a teleprompter during a campaign rally than to improve on when he became President. 

It would be nice if someone in the Obama administration would acknowledge as much after over a year, and two troop surges that, unlike President Bush's surge in Iraq, have accomplished nothing.

For another, we learn just how much George Bush was underestimated. 

Bush was called every name in the book over the Iraq troop surge.  Barack Obama, in particular, expressed vehement opposition, saying it not only wouldn't help, it would have a negative affect ( "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").  

But Mr. Obama was dead wrong;   The surge was instrumental in the US prevailing - thus enabling Mr. Obama to pull troops out and then posture as if it was because of his policies rather than his predecessor's.

In Afghanistan, Bush understood that the best we could do is keep the taliban out of the large cities (Kabul, Kandahar, a few others) and prop up Karzai's administration - because, though it is thoroughly corrupt, it is better than the alternative. 

By contrast, President Obama, like the Russians before him, seems to think there is a way to win this war. 

There isn't.  Bush was right and Obama is wrong. Just like in Iraq.

You have probably seen a picture of that billboard, put up in Minnesota about a week ago, with President Bush's face and the words and the words "Miss me yet?"

I read this weekend that several entrepreneurial types have quickly started putting out merchandise (shirts, hats, etc.) with it - and they're selling like crazy.

Honestly, I am not suprised this is happening -- only that it is happening this quickly.

Ken Berwitz

No wonder keith olbermann likes Newsweek so much and has its people on his show almost every day.  They appear to have something in common:  namily, they both appear happy to tailor the news so that results come out the way they want.

Here is a good example, culled from Tim Graham's piece at newsbusters.org:

Newsweek's Pushy Poll: People Oppose ObamaCare, Until We Badger Them to Support Its Laudable 'Details'

 

By Tim Graham
Mon, 02/22/2010 - 08:04 ET

On Monday, Newsweek’s website featured a strange headline. "Poll: Most Favor Health Care." It would be interesting to find out who opposes health care. (It's like a headline that says "Most Favor Food.") The headline wasn’t just strange, it was misleading: it suggested the Democrats’ proposals were favored by most. That’s not what they found.

Newsweek took an Obama-defending poll. Here was the headline once you clicked on the link: "The Polling Contradiction: In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the majority of Americans are opposed to President Obama's health-care reform plan -- until they learn the details."

That’s called a "push poll." It’s just like Newsweek calling up people and insisting they should really support ObamaCare, because it embraces abstract liberal principles like requiring insurance companies to insure everyone. After they pushed, Newsweek touted how they yanked voters into Obama’s column:

When asked about Obama's plan (without being given any details about what the legislation includes), 49 percent opposed it and 40 percent were in favor. But after hearing key features of the legislation described, 48 percent supported the plan and 43 percent remained opposed.

Here’s a stark number that wasn’t written up (from the PDF): independents overwhelmingly oppose ObamaCare: 26 percent in favor, 62 percent opposed. They improved it to 34-57 by supportively reading the "details."

Let's start with that headline.  OF COURSE most people favor health care.  That's no different from asking if most people favor a happy life, economic security and the Yankees winning another world seri....well, ok, maybe not that last one, though it certainly would describe yours truly.

The only reason I can think of for such a headline is that Newsweek hopes some readers will just glance at it, and think it specifically refers to the health care being pushed by Obama & Co. -- which it does not.

Then we get our taste of reality.  Most people expressing a choice are not in favor of ObamaCare (49% - 40%).  But when Newsweek provides them with the "details" - i.e. tells them its version of what the legislation will provide - they like it better. 

That means Newsweek is coaching respondents to its point of view on ObamaCare -- which makes the finding absolute garbage.  You don't need to be a research professional  to understand that presenting one side of an issue has the capacity to boom up results for that side.

That said, however, as a public service I am going to post the "details" Newsweek supplied study respondents.....but with a few of my details added in blue, so you can decide if they would affect how people would  react.  (FYI:  the three numbers at the end of each "detail" are approve, then disapprove, then don't know):

a. Requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help to

those who can’t afford it from your taxes 59 36 5 =100

 

b. Requiring most businesses to offer health insurance to their employees, with tax incentives for small

business owners to do so, with costs they will almost certainly pass along to you  75 20 5 =100

 

c. If health coverage is required for everyone, imposing fines on individuals who don’t obtain coverage and on larger businesses that don’t offer it  28 62 10 =100

 

d. Requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies, even if they have a pre-existing medical condition which will drive up the costs of insurance, the additional $$$ being taken from your wallet – not to mention the fact that doctors will have less time for you  76 19 5 =100

 

e. Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans in which government makes all the rules and doesn’t have to worry about losing money (it’s coming out of your pocket – so those private plans will probably go out of business because it is impossible to compete under such circumstances 50 42 8 =100

 

f. Creating a new insurance marketplace – the Exchange – that allows people without health insurance to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive rates – again, with the government making all the rules and not having a care in the world about how much they lose.  Bye-bye competition and hello government-only health care, which the government will administer as capably and efficiently as it does everything else.  81 13 6 =100

 

g. Preventing insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick with you paying the additional cost  59 38 3 =100

 

h. Imposing a tax on insurers who offer the most expensive health plans, the so-called Cadillac plans, to help pay for health care reform 34 55 11 =100

I dunno, maybe it's just me.  But do you think that my details, which I added on to Newsweeks', would have had an affect? 

What happened to Newsweek?  When did it become so pathetic?  When did it change from an actual news venue to fishwrap?  I can't say for sure, but I sure can say that's what happened.

Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from Joseph Curl's piece in today's Washington Times:

President Obama, who pledged to establish the most open and transparent administration in history, on Monday surpasses his predecessor's record for avoiding a full-fledged question-and-answer session with White House reporters in a formal press conference.

President George W. Bush's longest stretch between prime-time, nationally televised press conferences was 214 days, from April 4 to Nov. 4, 2004. Mr. Obama tops that record on Monday, going 215 days - stretching back to July 22, according to records kept by CBS Radio's veteran reporter Mark Knoller.

The president has seemingly shunned formal, prime-time sessions since his last disastrous presser, when he said police in Cambridge, Mass., "acted stupidly" by arresting a Harvard professor who broke into a home that turned out to be his own. The off-the-cuff comment took over the news cycle for a week, overshadowing his push for health care reform, and culminated in a White House "Beer Summit," where the president hosted white police officer James Crowley and the black Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr.

Dammit, there's got to be a way to teleprompt a press conference.......

Ken Berwitz

Since today is George Washington's birthday (what the %^$*# is "President's Day" anyway?)  I thought you might be interested in an exchange of letters between our first President and one of the oldest - at that time, one of the only - synagogues in the United States.

I am posting the letters below, with no further comment (what can I, or anyone else, possibly add to this?):

The letter from Moses Seixas to President George Washington

To the President of the United States of America.

Sir:

Permit the children of the stock of Abraham to approach you with the most cordial affection and esteem for your person and merits — and to join with our fellow citizens in welcoming you to NewPort.

With pleasure we reflect on those days — those days of difficulty, and danger, when the God of Israel, who delivered David from the peril of the sword, — shielded Your head in the day of battle: — and we rejoice to think, that the same Spirit, who rested in the Bosom of the greatly beloved Daniel enabling him to preside over the Provinces of the Babylonish Empire, rests and ever will rest, upon you, enabling you to discharge the arduous duties of Chief Magistrate in these States.

Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People — a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance — but generously affording to all Liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: — deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language equal parts of the great governmental Machine: — This so ample and extensive Federal Union whose basis is Philanthropy, Mutual confidence and Public Virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work of the Great God, who ruleth in the Armies of Heaven, and among the Inhabitants of the Earth, doing whatever seemeth him good.

For all these Blessings of civil and religious liberty which we enjoy under an equal benign administration, we desire to send up our thanks to the Ancient of Days, the great preserver of Men — beseeching him, that the Angel who conducted our forefathers through the wilderness into the promised Land, may graciously conduct you through all the difficulties and dangers of this mortal life: — And, when, like Joshua full of days and full of honour, you are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the Heavenly Paradise to partake of the water of life, and the tree of immortality.

Done and Signed by order of the Hebrew Congregation in NewPort, Rhode Island August 17th 1790.

Moses Seixas, Warden

The letter from George Washington in response to Moses Seixas

To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport Rhode Island.

Gentlemen,

While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and happy people.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

G. Washington

Ken Berwitz

President Obama has railed against huge compensation pacakges handed out to corporate big shots - especially those who have gotten TARP money with which to operate.  I seem to remember him specifically directing such attacks at people making $250,000 a year or more.

With this in mind, maybe Mr. Obama would like to explain the following excerpt from an Associated Press article:

NEW YORK (AP) -- General Motors Co. CEO Ed Whitacre will receive a salary of $1.7 million this year, plus stock awards that will bring his total pay package to $9 million at a later date, the automaker said Friday.

In a surprise announcement, GM also said former CEO Fritz Henderson has been rehired as a consultant. Henderson, who was forced out of the job in December, will work 20 hours a month and will be paid $59,090 a month, the company said.

Whitacre's total compensation is larger than Henderson's when he was CEO. Henderson received a total pay package worth nearly $5.5 million.

Whitacre's pay package includes a cash salary of $1.7 million that took effect Jan. 1. It also includes $5.3 million in stock awarded in increments starting in 2012, plus another stock award worth $2 million. The details, including the timing, of the $2 million stock award still need to be worked out, a GM spokeswoman said.

So let's see: 

-Ed Whitacre, the GM ("Government Motors") CEO, picked by the Obama administration, is going to get a salary of $1,700,000, plus stock bonuses totalling OVER 7 MILLION DOLLARS MORE.  Total?  About $9,000,000.

-And the the guy they dumped to make room for Whitacre, Fritz Henderson, will now be consulting at about THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS AN HOUR.  I only hope that someday in my life I'm pushed out of something that will then pay me that kind of money.

Knowing this, can anyone seriously believe that Barack Obama gives a damn about how much compensation corporate bigshots get? 

If so, I know a doctor who does lobotomy reversals.......

Ken Berwitz

It is hard to imagine that robert mugabe, the murderous dictator who has absolutely destroyed Zimbabwe, could find another way to hurt it.  But he has.

Excerpted from an Associated Press article in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Mugabe defends business take overs

By ANGUS SHAW
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

HARARE, Zimbabwe -- President Robert Mugabe defended a law requiring Zimbabwean businesses to be controlled by blacks, underlining differences with his governing partners in an interview Saturday.

Mugabe's governing partner, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change, has said the law is unworkable and will discourage much-needed investment. The law was passed by parliament when it was still dominated by Mugabe's lawmakers in 2008 is set to go into effect March 1.

Ideological differences and what Tsvangirai's party and rights watchdogs call Mugabe's unwillingness to share real power have bedeviled the coalition that took office last February.

"We differ ideologically, but we say let the people of the country own what is rightfully theirs," Mugabe said on national television Saturday in a 90-minute interview marking his 86th birthday, which is Sunday.

South Africa and other neighbors pressed Zimbabwe's leaders to form the coalition and work together to resolve the country's political and economic crises after a series of inconclusive elections marred by violence that was blamed on Mugabe's supporters. In a review of the first year, Human Rights Watch said Mugabe's ZANU-PF party was still attacking and intimidating opponents and journalists and using state-owned media to manipulate public opinion. Human Rights Watch called power-sharing in Zimbabwe a "sham."

What do we learn from this?

-mugabe is still in complete control, and the so-called coalition government with Morgan Tsvangirai was (as I stated when it was cooked up) a farce;

-Not content with utterly destroying what once was a prosperous agriculture sector, mugabe is now destroying what little is left of successful private enterprise.  Simply stated, if you have a successful business and are White, you give up that business and hand it over to someone else who is Black.  The fact that you own the business, and that there is no necessary indication that the person taking it from you is capable of running it successfully, is immaterial.   The only thing that matters is that you are White and he/she is Black.

Look, it is true that Zimbabwe has a sorry history of Whites coming to the country and essentially taking it over.  No one can, or should, pretend otherwise.  That was wrong, it was racist, and it made the country's Black majority into a humiliated underclass.

But this is 2010.  The inflation rate is astronomical and people are literally starving in the streets. Zimbabwe desperately needs something - anything - that runs successfully and generates revenue for the country.   And, for purely racial reasons - without regard to his people regardless of their color - mugabe is making that impossible.

I don't wish death on many people.  But, since he apparently can't be forced out, I am left with the hope that mugabe dies.  The sooner the better.

And when he does die, Zimbabwe should declare a national holiday.  Because it will be the day that there again can be hope for its people.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the story, from www.yahoo.com.  Take a look, and see if you think anyone is owed an apology.  I'll tell you my thoughts afterwards.  The bold print is mine:

Gay rights group to launch complaint over 'homophobic' comments by RDS analysts

Module body

Sat Feb 20, 8:28 PM

By Jessica Murphy, The Canadian Press

MONTREAL - A Quebec gay rights group plans to file a complaint Monday with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council over comments made at the Olympics by two announcers on French-language sports channel RDS.

The Quebec council of gays and lesbians says it wants a public apology for remarks it deems homophobic from veteran sportscasters Claude Mailhot and Alain Goldberg earlier this week.

The remarks came during an RDS Olympic broadcast of the men's figure skating competition.

Mailhot, a former provincial assistant deputy minister, and Goldberg, were discussing the skating of Johnny Weir, the flamboyant 23-year-old and three -time U.S. champion .

"This may not be politically correct," Mailhot said during the segment, in which Weir, who is known for his extravagant performances and fashion flair, was shown sporting a semi-sheer, pink-and-black costume he designed himself.

