Ken Berwitz

If there is one thing you learn when you cover politics in this country, it is that racism is acceptable - if the "good guys" are the ones displaying it.

Case in point:  Bill Maher, a hard left comedian who is idolized by the PC crowd.  This makes him a protected species in most media.  Thus, he is allowed to spew overtly racist garbage without paying the price. 

Suppose Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or Mike Gallagher or Dennis Miller or anyone named Bush, etc. etc. etc. said this:

“I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president.  You know, this [BP oil spill] is where I want a real black president.  I want him in a meeting with the BP CEOs, you know, where he lifts up his shirt where you can see the gun in his pants.  That’s — (using a stereotypical black accent) ‘we’ve got a motherfucking problem here?’  Shoot somebody in the foot.”

Do you think any of those folks would have a problem?  Like  maybe a nuclear problem?

Well, the person who made that statement, exactly as you just read it, is Bill Maher.  And guess what:  he doesn't have a problem at all. 

You see, Bill is one of the good guys.  So it doesn't mean anything when he says things like that. 

We all know that Rush Limbaugh is a racist, so if he made that comment we'd demand that he be taken off the air.  We'd boycott his sponsors.  We'd mount protests at his syndicator's offices. 

But since we know Bill Maher is not a racist, it doesn't count. Next subject.

And if you think I'm wrong about this, explain how come Maher's comment was made days ago and you haven't seen an outcry, not even a little one, in most mainstream media. 

Then think about what happened years ago when Limbaugh, during an NFL pre-game show, said:

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,'' Limbaugh said. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Look at the two comments.  You tell me which is more racist:  Maher's disgusting characterization of a Black man as violent, armed, profane and with a stereotypical dialect, or Limbaugh's assertion that McNabb was overrated because the NFL wanted a Black quarterback to do well.

Limbaugh was immediately forced off the show and has subsequently been barred from even a small ownership interest in an NFL team.  Maher, at least so far, gets a free pass.

I rest my case.

Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama is directly connected to the people who mounted the Gaza incident, which has resulted in at least 10 fatalities and put the world in an uproar.

Excerpted from the chilling piece written by Brenda J. Elliott for worldnetdaily.com:

Klein: Ayers, Dohrn top activists in Gaza flotilla group

May 31, 2010 by Brenda J. Elliott

World Net Daily, reports from New York:

 

Aaron Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief for World Net Daily, reports from New York:

The group behind the Gaza flotilla that engaged in deadly clashes with Israeli commandoes today counts among its top activists Weather Underground terrorist founders William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn as well as Jodie Evans, the leader of the radical activist organization Code Pink.

Ayers and Dohrn were close associates for years with President Obama, while Evans was a fundraiser and financial bundler for Obama’s presidential campaign.

The flotilla was organized by the Free Gaza Movement, a coalition of leftist human rights activists and pro-Palestinian groups engaged in attempts to break a blockade imposed by Israel on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Ayers, Dohrn and Evans’ Code Pink have led several recent Free Gaza Movement initiatives, including attempted marches into the Gaza Strip. Dorhn was in the Middle East just last month on behalf of the movement.

 

In January, WND reported Ayers, Dohrn and Evans were involved in provoking chaos on the streets of Egypt in an attempt to enter Gaza with the Free Gaza Movement to join in solidarity with the territory’s population and leadership.

 

The three helped to stir riots after the Egyptian government refused to allow a large number of protesters to enter neighboring Gaza. Eventually, the protesters accepted an Egyptian offer of allowing about 100 marchers into Gaza. Once in the territory, those marchers were reportedly met on the Gaza side by Hamas’ former Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

 

An Israel Defense Forces spokesperson told WND commandoes boarded the ships after numerous warnings from Israel requested the ships redirect toward the Israeli port of Ashdod where they would be able to unload their aid supplies, which could then be transferred to the Gaza Strip after undergoing security inspections.

 

During the boarding of one of the ships, the Marmara, activists onboard attacked IDF Naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs, the IDF spokesperson said.

 

“The demonstrators had clearly prepared their weapons in advance for this specific purpose,” said the spokesperson.

 

“As a result of this life-threatening and violent activity, naval forces first employed riot dispersal means, followed by live fire,” the spokesperson said.

 

“IDF naval personnel encountered severe violence, including use of weaponry prepared in advance in order to attack them,” said the IDF spokesperson.

 

The IDF released a YouTube video clearly showing activists attacking Israeli commandoes, including with live fire.

 

Close Obama associates

 

Evans formed Code Pink, a far-left activist organization, in 2002 to protest America’s war in Iraq. The group previously met with Hamas and with leaders of the Taliban. Evans was a fundraiser and financial bundler for Obama’s presidential campaign.

 

Abunimah traveled in some of the same political circles as Obama in the 1990s. Abunimah previously described meeting with Obama at a fundraiser at the home of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, reportedly a former PLO activist. Khalidi was also a close associate of Obama.

 

“[Obama] came with his wife. That’s where I had a chance to really talk to him,” Abunimah recalled. “It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. … He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel.

 

Ayers, meanwhile, became a name in last year’s presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years.