"But do you think he lost points due to his costume and his body language?"

Goldberg replied that Weir's feminine style may reflect badly on other male figure skaters.

"They'll think all the boys who skate will end up like him," he said. "It sets a bad example."

Weir skated Tuesday and Thursday nights. American Evan Lysacek, the reigning world champion, won the gold medal in the skating final Thursday, edging out Russian Evgeni Plushenko, who took the silver. Weir finished sixth.

In the earlier RDS coverage of Weir, Goldberg and Mailhot also brought up South African runner Caster Semenya, who was forced to undergo gender testing following her 2009 win at the world track and field championships in Germany.

"We should make him (Weir) pass a gender test at this point," Goldberg said, and Mailhot then jokingly suggested Weir should compete in the women's competition.

The two broadcasters later offered an on-air apology for their comments.

RDS also issued a statement following the incident.

"All discriminatory statements, or those appearing discriminatory, have neither a place in society nor in media," it said.

"Mr. Mailhot and Mr. Goldberg made tactless comments on the appearance and manner of a figure skater. As soon as they were made aware of the reaction their comments sparked, and because they never meant to defame an individual or a sexual orientation, they decided to offer an apology."

But the mea culpas are insufficient, according to Council president Steve Foster.

"They only apologized for the comments they made on his outfit," he said Saturday. "We hadn't even asked for an apology for those remarks. It's the rest of the comments: on his masculinity, his femininity, the fact he should skate as a woman."

When Foster got in touch with RDS, he says he was told not to expect any further public apologies from Mailhot or Goldberg. So he decided to launch the official complaint to the broadcast council, an independent organization created by Canada's English and French private broadcasters to administer on-air standards.

"It's sad, remarks like these," said Foster. "It stops elite athletes from coming out of the closet because they don't want to be ridiculed on a public platform."

RDS spokesman Claude Deraiche said Saturday there would be no further comments by the broadcaster on the issue.

"We'll wait for the complaint to be submitted, if it is," he said. "We'll address it then."

Mailhot and Goldberg aren't the only broadcasters in hot water over comments about Weir. Two Australian commentators, Eddie McGuire and Mick Molloy, also made headlines for gay jibes at the skater's expense.

So, what do you think? 

Here's what I think:

-The comment about Weir's costume and body language was perfectly appropriate.  Yes, it is likely that he could lose points to one or more judges who found them objectionable.

-The comments about other boys ending up like him (as if he did something wrong to be who he is), that he sets a bad example, that he should be gender-tested, and especially that he should compete in the women's competition, were vile and offensive.

I do not know if Johnny Weir is homosexual.  But let's suppose, for the sake of discussion, that he is.  SO WHAT?

Is this a skating competition or a competition to determine who is more heterosexual?  The last time I checked it was a skating competition.

And do these geniuses really think that Weir - assuming his homosexuality once more - is the only gay ice skater?  

If Mailhot and Goldberg accept the premise that there just might be another gay skater or two, then all they are left with is Weir's outfit.  If they had stopped at the point of stating that the outfit might have hurt his chances, they would have been ok.  But they didn't, did they?

And does anyone give a damn what kind of statement RDS puts out on their behalf?  How about a statement from THEM.  Why aren't THEY either justifying what they said or taking it back and apologizing. 

Two days ago we had the sorry spectacle of Tiger Woods "apologizing" by reading a script to reporters and not taking any questions.  This is exactly the same situation.

Woods' performance was pathetic.  And so is this one.

Ken Berwitz

I do not know a thing about Michel Faulkner other than his statement below, which appears in today's New York Post.

But I know a lot about the disgrace-on-legs who he is challenging.  And that is why, unless something genuinely horrible is uncovered about Rev. Faulkner, I immediately endorse his candidacy for the house of representatives:

Why I'm challenging Charlie Rangel

By REV. MICHEL FAULKNER

Last Updated: 4:53 AM, February 21, 2010

Posted: 1:22 AM, February 21, 2010

For the past 22 years, I have dedicated my life to serving my community as a New York City pastor and spiritual leader. I have counseled the suffering, married couples, helped the grieving, fed the hungry and have acted as a liaison between my community and the government. This week, I took what I believe to be the next logical step in that commitment — by announcing my candidacy to become the next member to the United States House of Representatives for the 15th Congressional District.

The system in Washington, DC, is broken at a time of enormous challenges and we need real-life solutions. Solutions that are based on the community’s input and welfare, not a federal government takeover. As I speak with the people of Northern Manhattan, it is clear that they have become apathetic about democracy. When people don’t trust democracy, they don’t vote — placing political leadership in the hands of those who use political power for their personal gain.

My opponent is 40-year incumbent, Charles Rangel. Unfortunately Mr. Rangel has come to epitomize what is wrong with Washington today. His gross underpayment of federal income taxes while chairing the House Ways and Means Committee shows the hypocrisy of our Congress. Furthermore, his occupation of four rent-stabilized apartments (while so many in our community are in desperate need of affordable housing), demonstrates his disconnect from our needs and struggles. It could not be clearer that the people of this city deserve a new direction and need new leadership.

My priorities are this: We need to bring government spending under control. Those who control the purse-strings in DC have irresponsibly spent our nation into near bankruptcy and mortgaged our futures. 

While the national unemployment rate has been making headlines lately, the need for job creation in my community has been at a critical level for generations. To address this crisis, we must recognize that nearly 80% of all jobs in America today are created by small businesses, and for that reason we need to reduce the red-tape and tax burden on these critical economic engines. I also intend to promote programs that use microfinance initiatives to support a path to economic self-reliance, to expand economic opportunities for individuals and to foster community economic development. 

In order to restore the possibility of the American Dream for all of our nation’s citizens, every child in our nation should have the opportunity to receive a high-quality education. Towards that end, I support the expansion of Charter Schools, which generally have outperformed public schools and stimulate a level of parental involvement unseen in the traditional public school environment. 

Turning to our nation’s healthcare, I will promote and support achievable, community-based, preventive health and wellness initiatives; and, I will oppose the myopic view that a government takeover is the only form healthcare reform can take.

In Massachusetts, Scott Brown proved that dynasties can be toppled. The people of the 15th Congressional District in New York deserve no less.

Frankly I do not expect Rev. Faulkner to win.  He is a Republican in a district where voting Democratic is not a thought process but a conditioned reaction - even when the Democrat is as scandal-tainted a sack of manure as charles rangel. 

But Faulkner's positions, stated crisply, clearly and compellingly, are exactly what the people of his district should be caring about.  Exactly what will benefit them - very especially charter schools.

Is this nothing more than a quixotic little fantasy for Michel Faulkner, which is going nowhere?  Probably.  But boy oh boy do I hope it isn't.

Ken Berwitz

Frank Lautenberg, whom I blogged about just a few days ago, has stomach cancer.  His doctor says it is fully curable and Lautenberg says he will not resign.

I believe the doctor.  I doubt the patient.

Frank Lautenberg is 86 years old and has cancer.  Treatments will take place over a period of months.  It is hard to imagine him not being debilitated by those treatments and the cancer itself. 

On a personal level, I respect Mr. Lautenberg greatly (though we obviously disagree on many issues) and wish him a full recovery.

On a political level, any day he decides he must resign the senate will not surprise me at all.

Ken Berwitz

I just watched a 4 1/2 minute video of bill maher's show, "Real Time", during which he and seth MacFarlane, who created of "The Family Guy" TV series, exchange some of the sickest, most depraved vomit you will ever see on TV. 

If you want to see what I'm talking about, click here.  And be sure to keep a barf bag nearby, because you may need it.

There is so much that is so wrong with this, it is hard to pick and choose which things are the worst.  Let's list out a few:

-The supposedly funny image of Sarah Palin's Down Syndrome child with "F-U Seth MacFarlane" written on his palm;

-The gratuitous and unending insults to every conservative they could fit into the segment, for no reason other than an apparent belief that if people are to the right you can say anything about them, no matter how disgusting;

-The cheap shot of calling former President Bush retarded - to loud laughter and applause from maher's equally repulsive audience (more on that further on);

-And, very especially, the invoking of a Down Syndrome actor MacFarlane uses to play a Down Syndrome character on the show (macfarlane claimed she released a statement essentially saying there's no problem with any of this and it's all great). 

As you may or may not be aware, people with Down Syndrome typically have IQ's in the 30-60 range.  Assuming that the actor in question is at the high end of this range, macfarlane is exploiting someone with an IQ of 60 - far below normal - to justify the sick filth he is getting her to do.  With no disrespect of any kind to anyone with Down Syndrome, I have trouble believing she is capable of putting out the "statement" he is attributing to her.  I think it is a pretty fair bet she was "helped" by someone - maybe macfarlane himself -- to say what, amazingly and remarkably, turns out to be exactly what he would want her to say. 

A little like the ACORN workers who "help" people vote. 

But of all the things wrong with this segment (and, in my opinion, this show), the single worst is maher's audience.

The people in maher's audience certainly know what kind of "humor" he provides (if not the subject matter of the specific episode they are attending).  So we start with the obvious fact that they like what he does per se.  

Now, add in the fact that maher, like any other personality with an audience show, "owns" his audience.  They're fans - that's why they got the tickets to see him - so they're strongly disposed to "like" whatever he says, and will applaud and laugh to show him how much they're on his side.  In maher's case, this appears to translate into a bunch of mind-numbed robots who will rationalize a way to laugh at his "humor", regardless of how sick it is.

I suspect that if maher just looked at the audience, stuck up his middle finger and said "your mothers are all a bunch of whores", he would be greeted with laughter and maybe even some applause too.

I pity anyone who is entertained by what maher does.

Ken Berwitz

Here, from "NBCOlympics.com and wire service reports", is one for the sore-loser hall of fame:

Plushenko rips Lysacek; Russia won't contest result

Lysacek responds after Russian says American not 'true champion'

By NBCOlympics.com and wire service reports

The outcome of the men's figure skating competition at the Winter Games has been debated from Vancouver to Moscow and back. But a Russian officials has said his country will not officially protest American gold medal.

Yevgeny Plushenko, hoping to become the first man in almost six decades to win back-to-back Games titles, lost to the American by 1.31 points on Thursday. He told Russian media afterward that Lysacek could not be considered "a true men's champion without a quad."

Still, Russia will not challenge the results, the minister of sport, toursim and youth politics of Russia Vitaly Mutko said in an interview to RIA news.

“Judging is an eternal problem. But, the system of judging is the way it is, and one has to fit into it, instead of criticizing it,” said Mutko.

“What is there to dispute? Things like that do not warrant issuing protests,” he added.

On Friday, Lysacek, who said he had not yet been to sleep or taken off his medal, was diplomatic about the dispute. But, he admitted, he was "a little disappointed" in Plushenko.

"For him to discredit the field is not right, it's probably the strongest field there has ever been," Lysacek said at a news conference.

"It's tough to lose, especially when you think that no matter what you are going to win," he said.

"It's a really tough pill to swallow and I'm sure he said stuff in the heat of the moment that maybe he doesn't mean so we'll just try to not take it out of context and give him the benefit of the doubt.
Congratulations to him on a third Olympic medal."

In a telegram to Plushenko, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin climbed into the controversy and took his congratulations one step further.

"Your silver is worth gold," The prime minister wrote. 

"You were able to overcome all the obstacles in your brave comeback and performed the most accomplished program on the Vancouver ice."

"All Russian figure skating fans admire your brilliance, true fighting spirit, courage and the will to win. Well done!"

Lysacek did not attempt a quadruple jump in either Tuesday's short or Thursday's free programs, instead wowing the judges with artistry and exquisite footwork.

"For someone to stand on top of the podium with the gold medal around his neck by just doing triple jumps, to me it's not progress, it's a regress because we've done triples 10 or even 20 years ago," Plushenko said.

"Just doing nice transitions and being artistic is not enough because figure skating is a sport, not a show," he said.

"Of all the men who had competed tonight, only two -- myself and (Japan's) Takahiko Kozuka (who finished eighth) -- were able to land a clean quad.

"Later, when I saw Kozuka I shook his hand and congratulated him, saying 'Well done'. I also have a lot of respect for (Japan's bronze medalist) Daisuke Takahashi for trying to attempt a quad. That's a sign of a (future) champion."

Deserved gold
Plushenko, who came out of a 3-1/2-year retirement last month, said he was a victim of poor judging.

"I did a great short program but didn't get the marks I deserved. When I asked why they told me I was skating early and they had to retain top marks for the last group," he said.

"Then, in the free program I was the last to skate, did everything clean and still didn't get the marks. I thought I had done enough to get the gold but the judges gave it to someone else."

Most Russian TV analysts and commentators said Plushenko was robbed of a deserved gold by the judges.

When Plushenko walked into the RTR studio in Vancouver, host Alexei Popov presented him with a symbolic medal.

"You already have one gold and one silver so here's a platinum medal for you," Popov told the skater. "You are the real champion."

Another commentator called the decision scandalous, in the same mold as judging controversies at the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

"We'd seen this before. In 2002 Irina Slutskaya unfairly was placed second in the short program so that Sarah Hughes could get a better shot at winning the gold," Alexei Vasilyev said.

Russia's Slutskaya, a favorite for the women's title in Salt Lake City, finished second behind American Hughes.

Incensed by what they thought was poor and biased judging, the Russians filed a protest, arguing Slutskaya had skated as well as, if not better than, Hughes. It was rejected.

"So what if Slutskaya lost?" asked the commentator.

"Who now remembers Hughes? Similarly, in a few years' time nobody will remember Lysacek while Plushenko would go down in history as one of the greatest of all time."

They won't protest?  How good of them.

Look, if the judges were all from, say, the USA and Canada, I could see their point.  But the judges were from all over the world.  They evaluated each skater using the same criteria.

If Plushenko thinks that doing a quad inherently puts him above anyone who doesn't, maybe he should quite ice skating and go into acrobatics.  The last time I checked, style, artistic interpretation and how cleanly each move is made affect judging too.  To read what Plushenko and his Russian cohorts said, you would think that this was a two-man competition and Lysacek, along with everyone else except  and Takahiko Kozuka, might as well not have shown up at all.

What a bunch of brown, puckered A-holes they are.

In any event, my strongest congratulations to the gold medalist,  EVAN  Lycacek  (I thought I would put his first name in capital letters and bold print, since NBCOlympics.com didn't bother to mention it -- even though every other skater in the article was given the courtesy and respect of being referred to by their full names.) 

Maybe there are a few brown, puckered A-holes over at NBCOlympics.com too.

Ken Berwitz

President Obama and his lopsidedly Democratic congress are in the process of bestowing a second "stimulus package" on us. 

You may wonder why that is necessary since - if you believe Obama & Co. - the first one did such a bangup job.  But, hey, why carp about almost a trillion dollars, right?

On the other hand, if you've got a problem with that last sentence (me too), I have a column for you to read.  It is by Anthony Cline of www.americanthinker.com, and it is excellent:

The Preposterous Stimulus Bill

By Andrew Cline on 2.18.10 @ 6:08AM

Only 6 percent of Americans believe the stimulus bill passed a year ago this week has created jobs, a CBS News/New York Times poll reported last week. Six percent. Nearly six times as many Americans believe in ghosts as believe President Obama's jobs claims. It isn't hard to see why. All you have to do is go to the government's own website, www.recovery.gov, and look at the numbers. The site reports 1.2 million jobs funded by the stimulus bill by the end of 2009. Note the terminology. That's jobs funded, not created. The administration switched from jobs "created or saved" to jobs "funded" for accuracy's sake. Or maybe to stop the mockery. Either way, it's a telling methodology.

President Obama would have us believe that the stimulus is working because the government spent a bunch of money, and that money funded 1.2 million jobs. And he has the nerve to complain that dividing the number of jobs funded into the amount spent to come up with a price per job is simplistic.

If creating jobs were that easy, the government could simply tax the country into endless prosperity. But the money has to come from somewhere. For the stimulus bill, it was borrowed. That borrowing, combined with the rest of the massive government debt-taking in the past year, has left less money available for investors. Which means fewer jobs funded by the private sector than otherwise would have been.

The question is not: How many jobs were funded by the stimulus bill? The question is: How many jobs would have been funded if that same money had been put to other uses? The American people seem to think, not unreasonably, that more jobs would have been created without the stimulus bill than with it.

They also seem to understand that there is a big difference between a permanent private-sector job and a temporary stimulus job. Recovery.gov reports that of the 634,000 stimulus jobs funded from Feb. 17 to Oct. 1, 2009, 601,000 were funded by grants. The largest grant recipient was the Governor's Office of Planning and Research in Sacramento, Calif. The second-largest was the Executive Office of the State of Washington. The third largest was "New York, State of." Go down the list. They're almost all state offices.

The bulk of the stimulus money was given to governors to spend on shoring up their state budgets. That money went primarily to employ government workers. A small fraction went to vendors.

The fraction of stimulus funds that were contracts, not grants, and went to "shovel-ready" projects went, of course, to short-term construction projects. When those projects are done, those jobs will cease to exist. The same can be said for many of the government jobs funded this past year. Many school districts, for instance, have already burned through their stimulus money. A lot of teachers will get pink slips this spring.

Much of the stimulus amounted to a "cash for clunkers" for jobs. "Cash for clunkers" basically moved car purchases from the future to last summer, meaning it delayed many auto industry layoffs. The stimulus bill moved the date of a lot of other layoffs. Instead of coming last year, they'll come this year.

So even though the Obama administration can point to specific jobs and say they were funded by the stimulus spending, it cannot say the jobs are permanent, or that the stimulus was the most effective way to create the largest number of jobs.

If the American people don't believe the stimulus bill created jobs, it's not just because of the inflated numbers in early reports of jobs "created or saved" last year. It's because the very idea of politicians creating lasting economic strength by borrowing $787 billion and doling it out to other politicians is simply preposterous. Even more preposterous than ghosts.

That, folks, is the real "stimulus package".  And now Mr. Obama and his merry spendaholics are going to foist a second round of so-called "stimulus" on us.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.

And that goes double for 2012.

Ken Berwitz

I am posting this as a public service for airline travelers - especially airline travelers who use US Airways.

Yesterday I was on a US Airways flight to Philadelphia, with a change of planes and then on to Newark Airport.  At the originating city (for client confidentiality reasons I can't say which), we were advised that our plane was smaller than expected, so there would be limited space in the overhead bins.  The gate attendant implored travelers to check our bags instead of bringing them on the plane.

I'll bet you already know where this is heading. 

I decided to be a good guy and, against my better judgment, had my carry-on bag checked in and put in the belly of the plane.

At Newark, after watching all the luggage come out, all the people get their luggage and leave, but not seeing mine, I walked into US Airways' baggage office.  The pleasant and helpful person behind the counter conversationally informed me that my bag didn't get to Newark because "there wasn't enough room on your flight":  a little something that no one told me about before the plane took off, and no one was at the carousel to tell me about after the plane landed.  My bag had a huge label with my name on it, so it wasn't like they didn't know. 

The idea, evidently was that I should stand there and wait as long as possible. 

In any event, I was told that it would arrive "at 5".  I could either hang around for two hours (after already traveling for much of the day), or it would be delivered to my home "this evening".  

Fortunately for me, I chose to go home.  Because when I didn't receive the bag by 8:30PM, and called US Airways, I was told that it didn't get on the next plane either (hey, why would there be any priority for a bag that already missed one plane, and why would they call and tell me it was going to be later?  Who do I think I am).  I was then informed that the bag was coming in at 9:30PM (to be exact, I think it was 9:31), I would be called by 10:00PM, and would then be given information on when it was being delivered.

As you might have guessed, no one called.  So I called back between 10:30 and 11:00.  I was told the bag it had arrived, was probably already on the way to my home and it would be delivered by midnight (fair enough, since I live within an hour of the airport).  I told them it to just leave it at the front door.

I waited up for a while but no bag came, so I finally went to bed well after 11:00. 

This morning?  Still no bag. 

I called again.  This time I got an agent who pleasantly and conversationally told me that they do not deliver bags to a residence that late.  She had nothing but an "I'm so sorry for that" when I asked how come I was told the exact opposite the night before.

She then told me my bag was going out early in the morning and that I could expect to get it by 8:00AM - but that I should keep a 4-6 hour window open.  Call me a pessimist, but, to me, that means somewhere between 8:00AM and 2:00PM.  .

It is now 9:50 AM and no bag yet. 

FYI, the bag has - or maybe I should say had; who knows anymore - my clothing, personal effects, electronic equipment, my notes from two different meetings and all the materials from the research project I was conducting - which I will need for additional work next week.

I'm trying to stay calm about this.  But it isn't easy. 

Y'know that old adage "no good deed goes unpunished"?  I've heard it but always ignored it.  Not anymore.

In the future it will take a crowbar to separate me from my carry-on luggage.  And a lobotomy for me to believe anything anyone US Airways ever tells me.

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

UPDATE:  The luggage finally arrived at about 11:00AM.  Everything seems to be in it.  Hallelujah.

Ken Berwitz

First a quick review:

-As deputy Attorney General, eric holder advised then-President Clinton that it was fine and dandy to pardon 16 jailed FALN (Puerto Rican terrorists), even though virtually everyone else in his own administration advised Mr. Clinton not to;

-As a private citizen, eric holder was senior partner in the law firm of Covington & Burling, which has made it something of a mission to defend terrorists.

Regarding the FALN disgrace, here is how the Los Angeles Times (which ain't exactly a charter member of the vast right wing conspiracy) described it in an article about holder last January (the bold print is mine):

WASHINGTON — After five years of often bitter internal debate, the Justice Department concluded in a report released Friday that the lawyers who gave legal justification to the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation tactics for terrorism suspects used flawed legal reasoning but were not guilty of professional misconduct.

Holder had no comment for this article, but a spokesman for President-elect Barack Obama's transition team said Holder's actions were appropriate.

President Clinton's decision to commute prison terms caused an uproar at the time. Holder was called before Congress to explain his role but declined to answer numerous questions from angry lawmakers demanding to know why the Justice Department had not sided with the FBI, federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials, who were vehemently opposed to the grants.

With credentials like these, you would think that any President serious about fighting terrorism wouldn't let eric holder anywhere near a position of power.  The fact that Barack Obama made him our Attorney General, therefore, should tell you plenty.

Further, as anyone with cognitive reasoning would probably have expected, if you put an eric holder into power he is going to bring like-minded people in with him.

So the following excerpts from a piece by Byron York, published yesterday in the Washington Examiner, should not surprise you.  They might disgust and scare you, but not surprise you:

Holder admits nine Obama Dept. of Justice officials worked for terrorist detainees, offers no details

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
02/19/10 3:52 PM EST

Attorney General Eric Holder says nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department. But he does not reveal any names beyond the two officials whose work has already been publicly reported. And all the lawyers, according to Holder, are eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in.

Holder's admission comes in the form of an answer to a question posed last November by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. Noting that one Obama appointee, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, formerly represented Osama bin Laden's driver, and another appointee, Jennifer Daskal, previously advocated for detainees at Human Rights Watch, Grassley asked Holder to give the Senate Judiciary Committee "the names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf…the cases or projects that these appointees work with respect to detainee prior to joining the Justice Department…and the cases or projects relating to detainees that have worked on since joining the Justice Department."

Holder says other Obama appointees, like Holder himself, came from law firms which represented detainees but did no work on behalf of the terrorist prisoners. But other than Katyal and Daskal, Holder does not reveal any names of any Obama appointees, nor does he mention the cases they worked on.

And what are they recused from, anyway? Very little. Holder writes that Katyal has not worked on any Guantanamo detainee matters but has participated in litigation involving detainees who continue to be detained at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan and in litigation involving [Ali Saleh Kahlah] al-Marri, who was detained on U.S. soil." As for Daskal, "she has generally worked on policy issues related to detainees," Holder writes. "Her detainee-related work has been fully consistent with advice she received from career department officials regarding her obligations."

As for everyone else, Holder lists no names and no cases, but in a paragraph filled with modifiers, he makes it clear that all the lawyers who had advocated for detainees are free to work on general detainee matters.

Finally, it is possible that there are more than nine political appointees who worked for detainees. Holder tells Grassley that he did not survey the Justice Department as a whole but instead canvassed several large offices within the organization.

Bottom line: Holder revealed no names beyond the two already publicly known. He revealed no cases from which Justice political appointees recused themselves. The letter, which will likely be interpreted on Capitol Hill as a thumb-your-nose statement, is sure to anger Republican senators more than satisfy them.

Can you possibly believe that the holder justice department is anywhere near as committed to fighting terrorism (also known as protecting this country from the people who want us all either under shari'a law or dead) as the last one?

Can you possibly think we are as safe, or anywhere near as safe as we were before holder became Attorney General?

And can you possibly believe that President Obama, the man who selected holder for this position and whose team said his FALN recommendations were appropriate, is as serious about fighting terrorism as President Bush was?

That's worth thinking about now.  And worth it even more in November.

Ken Berwitz

The New York Times has descended so far that demonstrating its bias could, if I wanted, be a pretty-much everyday affair.  But in the interests of not being tedious I tend to pick and choose among the more egregious examples.

We have one today.

Yesterday, the justice department issued a final report on John Yoo and Jay Bybee, whose legal opinions were influential in how the  Bush administration interrogated terrorist suspects.  The report criticized them for judgment, but exonerated them of doing anything wrong.

Let's stop here for just a moment.  Let's reflect on the fact that this is a very different justice department than there was in the Bush administration.  This one is led by Attorney General eric holder, who not only has a rich history of defending terrorists (more on this in the next blog) but is a gung-ho Obama appointee more than eager to put the wood to the last administration's policies.  If this justice department says they're innocent, baby, they're innocent.

So what is the New York Times' headline - which many Times readers will never go beyond to see the whole story?  It is:

Report faults 2 Authors of Bush Terror Memos

And what do the first two paragraphs say?

WASHINGTON — After five years of often bitter internal debate, the Justice Department concluded in a report released Friday that the lawyers who gave legal justification to the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation tactics for terrorism suspects used flawed legal reasoning but were not guilty of professional misconduct.

 

The report, rejecting harsher sanctions recommended by Justice Department ethics lawyers, brings to a close a pivotal chapter in the debate over the legal limits of the Bush administration’s fight against terrorism and whether its treatment of Qaeda prisoners amounted to torture.

In other words, the Obama/holder people do not agree with the lawyers' opinions, but are forced to conclude that neither did anything wrong.

Heeeyyy, I have a great idea.  What about a headline that said:

Report Exonerates 2 Authors of Bush Terror Memos

             Flawed Legal Reasoning,  But No Professional Misconduct

What a dreamer I am!!

If the Times had used that headline/sub-head, it would have accurately reflected the main point of the story (that Yoo and Bybee were exonerated of any wrongdoing) and noted that the justice department criticized their legal reasoning.  In other words, it would have told the truth.

But we don't live in a dream, do we?  We live in the real world and this is the New York Times. 

So forget the whole thing.

Ken Berwitz

An absolute pig.  That is the cleanest description of bill maher that I can muster.

Read this piece by Rusty Weiss of www.newsbusters.org, and see why:

Maher: Palin’s Job at Fox Equivalent to Talking to Her Down Syndrome Baby

 

By Rusty Weiss (Bio | Archive)
Thu, 02/18/2010 - 00:01 ET

How does one prepare for an upcoming appearance by Seth MacFarlane of Family Guy fame?  If you're Bill Maher, you follow up the Family Guy/Sarah Palin/Down Syndrome attack by doing an 'exclusive rant' for the Huffington Post which includes - you guessed it - a joke about Sarah Palin's son, Trig.

Maher appeals to his lower-intellect audience by stating:

"...while we were off, Sarah Palin agreed to do commentary at Fox News.  Which is actually very similar to her day job - talking to a baby with Down Syndrome."

To most with a conscience, this would clearly jump out as an appalling joke about an infant child.  But the politically incorrect Maher doesn't view baby Trig as an actual human being.  This is evidenced by past comments in which he refers to Palin's son as ‘it' three separate times in yet another tasteless joke:

"And the trump card, why Americans will fall in love with her, she's got five kids. How can you not vote for someone who has five children, including an infant. Some touching details about the infant: it has Down Syndrome, she had it when she was 43 years old, and it looks a lot like John Edwards."

Silver lining? Maher appears to finally accept the fact that Trig is actually Palin's son, something he wasn't quite sure about prior to the election in 2008.

When did a Down Syndrome baby become fodder for half-wit comedians?  Better yet, as NewsBuster Noel Sheppard recently asked, ‘Exactly WHAT'S considered too far when Palin and her family are concerned?'

While we are reminded of the downright hatred that the Palin family has endured since being thrust into the political spotlight, it is equally important to remind ourselves of another thought.  That Trig, and those who value life as a precious gift, all life, are extremely grateful for the Palin's decision, no matter the challenges.  Trig is a blessing and an inspiration to the conservative pro-life movement, as are Sarah and Todd Palin for making the right choice, the only choice.

What a bottom-dwelling scumbucket maher is. 

If there are two things we have learned about these haters, 1) there is nothing - and I do mean nothing at all - that they will hold back in their sickening attacks and 2) our wonderful "neutral" media will, for the most part, look the other way.

Let's compare:  George Allen, former Governor of Virginia, lost a senate race and (at least so far) his political career, for using one pejorative comment that most people, I suspect, had never even heard of - macaca - to describe a Democratic worker of Indian descent who was following him from campaign stop to campaign stop.   

But the mahers and the lettermans and the garofalos and their pals can say anything at all about Sarah Palin, her daughter, her downs syndrome child, her husband, her life, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam.  And it is fair game. No problem at all.

I would say that maher should be ashamed of himself.  But someone with a mind and a mouth that foul, who reaps enormous financial rewards for both, never will be.

Ken Berwitz

President Obama has insulted Las Vegas twice in the past several months - enough so that the city's Mayor, Oscar Goodman, refused to meet with him when he came to town today.

But Mr. Obama came anyway, because he needs to somehow reverse things and be a benefit to Senator and Majority Leader Harry Reid - who is in deep, deep trouble this election year.

Here, via an excerpt from Ben Feller's article for the Associated Press, is how he is handling it:

LAS VEGAS (AP) - President Barack Obama is unveiling $1.5 billion in housing help, a boost timed to his appearance in the city with the worst foreclosure crisis in the nation.

Obama's move, detailed by aides in advance of his town hall here Friday, is the latest by a White House determined to show it is helping families rebound from a deep recession. The downturn is taking an election-year toll on Obama's party as voter frustration builds.

Obama was to announce that housing finance agencies in the five hardest-hit states in the housing crisis will receive $1.5 billion to help spur local solutions to the problem. Those five are Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan and Nevada.

The policy wrinkle comes during a two-day Western trip with different agendas for the president. He will be back in town-hall mode, a venue that aides say allows him to connect with people and distance himself from the messy process of Washington governing.

The president is also out to help vulnerable senators protect their seats and, in turn, gain as much legislative leverage as he can.

At the town hall and a business speech he will be lending his support to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a top 2010 election target of Republicans.

That, folks, is the Obama way.  Make a promise, write a check and have the treasury issue some more money it doesn't have.

Is this going to help Reid and the other "shaky" senators?  Will it assuage Mayor Goodman?  (Hint:  how did it do for Ben Nelson in Nebraska?)

Well, now the chips are down.  We'll see......

Ken Berwitz

I was flying home earlier today and was given a copy of the Wall Street Journal.  It lead editorial dissected President Obama's policy - and the result of that policy - towards Iran.

I think it is excellent, so I'm posting the entire editorial below.  See if you agree.  The bold print is mine:

          FEBRUARY 19, 2010

Obama and Iran

Engagement has failed. The President needs a new strategy.

These have been busy days for Iran's leadership. On January 28, the regime hanged two government opponents and sentenced 10 others to die. It has arrested and jailed some 500 opponents since December. Last week, it shut off access to Gmail and Google Buzz, as it already has done with Twitter, to prevent opposition forces from organizing. On the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, it jammed the streets of Tehran with supporters and security forces. Oh, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran has begun enriching uranium to 20% purity, making it a "nuclear state."

Maybe now we can all agree that "engagement" with Iran has failed. So where does the Obama Administration go from here? It seems to be moving on multiple, not always coherent, fronts.

Last Wednesday, the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on a commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps along with several IRGC-related companies said to be involved in WMD programs. And this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Iran may be evolving into a military dictatorship, with the Revolutionary Guards essentially running the show.

The U.S. is also trying to get the U.N. Security Council to agree to a new round of sanctions on Iran, over continued Chinese opposition. A Western diplomatic source tells us we can probably expect another essentially symbolic U.N. resolution in the coming weeks.

Then there is Congress, which in the past two months has voted overwhelmingly for legislation that targets companies doing energy business with Iran. The two bills must now be reconciled, but the State Department has previously sought to postpone the measures on grounds that they would constrain its room for diplomatic maneuver and could hurt the Iranian people.

Our sources tell us the Administration may now reluctantly be willing to let Congress play bad cop as it pursues its sanctions options at the U.N. and, separately, with the Europeans. That's fine as far as it goes, and we hope the Administration understands that the Congressional bills would also have a major impact on the Revolutionary Guard, which dominates Iran's energy business and takes a huge cut from the $6 billion-plus annual gasoline trade, according to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Then again, we doubt even this Administration thinks that these sanctions alone can alter the regime's behavior, much less force its collapse. Instead—and in the absence of a credible threat of the use of U.S. military force—the Administration seems to be gambling its Iran policy on a set of assumptions that look increasingly wishful.

One of these assumptions is that there may still be a "grand bargain" to be struck with the Iranian leadership, notwithstanding its refusals to do so last year amid President Obama's overtures. The Administration also allowed itself to imagine that Iran's protest movement would force the regime to take a more conciliatory nuclear line. It seems to have done the opposite.

Another assumption is that Iran has encountered serious technical difficulties in its nuclear program, out of some combination of incompetence and perhaps sabotage. We certainly hope that's true. But the driving fact is that Iran seems to have repeatedly surmounted these obstacles over the years, and last year it surprised U.N. inspectors by producing more low-enriched uranium than anticipated. Enrichment only becomes easier as it moves to higher states of purity. And yesterday, the U.N. nuclear agency said it is worried that Iran may already be working on a nuclear warhead.

Then there is the whispered assumption that a nuclear Iran would be "containable." But leaving aside the view that a religiously fanatic regime can never safely be trusted with a bomb, a nuclear Iran would open the Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. For an Administration that has made nuclear nonproliferation a centerpiece of its agenda, allowing Iran to go nuclear would seem an odd way to advance that goal.

***

All of this suggests the need for a new U.S. strategy that drops the engagement illusion and begins to treat Iran as the single biggest threat to Mideast and U.S. security. Sanctions can be part of that strategy, but they will need to be more comprehensive than anything to date. They must also be ramped up rapidly because they will need time to be felt by the regime. The U.S. should give up on the U.N., which will only delay and dilute such pressure, and build a sanctions coalition of the willing.

The U.S. can also speak and act far more forcefully and clearly on behalf of Iran's domestic opposition. The regime's recent crackdown suggests that the chances of regime change in the near term are remote, but popular animosity against Iran's rulers still seethes underground. The U.S. should assist that opposition in any way it can, especially with technology to help communicate with each other and the world.

Finally, the option of a military strike will have to be put squarely on the table. Sanctions have little chance of working unless they are backed by a credible military threat, and in any case Israel is more likely to act if it concludes that the U.S. won't. The risks of military action are obvious, but the danger to the world from a nuclear Iran is far worse.

After a year of lost time, Mr. Obama needs to put aside the diplomatic illusions of his campaign and make the hard decisions to stop the Revolutionary Guards from getting the bomb.

Give WSJ's editorial staff credit for seeing what is in front of their eyes. 

Now:  Will Mr. Obama do the same?  There may not be a lot of time for this to happen.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a short excerpt from the Public Policy Institute's analysis of their latest polling data.  See what it means to you:

Friday, February 19, 2010

Obama's Approval Decline

Barack Obama peaked in our national polling at a 55/38 spread last May. Now he's at 48/47. What's most interesting to note about that shift in his numbers is that it has come completely among white people. In May his approval with racial minorities was a 73/17 spread and now it's an almost identical 77/17. But with whites he's fallen from slightly positive ground at 48/45 to strongly negative territory at 37/58.

That is part of the problem for Democrats this year in the midterm election. While white voters were only 74% of the electorate in 2008, they made up 79% of it in 2006 the last time there wasn't a Presidential contest on the ballot. So before taking anything else into account the party is at a disadvantage simply because of the likely demographics of the electorate.

Let's think about this.

According to PPI's polling, Barack Obama's strongly positive profile has, in 9 months, turned into an even split among those who approve and disapprove of his performance.  Presumably this is because of dissatisfaction with the quality of said performance.

The entire reason is that some Whites have shifted from positive to negative territory. In other words they were, at one time, positively disposed towards Mr. Obama but subsequently became disenchanted with him. 

You may have noticed that Mr. Obama is Black.  You may also have noticed that he is no more or less Black now than he was in May.  So it is a bit difficult to pin this decline on White racism. 

By contrast, Blacks have not wavered one bit.  They have virtually the same feeling towards him now that they did last May.  His performance has not altered their immensely positive approval ratings even one little bit. 

Frankly, that is a lot easier to pin on racism.

One other thing:  If White voters comprised 79% of voters in 2006, and only 74% in 2008, it means a lot fewer Whites voted or a lot more Blacks voted when there was a Black Presidential candidate.  That is worth wondering about, isn't it?

I expect in the next few days that there will be political analysts concluding that the change in those numbers is Whites rejecting a Black President.  If I'm right, please keep remembering that those Whites did not reject him months before.  The difference from May 2009 to February 2010 is not his skin color; it is their perception of his performance as President.

Ken Berwitz

It is a genuine pleasure reading Steve Gilbert's web site, www.sweetness-light.com.  Steve is sarcastic, cynical, biting and sometimes goes overboard.  All assets.

If I wanted to, I could put up something from his site just about every day.  I don't, but I could.  Today, however, he has outdone himself, and I am putting up two of his blogs, both skewering the Associated Press (which, it should be noted, I have much more regard for than he does).  One is about energy and the other is about joblessness.

See if you're as impressed as I am:

Energy, Food Prices Jump Unexpectedly

February 18th, 2010

From a context free Associated Press:

January wholesale prices jump 1.4 percent

By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer

February 18, 2010

WASHINGTON – Wholesale prices shot up at double the expected pace in January, propelled higher by big increases in energy costs. The surprisingly large jump was viewed as a temporary blip and not the start of inflation problems, however.

The Labor Department said Thursday that wholesale prices rose 1.4 percent last month, reflecting higher costs for gasoline and other energy products. Private economists had expected a 0.7 percent increase.

Core inflation at the wholesale level, which excludes energy and food, rose 0.3 percent in January, faster than the 0.1 percent increase economists had predicted…

The increase is unexpectedly twice and even three times what the expert economists had predicted?

The hell you say.

But over the past 12 months, core prices at the wholesale level are up a moderate 1 percent. Economists believe that inflation is not a problem at the moment and is not likely to become a threat any time soon because of all the downward pressures on wages and prices as a result of the recession…

Well, if that is what the economists are saying then we are reassured that there is nothing to worry about.

The wholesale price report showed that energy prices rose 5.1 percent last month, the biggest gain since energy prices rose 5.6 percent in November. The January increase was led by a 11.5 percent advance in gasoline prices and a 16.2 percent increase in the cost of home heating oil.

Food prices rose 0.4 percent in January following a 1.3 percent jump in December. Last month, the price increases came in meat, up 3 percent, processed poultry, up 2.3 percent and milk products, which rose 1.7 percent…

This sounds like the perfect time to press for ‘Cap And Trade.’

What could be wrong with heaping the largest tax increase in history on our only viable energy sources?

We have to prevent ‘global warming.’

After all, what is a bigger threat in the world than the possibility of a longer growing season and cheaper food?

 

AP: Jobless Claims Rise Unexpectedly

February 18th, 2010

From an increasingly robotic Associated Press:

Jobless claims rise unexpectedly

February 18, 2010

The number of newly laid-off workers filing applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly surged last week after having fallen sharply in the previous week. The gain dampened hopes about how quickly the labor market may improve this year.

The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose by 31,000 to a seasonally adjusted 473,000.

The increase followed a drop of 41,000 in the previous week which had raised hopes that the labor market, which has lost 8.4 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, could be improving.

Thursday’s news deflated analysts’ hopes that new claims would continue to decline. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected new claims to fall modestly.

Still, the four-week average for claims did decline by 1,500 to 467,500, near the lows that were reached at the end of last year. The average is considered a more stable indicator because it smooths out the week-to-week volatility.

There they go again. (It’s spelled: smoothes. But the AP won’t correct their macro.)

Claims at the beginning of this year had been affected by a holiday backlog. The easing of the backlog had elevated the numbers for the previous three weeks.

That temporary boost appears to have worn off.

Just as we non-expert economists predicted.

Luckily this unexpected news didn’t come out yesterday, or it would have thrown cold water on Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden’s claims to the contrary.

Comedy is all about timing.

Go Steve Go.

Ken Berwitz

Suppose you put hard-left Rosie O'Donnell, who is doing a rarely-listened-to radio talk show these days, with Janeane Garofalo, who has become one of the looniest of the far-left looney-tunes in the entertainment industry.  Suppose you asked them to discuss why Air America, the right wing (don't laugh:  compared to these two it was right wing) network died last year.  Do you wonder what they would say/

Well, wonder no more.  Here, courtesy of Brian Maloney at www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com is your answer: 

 

17 February 2010

Janeane Garofalo Makes Excuses For Libtalk Failures

 

KILLED BY KINDNESS?

Garofalo: Air America Too Nice To Succeed

Emerging from her cave for an increasingly-rare public appearance, Hollyweirdo Janeane Garofalo used part of a visit with Rosie O'Donnell to share her theories on the failure of Air America Radio.

Is it really possible that her former employer's network collapsed partly as a result of being too kind? That's part of Janeane's amusing theory, one which conveniently omits stealing money from a children's charity (AAR management), calling Hillary Clinton "a f---ing whore" (Randi Rhodes), referring to virtually any political opponent as a "Nazi" (the entire staff) and turning a radio talk show into a Scientology infomercial (Janeane herself!). Yes, what a nice bunch.

Here's (a) partial transcript:

ROSIE O'DONNELL - ROSIE RADIO (1:05:38): Why is it often that liberal-backed causes don't seem to have the organizational infrastructure that all of these right-wing radical groups have?

GAROFALO: I would assume there's a couple of reasons: the right-wing radicals are fueled by greed, hate, a domineering attitude, and the will to power that may translate into a type of success. In [Air America's] case, you ha[d] a lot of much kinder people working at something they hadn't done before.

GAROFALO (1:09:12): It's a shame that [Air America] didn't thrive because it was desperately needed. Right-wing talk radio makes me soul-sick. [It] makes me sick. I was eager to get involved [with Air America] because at the time, especially from the stolen election of 2000 onward something ha[d] to happen.

O'DONNELL (1:10:21): [The media are] all corporately owned [now]. When we were in elementary school, we were taught [that] in Russia, where they have Communism, there's only two TV stations. One is the state-owned TV station, and the other station just has a loop saying, 'You better be watching [the first] station.' That's almost what it's become.

GAROFALO: In the last thirty, forty years, after Watergate, after Vietnam, there was a concerted effort by the right-wing's powers that be in this country, in the military-industrial complex, to make sure that people power couldn't be as effective and that there would not be a Walter Cronkite or a Woodward and Bernstein.

GAROFALO (1:11:41): Cheney and Rumsfeld came in with Ford, and they had years and years to make sure [that] what happened. They stole the election of 2000, they stole the election of 2004. That is not tinfoil-hat-time conspiracy. That is just powerful people consolidating power. [It] happens in every country in every era.

GAROFALO (1:13:36): The other face of racism has now really, really come to the fore in this country. The Republican party has now morphed into a National Front, basically, similar to Britain's Nationalist [sic] Front. The teabaggers that is racism, pure and simple.If you cannot see that those so-called teabaggers are straight-up racist, then you're not paying attention.

GAROFALO (1:18:09): You don't need a fact to know when there's racism. You don't need a fact to know when there's gay-bashing going on. You don't need a fact to know when there's an illegal and immoral war going on. That is just a real thing that's happening, and [is] not debatable. There are some things that are true. Torture is wrong in the same way that the racism issue and the gay-bashing issue is not up for debate, yet we still insist on indulging these [conservatives].

Also notable here is the especially obnoxious tone taken by Garofalo, making her already-abrasive personality that much tougher to take.

Uh........yeah.  Ok.  Thanks ladies.

Let me remind you, as Brian did, that Ms. Garofalo was part of the Air America lineup. That, in and of itself, should explain pretty much everything.

Ken Berwitz

mahmoud al-abhouh, a terrorist wanted for murder, was asssassinated in Dubai.  And the world is up in arms.

Dubai is furious and wants the head of Mossad, Israel's secret service, brought to justice.  The UK is reconsiding intelligence arrangements it has with Israel.  France is calling a moritorium on serving frogs legs and pigeon --- well, that last one may be a little exaggerated.

But there is one point in all this that is somehow being lost.  No one knows if Israel did the assassinating.  And, while I concede that Israel's Mossad is the first entity I would think of in this matter, there are good reasons to doubt it.  \

-The assassins' use of false identities (those of existing people in Israel, Ireland and citizens of the UK) is not, to my knowledge, the way Mossad operates.

-There are multiple reports that the disguises - the phony beards, etc - were so amateurish that they were actually laughable.  You may like or dislike Mossad, but did you ever hear of them operating that way?

Look I am not saying Mossad was not involved in the assassination of this murdering scumbag (let's remember that he deserved what he got).  Maybe it was.  But there are good reasons to be suspicious that it was someone else's doing.

How about let's wait and see what facts emerge.  Fair enough?

Ken Berwitz

crystal gail mangum.  Remember the name?

She was the hooker/stripper whose lies about the Duke Lacrosse team years ago almost ruined the lives of those young men--especially the three she claimed had raped her. 

As I'm sure you are aware, mangum's story turned out to be utter BS.  Either that or one of the "rapists" was talented enough to simultaneously be raping her and taking money out of an ATM - complete with time stamp and security video to prove it was really him.

I have always been disturbed that this liar, this fraud, this serial lawbreaker who did such damage to the individuals she accused, the Lacrosse program and the school itself, walked away free and clear.  Not only did she not have to pay in any serious way for her actions, but she was treated as something of a hero by people whom, you would think, should know better.  They included the 88 idio..er, brilliant academicians at Duke who signed a letter condemning the accused players before they knew squat about the facts and Jesse Jackson, who checked in with a commitment to payfor her college education (I wonder if he really made good on that.)

Anyway, what you don't see in this sordid little story is any reason for mangum to regret what she did.  And people who are taught that they can act illegally and get away with it, are pretty likely to give us a repeat performance.

And here it is, courtesy of WRAL, Raleigh NC:

Duke lacrosse accuser charged with attempted murder, arson

Posted: Today at 5:39 a.m.
Updated: 5 minutes ago

Durham, N.C. — Durham police late Wednesday arrested the woman who four years ago falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of raping her.

Crystal Gayle Mangum assaulted her boyfriend, set his clothes on fire in a bathtub and threatened to stab him, investigators said.

A judge set her bond at $1 million during a Thursday morning court appearance. Mangum, 33, has been appointed a public defender and is scheduled to appear in court on Feb. 22.

Police charged her with attempted first-degree murder, five counts of arson, assault and battery, communicating threats, three counts of misdemeanor child abuse, injury to personal property, identity theft and resisting a public officer.

Shortly after 11:30 p.m., police received a 911 call about a domestic dispute at 2220 Lincoln St. Authorities said they believe the call came from one of the three children inside the house.

When officers arrived, they found Mangum and her boyfriend, Milton Walker, 33, fighting. According to police documents, Mangum scratched, punched and threw objects at Walker and told him, "I'm going to stab you, (expletive)!"

She then went into a bathroom and set his clothes on fire in the bathtub, police said. Officers called the fire department to put out the flames. No one was injured.

Milton was not charged, police said. The three children inside the house, ages 3, 9 and 10, were not injured.

Officers said Mangum gave them a fake name, "Marella Mangum," and age, prompting the identity theft charge. She also resisted the officers who responded to the scene, according to police documents.

Mangum has been ordered to have no contact with Walker.

Mangum – who penned her memoir, "Last Dance for Grace," in 2008 – was a student at North Carolina Central University in 2006 and also worked as an exotic dancer when she performed at the now-infamous Duke lacrosse party.

It was there, she claimed, that three white members of the team trapped her inside a bathroom and raped and sexually assaulted her.

The three players were indicted on rape and other charges on the basis of her allegations and were eventually exonerated after North Carolina's attorney general dismissed the case.

Lovely.  What a nice lady.

What will Jesse Jackson do now?  Pay for her graduate degree?

Ken Berwitz

I can't figure this one out.

When President Obama announced that US, NATO and Afghan troops were mounting a major offensive in the taliban stronghold of Marjah, I wished for a great success.  I said that if it happened I would give my strongest commendations to President Obama and General McChrystal.

Then I read that when our troops got there, they found hardly any taliban and only sporadic resistance.  So I wondered whether the operation was a major blunder.

Then I read that there was fierce fighting between US/Coalition and taliban, but I didn't get a really good bead on how it was turning out.

Now I read this, excerpted from an article in London's Financial Times:

Marjah inroads slowed by new bombs

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran in Marjah, Afghanistan

Published: February 17 2010 20:19 | Last updated: February 17 2010 20:19

Lt Col Cal Worth, who commands one of two Marine battalions leading the offensive against Taliban fighters here, set off at 7am on Wednesday for the return journey to his battalion headquarters from a combat outpost less than four miles away.

In a place where homemade bombs are buried under seemingly every road, this trip was supposed to be safe and easy: A team of Marine engineers and ordnance-disposal experts had swept the route 48 hours earlier, unearthing and blowing up seven mines. But on Wednesday, Col Worth’s convoy had travelled less than a mile before the engineers discovered a mine on the rutted road. They would later find three more – all planted in the same intersection as the seven mines they found Monday.

Col Worth’s Sisyphean challenge of moving about in Marjah suggests that Taliban bombmakers, and those who burrow the devices into the dirt roads here, have not been cowed by the presence of two US Marine battalions and a large contingent of Afghan soldiers. Nor have scores of other insurgent fighters, who kept up a steady pace of attacks on coalition forces on Wednesday, firing assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades at their bases and patrols.

Although US and Afghan forces have made steady inroads here since beginning the largest military operation of the war four days ago, they only control a few modest patches of this farming community, principally around the two biggest bazaar areas. Much of Marjah has not yet been patrolled by troops on the ground, and video images from surveillance drones have shown Taliban fighters operating with impunity in those places.

US and Nato commanders were not certain the insurgents who have lorded over Marjah for the past three years would stand and fight or flee to parts of Afghanistan with fewer international security forces. It now appears clear that many Taliban members here have opted to stay – at least for now.

That may mean many more weeks of arduous house-to-house clearing operations for the Marines and Afghan forces in this 155-square-mile area, making this a far more complex and dangerous mission than initially envisaged, and it could delay some efforts to deliver government services and reconstruction projects to the 80,000 people who live here.

Is this a military success? A failure?  Are we just treading water?  Are we bogging ourselves down in a no-win situation?

It doesn't seem very clear, does it? 

Stay tuned.

Ken Berwitz

What do you do when your single most important "accomplishment" has been a bust? 

If you're President Obama, you stick your chin out and claim that it is a great success. 

And how is he doing it?  By inventing a scenario out of thin air and hoping someone will believe him.

Excerpted from an Associated Press article today:

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama hailed Wednesday's one-year-old economic stimulus law as an accomplishment that staved off another Great Depression and kept up to 2 million people on the job.

Still, with millions still out of work and losing patience, Obama acknowledged that to them, "It doesn't yet feel like much of a recovery."

Marking the anniversary of the $787 billion American Economic Recovery and Investment Act, Obama aimed his message at people skeptical about the expensive relief measure and Republican lawmakers who voted against it and continue to hammer him about it.

To the public, Obama explained, as he has many times before, that the stimulus plan was composed of tax cuts for most Americans along with help for state governments, extended social service benefits and huge investments in energy, education and infrastructure.

"One year later, it is largely thanks to the recovery act that a second depression is no longer a possibility," Obama said.

To his Republican critics, who say the bill was a costly, debt-financed blunder that has not delivered on the promise of job creation, Obama challenged them to take up the case with people who have stayed employed or have found help solely because he and the Democratic-run Congress acted.

Obama even delighted in recounting a section of his State of the Union address last month in which he talked of the tax cuts from the stimulus plan and watched Republican lawmakers fail to applaud the idea.

"They were all kind of squirming in their seats ... It was interesting to watch," Obama said.

And Obama made sure to commend himself and his own team for taking action.

Does anyone in his/her right mind believe that President Obama's "stimulus package" staved off a great depression?  For those gullible enough to do so, a few facts are in order:

-President Obama told us that the stimulus package would cap unemployment at 8%.  But, instead, it went over 10% and is at 9.7% right now. 

-President Obama said he would create 4 million jobs by the end of 2010.  A few days later he invented the "save or create jobs" statistic, which is completely unquantifiable, thus allowing him to make any claims he cares to - just like his claim that there would have been a great depression.  It is pure, unadulterated BS.

And when the administration provided "evidence" of job creation/saving, it was so full of crap that even his usually reliable media pals couldn't cover for him.  Thousands upon thousands of jobs were claimed for zip codes and congressional districts which don't even exist.  "Stimulus" money" that was used to give employees modest raises, was counted as "saving" every job in the company (as if they all would have left if no raise were given),  etc. etc. etc. etc.  Lie upon lie upon lie. 

-In reality, we lost almost 4 million jobs after the "stimulus package" was enacted.  So even if you want to believe Mr. Obama's 100% unprovable fantasy that he is responsible for creating (not saving, because those jobs already existed) 2 million new jobs, it means that he also is responsible for the loss of 6 million jobs -- which must have happened for it to net out at minus 4 million. 

Two more points should be made:  1) most polls show President Obama's approval rating in the 40's now, and 2) when people are asked what the most important issue is, jobs/the economy is far and away #1. 

If these data are correct - and they are being reported by just about every major polling organization - it is pretty easy to put two and two together:  Voters are turning away from Barack Obama because they do not believe his policies are providing jobs and/or improving the economy. That, it would seem, is as plain as day.

Maybe Mr. Obama, with that unbelievably large ego of his, can't imagine anyone not just loving him to pieces.  But at some point even he will have to notice. 

At some point he will have to think about the gubernatorial losses in purple Virginia and blue New Jersey, then the senate loss in bluer-than-blue Massachusetts.  Each time, a Democrat was replaced by a Republican despite Mr. Obama campaigning for the Democratic loser. 

And those name-brand Democrats who have decided they will not run again, like Dodd, Dorgan and Bayh?  Are they bugging out because they think his performance is helping Democrats this year?

How about you?  Do you need more evidence?  Ok.  Then watch how the Democrats still trying to hold their seats react to these events.  If they think that voters believe Barack Obama personally stopped a great depression, they will be begging for him to campaign with them.  

Outside of the safest of safe Democratic districts, how much begging do you figure there will be?

Ken Berwitz

CNN just conducted a poll that either shows Democrats in deep trouble and Barack Obama in negative territory --- or incumbents of both parties in deep trouble and Barack Obama's approval ratings barely an afterthought.

Here is CNN's article.  You decide how the information is being handled -- and please pay special attention to the two parts I've put in bold print:

CNN Poll: Anti-incumbent fever at record high

February 16, 2010 1:23 p.m. EST

 

Washington (CNN) -- Only a third of U.S. voters think that most members of Congress deserve to be re-elected this year, according to a new national poll. That's the lowest number ever recorded for that question in a CNN survey.

 

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, released Tuesday, indicates that only 34 percent feel that current federal lawmakers deserve re-election, with 63 percent saying no.

 

According to the survey, 51 percent feel their own member of Congress should be re-elected -- also an all-time low in CNN polling -- while 44 percent say their representative doesn't deserve to be returned to office in November.

 

Full poll results (PDF)

 

The numbers on both questions are even lower than in 1994, when an anti-incumbent fever helped Republicans win back control of both the House and the Senate from Democrats. The trend line on those questions goes back to 1991, when they were first asked.

 

"This is not a good year to be an incumbent, regardless of which party you belong to," said CNN polling director Keating Holland. "Voters seem equally angry at both Republicans and Democrats this year."

 

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in the survey say that most Democrats in Congress do not deserve to be re-elected. An equal percentage say that most congressional Republicans don't deserve re-election.

 

The poll suggests Americans are split when it comes to their vote this November, with 47 percent of registered voters saying they will support the Republican candidate in their district for the House of Representatives and 45 percent saying they will back the Democrat. Republicans trailed the Democrats by 6 points in November.

 

The voters' cool view of incumbents of both parties "may hurt the Democrats more because there are more Democratic incumbents," Holland said. "It's a change from 2006, when voters concentrated their anger at GOP members of Congress."

 

The generic ballot question asked respondents if they would vote for a Democrat or Republican in their congressional district, without naming any specific candidates.

 

The Democrats currently hold a 255-178 advantage in the House, with two vacant seats that the Democrats once held. Republicans need to win 40 seats to take back control of the chamber.

 

While President Obama is not up for re-election this November, he will be in 2012, if he decides to run for a second term. According to the poll, 44 percent of registered voters say Obama deserves re-election, with 52 percent saying the president does not deserve a second term in office. The survey also indicates that 49 percent of Americans approve of the job Obama's doing as president, with half of the public disapproving of his job in the White House.

 

"One problem Obama faces may be the perception that Obama is not a middle-class kind of guy," Holland said. "Only 4 percent of Americans describe themselves as upper class. But a 45 percent plurality say that Obama belongs to the upper class, with 42 percent saying he is from the middle class and 12 percent describing him as working class."

 

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted Friday through Monday, with 1,023 adult Americans, including 954 registered voters, questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points both for all Americans and for registered voters.

This is what I love about CNN and so many of our other wonderful "neutral" media. That meticulous attention to the key findings, even if they reflect badly on Democrats (I suppose it is possible to be more sarcastic than this, but I'm in a good mood today).

Read the first bold-print part - and remember that the article just already told you that both parties are in equal trouble.  It says that, in just 3 months (from November to February), there has been an 8% swing from Democrats to Republicans.  In November Democrats had a 6% lead, but now they are behind by 2%.  And let's keep in mind that, unlike the abstract, meaningless question about "most Democrats" and "most Republicans", this asks about their specific vote in their specific district. Does that look like equality to you? 

Then, even later in the article, we find a 49% approval rating for President Obama - but CNN cannot bring itself to say 50% disapproval, so they write out the word "half" which is not nearly as eye-catching.  In November, this same poll had President Obama at 55% approval versus 42% disapproval.  That's a 14% swing (from +13% to -1%) in three months.  But instead of this major swing being featured in the article it is not mentioned at all.

The most amazing part?  They wonder why people call them biased.

Ken Berwitz

When it comes to issues relating to Islam and terrorism (and, I expect, a great deal more), Robert Spencer is worth paying attention to.

Mr. Spencer, according to newsrealblog.com. whence the article I am posting came from, is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of ten books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, is available now from Regnery Publishing, and he is coauthor (with Pamela Geller) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon and Schuster).

Mr. Spencer is outraged that President Obama appointed Rashad Hussain as envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).  Read why he feels this way and see if you’re just as outraged:

Rashad Hussain’s Samigate

Posted by Robert Spencer on Feb 17th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage.

Someone is covering up for Rashad Hussain. But who?

And what did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?

Rashad Hussain is the Obama administration’s newly appointed special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the thuggish international organization that is engaged in a full-scale campaign to intimidate Western governments into adopting hate speech codes that will effectively quash criticism of Islam – including jihad violence perpetrated in its name. Rashad Hussain is an apposite choice for this position, since several years ago he defended a notorious U.S.-based leader of a jihad terrorist group.

But someone doesn’t want you to know that, and made a clumsy attempt to cover it up.

In 2004, Rashad Hussain, then a Yale law student, declared that the investigation and prosecution of University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian, who ultimately pled guilty to charges involving his activities as a leader of the terror group Palestinian Islamic Jihad, was a “politically motivated persecution” designed “to squash dissent.”

Journalist Patrick Goodenough of Cybercast News Service reports that Hussain’s remarks in support of Al-Arian were published in the jihad-enabling Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in November 2004. But now all that has gone down the memory hole. The Washington Report’s archived version of this November 2004 article lacks two paragraphs that were included in the original version: the ones quoting Rashad Hussain. Otherwise the article is unchanged.

The Washington Report editors, caught red-handed, decided to brazen it out, and blame their accusers – a tried-and-true tactic that is also frequently employed by jihadists in the West. They insist that there was no cover-up, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a venomous Islamophobe: according to Goodenough, “WRMEA news editor and executive director Delinda Hanley denied there was a ‘cover-up,’ and implied that anti-Muslim discrimination was behind the fact this was now being raised.”

Sure. It’s just “anti-Muslim discrimination” to be concerned about Rashad Hussain’s support for Al-Arian, a vicious suicide-bombing supporter who chanted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and clearly meant it. When two Islamic Jihad suicide bombers killed eighteen people in Israel in 1995, Al-Arian called them “two mujahidin martyred for the sake of God.”

But there was no cover-up! It was all a mistake, you see: according to the Washington Report now, Sami Al-Arian’s daughter, Laila Al-Arian, actually said the words that were attributed to Rashad Hussain.

But this explanation doesn’t make sense, since the article was altered just to remove the quotes, not to change the name of the person quoted. Also, the author of the original story, Shereen Kandil, contradicts the Washington Report’s explanation, telling Goodenough:

“When I worked as a reporter at WRMEA, I understood how important it was to quote the right person, and accurately. I have never mixed my sources and wouldn’t have quoted Rashad Hussain if it came from Laila al-Arian. If the editors from WRMEA felt they wanted to remove Rashad Hussain from the article, my assumption is that they did it for reasons other than what you’re saying. They never once contacted me about an ‘error’ they claim I made.’”

Was the Washington Report covering for Rashad Hussain at its own discretion, or at the behest of someone else? Did Barack Obama himself know about this cover-up? Did  someone in the White House or the State Department find out about Hussain’s defense of Al-Arian, and act to cover for the bright young special envoy before this defense was discovered and he became known as a terror apologist?

Or is the Obama Administration wholly uninvolved – and unaware of the fact that the President has chosen as an envoy to the world’s leading organization of Islamic states a man who has openly declared his support for an admitted leader of a jihad terror group? Alternatively, is Hussain’s disdain for the war on terror and support for Al-Arian precisely what Obama thought might make him appealing to the OIC? In 2007 Hussain declared that federal law should prohibit “the targeting of non-citizens solely on the basis of their racial, religious, or ethnic backgrounds.” In other words, airport security officials should keep on pretending that eighty-year-old Iowa grandmothers present just as much of a terror risk as do young Muslim males. It’s an outrage to common sense and a waste of resources, but it pleases Barack Obama, Rashad Hussain, and the Islamic countries to which the Administration is so desperately and fruitlessly reaching out.

Whoever is covering up for Rashad Hussain should come clean. And in the process, Obama should reevaluate the wisdom of sending a man like Hussain, with the views that he holds, to an organization such as the OIC – as should question whether he should really be sending an envoy to the OIC in the first place.

But Obama is in far too deep for that.

Do you want this man representing our country?  Representing you?

When an administration makes eric holder, a terrorist defender, our Attorney General and Rashad Hussain, a terrorist defender, an envoy to the Muslim world, what does it tell you about that administration?

Ken Berwitz

Here is a small sampling of Palin hatred from just the past day or two:

-Steve Colbert (whom I have never found funny - and I'm not talking political content, I'm talking humor only) used a clumsy twist of words to call Ms. Palin a "fucking REE-tard" - to gales of laughter from either his audience or the canned audience they use for his show (that's honest lack of knowledge on my part, I truly don't know which it is).  I condemned Rush Limbaugh for using that term to tweak Rahm Emanuel.  You can guess how I feel when Colbert uses it as a cheap, sickening punch line to crap on Ms. Palin.

-David Letterman, who already has had to apologize for his disgusting attacks on Ms. Palin and her teenage daughter, informed us that George Washington would "roll over in his grave" if she became President.  No word on how Washington, a slave owner, would have felt about Barack Obama.

-Thomas Fiedler, dean of the Boston University School of Communication chimes in with this gem: "The first presidential campaign I covered as a reporter was George Wallace’s primary campaign in early 1972 (before the assassination attempt). The parallels between him and Sarah Palin are many, beginning with the fact that both were failed governors...". 

Perhaps Mr. Fiedler is unaware of what Ms. Palin accomplished in a short period of time -- especially her cleaning up the corruption that was so pervasive in Alaska when she took office.  Or the fact that she went after her own Republican party every bit as much as Democrats.  Or the fact that, until his media pals went into attack-and-destroy overdrive, Alaskans gave her approval ratings as high as 87%. 

One other thing:  George Wallace was most known as a segregationist who tried to prevent Black students from attending all-White universities in Alabama.  Funny, though:  Fiedler never gets around to showing us any vestige of racial discrimination on Ms. Palin's part.

What a sorry bunch they are.

Have any of these three ever gone public with comments as condemnatory of, say, khalid sheikh mohammed, the "mastermind" of 9/11?  Or umar farouk abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up 300 people in an airplane last Christmas?

I only wish Colbert, Letterman, Fiedler and their pals showed somewhere near the level of hatred for enemies of this country that they do for Sarah Palin.

Shame on them all.

Ken Berwitz

Agence France Presse has a fascinating little story today, about the war Israel has supposedly scheduled for later this year.

Who is apprising us of the scheduled war?  Why mahmoud ahmadinejad, that nice fellow who stole the election in Iran last year and has made sure the protest leaders were either killed in the street, jailed or executed.

Here is the article -- with a few missing parts which I have added in blue print:

Israel mulling a spring or summer war: Ahmadinejad

 

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday that Iran's arch-foe Israel was mulling starting a war "next spring or summer" but has yet to make a final decision.  Based on what?  mahmoud ahmadinejad’s word?  That has all the credibility of Michael Moore telling you he’s anorexic.

 

Without specifying whom would be targeted, Ahmadinejad said: "According to information we have they (Israel) are seeking to start a war next spring or summer, although their decision is not final yet."  Now that is just dripping with veracity.  It will happen, but he doesn’t know when and, oh, it’s not final yet, so maybe it won’t happen at all.  Meet me at no special place, and I'll be there at no particular time.

"But the resistance and regional states will finish them if this fake regime does anything again," the hardliner said at a press conference when asked about ongoing efforts to reconcile ties betwen Arabs and Israel.  Isn't this the same guy who has been telling the world for the past several years that he intends to vaporize Israel?  Isn’t ahmadinejad the guy who said he wanted Israel “wiped off the face of the map”?  If Israel is considering a military action, could that just maybe possibly have something to do with it?

The already deep-seated enmity between Iran and Israel have deteriorated since Ahmadinejad became the president, with the latter not ruling out a military strike against Tehran's nuclear sites in a bid to stop the Islamic republic's galloping atomic programme.  Thank you agence France presse, for that wonderfully "informative" comment.  To read this you would think that Israel is the one threatening to vaporize Iran instead of the other way around.

Personally it would not surprise me at all if Israel is considering an action against Iran.  How can they not be, when Iran has stated its intention to vaporize the country and is busily amassing the nuclear tools to do it, while the rest of the world’s reaction is to work on the wording they will use for the next UN resolution that Iran will ignore.

And I have no doubt whatsoever that if Israel does attempt to take out Iran’s nuclear capacity most of the rest of the world will attack and condemn Israel for it anyway.

Given what will happen if Iran is left free to continue in this direction, it wouldn't trouble me a bit if Israel provides them with that chance. 

Ken Berwitz

I have posted that Democrats have until Friday at noon for potential candidates to replace Senator Evan Bayh.  I did so based on a number of different sites reporting that information.

But now I am advised that the actual deadline is today, not Monday (commenter "free" was right).  And this leads to some interesting possibilities, as described by www.hotair/com's Ed Morrissey:

Breaking: Bayh will retire; Update: Dems have four days until tomorrow to find candidate

posted at 10:50 am on February 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Bye bye, Evan Bayh:

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh will not seek re-election this year, a decision that hands Republicans a prime pickup opportunity in the middle of the country.

“After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so by serving in Congress has waned,” Bayh will say.

Bayh will announce the decision at a press conference later today.

Indiana would not have likely sent Bayh back for a third term in any event.  The entry of Dan Coats into the race gave Republicans at least one strong, credible candidate (there are others either declared or interested) to challenge Bayh on his support for the Obama agenda.  Bayh had recently tried to rebuild his centrist credibility, but his vote to allow ObamaCare to come to a floor vote undermined his supposed independence.

The only hope Democrats had in holding the Indiana seat was in keeping Bayh in the race.  The state relies on coal energy anyway, and the upcoming cap-and-trade bill would have hammered a state already suffering more than most from the Great Recession.  It usually skews conservative, and most certainly would have done so in the midterms, even with Bayh remaining in the race.

The next question will be which red-state Senate Democrat follows Bayh into retirement.  I’d bet that Blanche Lincoln may be considering her options in Arkansas, especially after Bayh’s decision to leave.  (via Geoff A)

Update: Bayh has managed to put his fellow Democrats in a real bind by waiting until the last minute to make this decision:

Bayh’s decision will set Dems scrambling for a replacement. The deadline to file to reach the ballot is Friday, meaning any Dem considering running for the seat must make a decision quickly.

One option would be Rep. Baron Hill, who as Reid notes beat an incumbent Republican in 2006 (so did Reps. Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth).  Unfortunately, two problems will arise with Hill, the first of which is that this isn’t 2006 and he’s in trouble to hold that seat.  The second is this video, in which Hill takes his first name a wee bit too seriously:

That will get played endlessly in Indiana no matter which race Hill chooses to contest.

Update II: Geoff points out that Bayh had considerably more reasons to stick around than some red-state Democrats:

The Scott Brown election to the Massactuetts Senate seat formerly held by Teddy Kennedy last month may have played a role in Bayh’s thinking. Considering the bankroll Bayh’s reelection campaign is carrying ($13 million) and his lead now in the polls, Bayh’s surprise announcement will surely be scrutinized by the political world for Bayh’s true rationale and the effects on politicians planning to remain in DC.

His “lead” was over state-level challengers, not necessarily Dan Coats, who hadn’t been in the mix long enough to get polled.  Bayh couldn’t get above 45% against anyone, a bad position for any incumbent.  The $13 million is a good point, though, and at least Bayh was competitive.  Looking at Lincoln’s numbers, or those of Harry Reid, in comparison put Bayh in a relatively stronger position in his race, at least until he quit.

Update III: National Journal has updated their story — the filing deadline is actually tomorrow:

Update: The filing deadline is tomorrow, not Friday, as we wrote earlier. Dem sources say Ellsworth is the candidate most likely to jump into the contest.

Update IV: Steve from No Runny Eggs points out that Democrats can nominate someone through the caucus process if no one signs up to run in time.  That’s true in most caucus states.  However, that process is almost certain to produce a liberal ideologue — the exact opposite of what Indiana Democrats need for the midterms.  They’d better hope they can get Ellsworth qualified in time.

Update V: How hard will it be to get a nominee on the ballot using the normal process? Justin Riemer, who worked for McCain in 2008 as Associate Counsel and is now with the RNLA, describes the degree of difficulty in an e-mail to me:

Ed,

I worked on getting McCain on the ballot in Indiana for the 2008 primary. I can tell you there it will be very very difficult to get this done in a few days. It took considerable resources for the campaign to get on the ballot there and we allocated a few months to do it. Even with having three full time staffers on it for several weeks, we barely made it. The signatures also need to be filed in each county’s election board of elections offices. Those are closed today. I don’t even know if they have the ability to get the hard copies of the petitions due to the holiday.

In other words, it will probably require Ellsworth (or anyone else) to use the caucus process.  Messy, messy, messy, as anyone who has worked in the caucus process can attest.

About 90% of me believes that Bayh quit the campaign on his own steam and his own timetable.  But I have to admit that the 10% cynic in me suspects he was asked to do it this way so that the state Democratic apparatus could immediately replace him with the person they think is most likely to have a shot at holding the seat.  That might be Baron Hill, as Morrissey suspects, or it might be one of several others.

Regardless, Indiana has gone from at least a "leans Democratic" state to a "leans to likely" Republican one. 

Ken Berwitz

Interrogation:  half a world away, but an entire world of difference in how it is being handled.

Reports are that the taliban's chief military commander, mullah abdul ghani baradar, was captured several days ago in Karachi, Pakistan and has been interrogated since then by US and Pakistani intelligence.

Is he talking?  Is there useful, maybe critical, intelligence emanating from baradar?  A couple of reports say there is, but I have no idea how they could possibly know so I'm skeptical -- hopeful but skeptical.

Now a few questions:  Did they mirandize baradar?  Did they hand him a taxpayer-funded lawyer?  Are they going to give him a civil trial that could drag on for years and serve as a platform from which he can spew his hate to the world? 

If the answers are no mirandizing, no civil trial and no platform for him to spew his hatred, why the EFF are we giving all that to khalid sheikh mohammed, who also was captured in Pakistan?  

After being caught, mohammed  proudly told us he would plead guilty.  But now he will almost certainly plead not guilty so he can get all those goodies. 

And why are we giving all that to umar farouk abdulmutallab, who was "interrogated" for all of 50 minutes before being read his rights and told by a lawyer to clam up?

It is precisely this kind of make-no-sense, chicken-with-its-head-cut-off "policy" that shows just how amateurish and how unprepared the Obama administration is to fight a war on terror. And reminds us of how different it was under the previous President. 

Ken Berwitz

Frank Lautenberg is the senior senator from New Jersey.  The very senior senator:  he is 86 years old.

After Republican Chris Christie upset Democrat Jon Corzine to win the Governorship of New Jersey, there was speculation that Mr. Lautenberg was going to resign while Corzine was still governor, so that he would be replaced for the remaining 5 years of his term by another Democrat.

But Lautenberg didn't resign.  Now, if he does not finish his term, a replacement will be selected by Christie who presumably would pick a fellow Republican.

This has suddenly become a front-burner issue, because Mr. Lautenberg fell at his home and was rushed to the hospital today. 

Here are the details from the Newark Star-Ledger:

U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg was taken by ambulance tonight from his Cliffside Park home after suffering a fall, his spokesman said.

The 86-year-old Democrat was conscious when he was taken to the hospital "as a precautionary measure," said the spokesman, Caley Grey.

Grey said he did not know if Lautenberg had fallen inside the Bergen County condominium or whether he had suffered any injuries.

Lautenberg was elected to his fifth term in the Senate in 2008, defeating U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews with 59 percent of the vote.*** He was thrust back into the political spotlight in recent months as his name became synonymous with two major political storylines in the state — the security breach at Newark Liberty International Airport and the Sean Goldman custody case.

Is Mr. Lautenberg ok?  Is he in good  or deteriorating health?  Can he serve five more years or anywhere close to it?

If the answer is no, then President Obama and his Democratic Party will lose another senator.  Could it happen this year?  Would it change which party has a majority in the senate after November?  You don't need me to tell you how important these questions are or what the implications could be.

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

***This is incorrect.  Frank Lautenberg did not defeat Rob Andrews to win his senate seat, he defeated Rob Andrews to win his primary.  In the general election he defeated Republican Dick Zimmer by 56% - 42%.

Ken Berwitz

Here are a few excerpts from Daniel Klaidman's incomparably hypocritical commentary in Newsweek - which regularly battered George Bush's efforts to fight terrorism when he was President:

Jostling before the midterms has begun, and so too has the GOP's ritualistic hazing of Democrats on national security. At every turn Republicans are hammering the Obama administration for "capitulating" in the fight against terrorism. But their macho rhetoric actually sends a message of weakness: we can't try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the same civilian courts that have convicted dozens of other international terrorists because Al Qaeda might attack New York. (When since 9/11 has New York not been a target of Al Qaeda?) Our criminal-justice system can't deal with a failed underwear bomber. The GOP assault may be smart politics, but in the long run it damages U.S. security by undermining our confidence and resiliency in the face of certain attacks to come.

By contrast, much of the current administration's antiterror policy seems aimed at strengthening the American spirit in the face of a diffuse but determined enemy. After Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to bring down Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day, President Obama waited 72 hours before appearing in front of the cameras to make a statement. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) immediately cruised the cable circuit lambasting Obama for his lapse in "leadership" in the wake of what he claimed could have been "one of the greatest tragedies in the history of our country." The president should have stepped forward "to give a sense of confidence to the country." But it was precisely the president's deliberate restraint that conveyed confidence, not King's hysterical overreaction. When Obama did address the public, his response was measured and proportionate. "This incident," he said, "demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist.".

Unbelievable. 

If attacking Democrats for the way they address national security is hurting the country because it shows weakness to our enemies, what the HELL was it when Newsweek relentlessly attacked President Bush for the way he fought terrorism?

And why is it wrong to criticize an administration for summarily telling the world it would close Guantanamo and sanitizing the term "terrorism" to "man-caused disasters"? 

The administration itself realized both ideas were harebrained and has reversed them.  Guantanamo, which was supposed to close by the end of 2009, remains operational.  The term "terrorism" is being used again.  Would the Obama administration have done these things if it weren't for the outcry by Republicans?

And who besides Daniel Klaidman and the geniuses at Newsweek (along with their bosom buddies at MSNBC) believes that waiting three full days before saying anything about the terrorist who tried to blow up almost 300 innocents on an airplane, strengthened our spirit or conveyed confidence?

Here are a few newsflashes for Mr. Klaidman:  Terrorism is terrorism, not "man-caused disasters".  Criticizing a President because you believe he is soft on national security is perfectly legitimate.  And anyone from Newsweek who whines about criticizing a President on how he handles national security belongs in the hypocrite hall of fame.

Peter King was right.  Barack Obama was wrong.  And Daniel Klaidman is ridiculous.

Ken Berwitz

Oh god, is this joe the plumber again? 

Regular readers may remember that, during the 2008 election, I wrote a blog fervently wishing this guy would just go away.

And, though it didn't happen soon enough for my taste, we have not seen or heard from him in about a year.

But now he's back, with these comments, as reported in USA Today:

Joe the Plumber, who backed Sen. John McCain for president in 2008,  is back. But this time, he trashes the Arizona senator as "no public servant" and says McCain "really screwed my life up."

 

Joe, aka Samuel J.Wurzelbacher, made his comments to Pennsylvania public radio's Scott Detrow, who writes about it on his political blog.

 

Joe, who was in town to back a Pennsylvania state gubernatorial hopeful, told Detrow that "McCain was trying to use me."

 

"I happened to be the face of middle Americans," Wurzelbacher says. "It was a ploy.

 

He adds:  "I don't owe him s—. He really screwed my life up, is how I look at it."

 

 Wurzelbacher is also withdrawing his support for Sarah Palin. Why? Because she has endorsed McCain for re-election in Arizona.

In addition to being a bore, a boor and something of a jerk, this nobody-from-nowhere is now complaining that the man who put him on the map "really screwed my life up" and that he was being used????????

Please, Joe, or Samuel, or Godot, or whoever the hell you are.  Just shut up and go away.  No one cares. 

Thank you! 

Ken Berwitz

A year ago the USA was in the midst of a superturbocharged case of Obamesmerization.

Now?  It appears to be in the midst of wondering how many screws Mr. Obama and his administration have loose.

So what does Mr. Obama and his administration have to say about this?

Here is your answer, excerpted from an AP article by Ben Feller.  Please pay special attention to the last paragraph, which I've put in bold print:

WASHINGTON – Thrust into office on the veracity of hope, President Barack Obama is trying to get himself on the right side of a remarkably different national sentiment these days: anger.

 

Obama's expansive domestic goals are largely the same, but his message is changing, now constructed around a concession that the public is disillusioned and wanting results. If he cannot show people that he understands their frustration and is working to fix it, the risks are real.

 

All that angst that Obama wants to harness as a force for change — as he did in his campaign — will turn against him. That means eroding public support for his agenda and potentially big losses for his party this year in congressional midterm elections.

 

So it was telling when Obama offered this take on Republican Scott Brown's Senate win in Massachusetts last month, one that weakened the president's hand: "The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated."

 

A new White House talking point was born, and it was hardly hope and change.

 

On that same day of postelection analysis, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs used some description of anger, frustration or both 12 times to describe what people were feeling, including this one: "That anger is now pointed at us, because we're in charge. Rightly so."

 

The Obama response has come in two parts. One is to try to get better about communicating to people that he is fighting to address exactly what angers them. The other is to put the onus on whomever he deems is getting in the way of progress, hoping to shift the heat onto them.

Did you catch that last paragraph?  It says the Obama response is 1) to better explain that it there is no deficiency on his part; we are deficient for not realizing what a bangup job he is doing and 2) to blame someone else (which 99.9999% of the time is former President Bush).

What Mr. Obama doesn't seem to be considering is that 1) the people do understand what he's doing but don't like it and 2) many of us are up to here with him blaming George Bush, who is no longer President, has not been President for over a year, and had nothing to do with the "stimulus package", or his foreign policy or his war on terrorism policy or....etc.

My guess is that the longer Barack Obama keeps working under the delusion that the problem is voter density and/or that Mr. Bush has become some kind of poltergeist who keeps raining on his otherwise brilliant presidency, the more anger there is going to be.

Ken Berwitz

I know that title makes exactly zero sense.  But, inexplicably, ti is what the hard-as-nails-left Maddow is claiming on the new promo for her lower-and-lower rated show.  In Maddow's own words:

"I'm trying to increase the amount of useful information in the world.  I think sometimes I get defined as an activist because I say what my opinion is.  I'm not trying to push an agenda of any sort.  I'm trying to figure out how to make the big, bad world out there make more sense."

Rachel Maddow has no agenda?  That's a little like James Cameron saying he's not trying to make expensive movies.  Or mahmoud ahmadinejad saying he's on the fence about Israel.

Ms. Maddow, you may be a female, but you have to have one bodaciously large set of gonads somewhere in there to claim neutrality. 

Thanks for the laugh, though.

Ken Berwitz

Sorry for the awful pun, but it really does have a basis in fact.

Evan Bayh, a popular two-term Democratic senator from Indiana, has - out of nowhere, it seems - decided he is not going to run for re-election in November.  And because of Bayh's bugout Dan Coats, a former senator who wants back in, is looking very, very good.

From Agence France Presse:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US President Barack Obama suffered another setback Monday as a fifth Democratic senator, centrist heavyweight Evan Bayh, decided not to run for re-election in dismay at the bitter political climate.

 

Obama, who reportedly tried to talk Bayh out of retiring, faces a looming Republican resurgence and risks watching strong majorities in Congress crumble in November mid-term elections, and with them his ambitious reform agenda.

 

With his tearful wife and two sons at his side, Bayh, 54, expressed disenchantment with excessive partisanship in the Congress as he announced his decision at a press conference in the state capital Indianapolis.

 

"For some time, I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is too much partisanship and not enough progress -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving," he said.

 

"Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples' business is not being done."

 

Democrats expressed shock at the development, seeing it both as the loss of a key consensus builder in the Senate and of a candidate strongly favored to win re-election in Republican-leaning Indiana.

 

A top White House official said Bayh, who called Obama on Monday morning, was "by nature a governor not a senator."

 

The New York Times reported that both Obama and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel tried to convince Bayh to run again, but to no avail.

 

Republican Dan Coats, a former senator who later served as US ambassador to Germany, recently announced he would challenge Bayh, who has never lost an election in Indiana and once considered running for the presidency.

Dan Coats is a popular figure in Indiana who would have given Senator Bayh a run for his money - but, in my opinon, probably would have lost.  With Bayh out of the picture, however, Coats has to be considered the favorite.

There was a time when I thought it was pretty much out of the question that Republicans could retake the senate this year.  But now?  I'd put the chances at 50/50 - with all of the momentum on the Republican side. And I always thought it was possible that Republicans could retake the house.

If President Obama had any coattails, things might be different.  But if Mr. Obama has proven anything, it is that he has none at all.

This could be some mid-term.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a thought-provoking piece from RHJ King of www.americanthinker.com.  It compares what may well be the twin implosions of the European union and the state of California -- with the rest of our country not far behind:

February 15, 2010

California is America's Greece

By RHJ King

 

To think that Greece's troubles are an ocean and a sea away from where we stand in North America is to have your head in the Mediterranean sand.  In Greece we have

• a near bankrupt, over-indebted, overspending nanny state, drowning in future liabilities;

• where civil servants are pampered and overpaid;

• in which unions are demanding a continuation of their inflated wages and entitlements; and

• productive individuals and businesses are leaving for more favorable climes.

Where have we heard all this before? Ah yes: California.

 

California is our Greece, and New York is our Italy.

 

The PIIGS, as they are called, being the fiscally fragile EU sub-community of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain (with Britain not far behind), are all countries facing potential financial collapse. They bought into -- or by joining the EU, were brought into -- the great 20^th-century political model of the social democracy. This is a model that holds that the state, or the government, is the umbrella under which all its people gather and are protected. The proponents of this view include most if not all of the modern Western democracies.

 

It seems that this form of governance is showing symptoms of a fatal disease. That is not to say that capitalism is ill, but that "social democracy" is finally succumbing to the flesh-eating disease called sustainability. Those with a strong manufacturing base, like Germany, could linger on, although present-day economic pacts (and birthrates) will make that difficult.

 

Resource-rich countries like Canada should be prosperous, but instead of having the economy of Alberta nationwide, it has the debt of every other social democracy because it practices the politics of Quebec.

 

England's grand fall from imperialism to the present is a more complicated tale, but its history from the Second World War through today is a lesson that the U.S. cannot afford to ignore. Here are two words to get you started: automobile industry. The social engineering practiced by the Brits has not only bankrupted the country financially, but it has also brought the mother island to the point where cultural bankruptcy is also a strong possibility.

 

The USA has future financial liabilities somewhere between 57 and 64 trillion dollars. How does each and every one of its individual citizens feel about owing half a million dollars?

 

The question that needs to be asked is what went wrong. Who screwed up?

 

Recently, and far too often, economists have been polishing their favorite theories with very partisan rags. They consequently have too few responses that would provably answer those questions.

 

(Am I the only one who has come to look at these guys as the most inept group of soothsayers that has ever attempted to peer through tomorrow? How many actually foresaw what they all now claim was the inevitable recent financial collapse? Perhaps two.)

 

Politicians will blame the failure on those across the aisle. Leftists are blaming it on capitalism. Those on the right point a finger at socialism and bloated government. Many voters will accuse a corrupt system where special interests and lobbyists have replaced "we the people." Most will probably confess that they just don't know, or repeat some nonsense they saw in the paper. You've probably read recently what some pundits have suggested. We are struggling, they say, because of the stupidity of people who don't know what is good for them.

 

A few years ago, George Carlin, in a sit-down with Dennis Miller, posited that he looked down at the world from a perch well above the fray, laughing, and thought that the people he saw were extremely stupid.

 

Looking at our world from a larger perspective is not something we the people have done enough of. That is, we are not often forced to examine where we are politically relative to where we've been and where it all might lead. Yes, of course people have lives to lead. We are very busy.

 

Carlin was a cynic -- or I should say that he was a funny cynic. But he taught some good lessons. We have for decades muddled about in the middle, compromising, being bipartisan, and working the hell out of the smaller worries, and we haven't taken a moment to see that we've incrementally gone from Tocqueville's empowered citizens in get-things-done communities to neutered whiners in a nanny state that has a banana-republic future.

 

Secondly, and you saw this coming, we are to blame -- we the people of the western democracies. We, most of us, have been very stupid. Great things have surely been done inside and outside the political arena. But we have let a lot slide.

 

Those in Europe dropped their continent so deep in the muddle that it is veering away from democracy together with its ruling elite. Canada is in neutral.  Mr. Obama has turned on the flood lights in America and shocked a number of us awake.

 

The questions are:

• Is it possible for a country designed to resist radical political shifts to roll back decades of policy and uncover the flame at the core of a great nation, the embers of which still burn in some of our hearts?
• Are there enough of us able to stay awake long enough, and be tough enough, to carry this through?

Is Mr. King on target here?  That's certainly something worth thinking about -- especially as we face our next trillion-dollar-plus deficit from the Obama administration (or, as they claim, the Bush administration which has been out of office for over a year.  Oh, brother.)

Ken Berwitz

It gives me no pleasure to write this short blog. But facts are as they are.

Two days ago I wished our forces all success in Marjah, where we were told they would be battling an entrenched taliban presence and destroying their opium production there.  My exact words were:

May these troops be 100% successful in taking out the taliban and destroying the opium trade there.  And, if this happens, my strongest appreciation, and congratulations, will go to President Obama and General McChrystal.

 But here is the latest news from CNN (which appears to confirm what was in yesterday's New York Times):

Marjah, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Most of the area targeted in a major offensive against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan is now under government control, the nation's military officials said Monday, amid resistance from militants in sporadic fighting.

 

"Coalition forces are clearing mines and roadside bombings, and facing only scattered resistance," said Zahir Azimi, the Afghan defense spokesman.

 

About 15,000 Afghan and NATO forces are taking part in Operation Moshtarak, the biggest since the Afghan war started in 2001. The assault aims to wrest control of Marjah town and surrounding areas from the Taliban.

 

"The operation is being conducted at the request of the Afghan government and the governor of Helmand," said Master Sgt. Jeff Loftin, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.

 

Forces were in the "clearing phase" of the operation, Loftin said in a statement Monday.

Afghan and NATO troops also discovered 2,500 kg (5,500 lbs) of explosives during the operation, officials said Sunday.

 

The joint force also seized a Taliban commander responsible for small arms ambushes and roadside attacks against Afghan and coalition troops, according to Loftin

 

Forces were largely facing small arms fire, he said. Several insurgents have been killed or detained and some collation troop members have suffered injuries.

 

Loftin did not specify the number of militants and troops injured or killed as of Monday.

Over the weekend, provincial spokesman Dawoud Ahmadi said 27 Taliban fighters were killed.

 

A Taliban spokesman for the Marjah area refuted the numbers, and said there had been six Taliban casualties while militants had killed 192 troops. The Taliban has often inflated casualty figures in the past.

 

The U.K. military spokesman hailed the operation on Sunday, saying it's "going pretty well" and things are stabilizing.

 

It is by no means over and there is absolutely no complacency," said Maj. Gen. Gordon Messenger. "People realize that the threat is very alive and out there, but so far it's going very well."

 

British troops are fighting in Helmand province alongside Afghan forces. A British soldier was killed in a roadside bombing on Saturday while on a car patrol in Nad Ali, but his death is not related to the operation.

 

"The IED is the biggest threat to our troops and it's something these guys are living with minute by minute," Messenger said.

 

The declaration of success comes a day after 12 Afghan civilians were killed by two rockets by coalition forces that missed their intended target as the Taliban showed stiff resistance.

Have we been had?  Is this "major offensive" a major blunder instead?  Were we played for suckers by people in the Afghanistan government (a very real possibility)?  Have we been made fools of?

And, if so, who is to blame?  If so, who is responsible for buying into this operation?

If the Marjah offensive turns out to be no more than what we have seen so far, these are questions that must be answered.

And fast.

Ken Berwitz

From Tucker Carlson's (relatively) new web site, www.dailycaller.com, we have this:

Scientist admits there has been no global warming since 1995

By The Daily Caller   02/14/10 at 12:55 pm

The global warming movement is facing a one-two punch today, as a key figure of the Climategate scandal admitted that there is no evidence the earth has warmed recently and new research suggests existing records aren’t sufficient support for global warming claims.

Phil Jones, who stepped down from his position at the Climatic Research Unit after emails surfaced showing the unit apparently conspiring to manipulate climate data, also said global warming may not be unprecedented after all.

READ JONES’ FULL Q&A WITH THE BBC HERE

From the Mail Online:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Meanwhile, The Times reports that scientists have found that temperature records are not a reliable indicator of warming. In many cases, they said, “apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

Reports the Times:

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Will someone please tell Mr. Obama and his administration about this -- before they hand over all those billions, and subordinate our economy, to the scam artists?  You can tell which ones they are - both their hands are out.

Ken Berwitz

Here, from the Washington Post via Paul Mirengoff of www.powerlineblog.com, is a very important take on the Obama policy of killing high-value terrorists.  The bold print is mine:

Obama takes the easy way out, to the detriment of our national security

 

February 14, 2010 Posted by Paul at 12:21 PM

 

The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration is increasingly opting to kill al Qaeda terrorists rather than capturing them and attempting to find out what they know. For example, when a window of opportunity opened to kill or capture Saleh Ali Nabhan, the leader of al Qaeda in East Africa, the White House opted to eliminate him by firing from helicopters rather than trying to take him alive.

 

According to the Post, these decisions are being driven in part by the "dwindling options" for placing U.S. captives. As one "senior military officer" put it, "when you don't have a detention politcy or a set of facilities," the balance tends to shift in favor of simply eliminating the terrorist.

 

But this entails an obvious cost -- lost opportunities to obtain important intelligence. Thus, says the Post, "some military and intelligence officials" are balking at the administration's "shoot the bastard" policy. The decision to eliminate Nabhan appears to have come in for particular criticism, as well it should. It's difficult to conceive that we might be more secure with the head of al Qaeda's East Africa operations dead and dumb than we would be with him sidelined and singing.

 

On the other hand, given the administration's stated policy on interrogation, it's not clear how much intelligence could be extracted even if we did capture the likes of Nabhan.

 

What does the White House have to say about this issue? The Post quotes one senior official as follows:

There are certain upsides and certain downsides to certain paths. The safety and security of U.S. military personnel is always something the president keeps