 

Ayers helped launch Obama’s political career with a fundraiser in his home. Obama served on the board of a Chicago nonprofit alongside Ayers. The terrorist later hired Obama to serve as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a job Obama later cited as experience that helped qualify him to run for public office.

 

While at the CAC, Obama and Ayers both granted funds to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.

 

WND columnist Jack Cashill has produced a series of persuasive arguments that it was Ayers who ghostwrote Obama’s award-winning autobiography, “Dreams from My Father.”

 

Ayers and Dohrn were two of the main founders of the Weather Underground, which bombed the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. The group was responsible for some 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S.

 

Characterizing the Weather Underground as “an American Red Army,” Ayers summed up the organization’s ideology: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.”

 

“Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,” Ayers recalled in his 2001 memoir, “Fugitive Days.” “The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.”

 

Ayers brandished his unrepentant radicalism for years to come, as evidenced by his now notorious 2001 interview with the New York Times, published one day after the 9/11 attacks, in which he stated, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

 

Ayers posed for a photograph accompanying the New York Times piece that showed him stepping on an American flag. He said of the U.S.: “What a country. It makes me want to puke.”

Are you surprised?  If so, why? 

Barack Obama has been neck-deep with these USA hating terrorist scumbags from day one.  Just as he was neck-deep with the USA hating, Israel-hating reverend of his former (?) church, jeremiah wright.  Maybe that's why he treated Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu so dismissively when he was in Washington, but bows down (literally) to murdering terrorists around the world.

In the last election, exit polls indicated that 78% of Jewish voters cast their ballots for Barack Obama.  I hope they're happy with what they got.

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

Ken Berwitz

Here are the first two paragraphs of Seema Mehta's article in the LA Times, which talks about the Times' just released poll on illegal immigration:

California voters are closely divided over the crackdown on illegal immigration in Arizona, with sharp splits along lines of ethnicity and age, according to a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll.

Overall, 50% of registered voters surveyed said they support the law, which compels police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, while 43% oppose it. That level of support is lower than polls have indicated nationwide.

Got that?  California voters approve of Arizona's new immigration laws by 50% to 43% and that is "closely divided".  

FYI, the polling was done among 1,506 registered voters and the margin of sampling error is 2.6%.  In other words, California's support of the Arizona laws is well beyond the statistical margin of error.

But voters are "closely divided".  Seema Mehta says so, and her editors have seconded the motion by not changing this ridiculous, self-contradictory claim.

Do you think the article would have called Californians "closely divided" if they opposed the laws by well beyond the statistical margin of error?

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

Ken Berwitz

The hamas supporters who organized and pushed forward with a convoy of ships containing "humanitarian aid", knowing full well that Israel would not allow them through, wanted a confrontation.  They were desperate for one.

And they got it too.

Excerpted from the highly palestinian-Arab-sympathetic report issued by "msnbc.com and news services" (the bold print is mine):

10 die in Israeli raid on aid flotilla

Commandos storm Gaza-bound ships in international waters

JERUSALEM - Israeli commandos on Monday stormed six ships carrying hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists on an aid mission to the blockaded Gaza Strip, killing at least 10 people and wounding dozens.

The operation in international waters off the Gaza coast was a nightmare scenario for Israel that looked certain to further damage its international standing, strain already tense relations with Turkey and draw unwanted attention to Gaza's plight.

The two sides offered conflicting accounts of what happened.

A reporter on one of the boats said the Israelis fired at the vessel before boarding it. Israeli officials said the soldiers were attacked with knives, clubs and iron bars as they boarded the six vessels. The Israeli military said the violence turned deadly after one of the activists grabbed a weapon from one of the commandos. The weapon discharged, though it wasn't clear whether the activist fired it or if it went off accidentally.

"Our initial findings show that at least 10 convoy participants were killed," an Israeli military spokesman said, adding that at least four soldiers were wounded.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak expressed regret for the deaths. However, he called the aid flotilla a "political provocation" by anti-Israel forces. Barak said the sponsors of the flotilla are violent.

However, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed shock over the incident and called on Israel to "urgently provide a full explanation."

Nobel laureate
Some 700 pro-Palestinian activists were on the boats, including 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland, European legislators and an elderly Holocaust survivor.

NBC News reported that 11 Americans were among the civilians aboard the ships. They include a former ambassador and a former State Department official.

Al-Jazeera TV reported by telephone from the Turkish ship leading the flotilla that Israeli forces fired at the ship and boarded it, wounding the captain. The broadcast ended with a voice shouting in Hebrew, "Everybody shut up!"

Turkey's NTV network reported that dozens of activists were wounded. France24 television aired video of a woman in a Muslim headdress holding a stretcher with a large bloodstain on it. Below her lay a man, apparently injured, in a blanket.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas described the incident as a "massacre," the official Wafa news agency reported.

Abbas, whose Fatah faction lost control of the Gaza Strip in fighting with Hamas in 2007, declared three days of mourning in the Palestinian territories.

Israeli security forces were on alert across the country.

The tough Israeli response drew condemnations from Turkey, France and the U.N.'s Mideast envoy, while Greece suspended a military exercise with Israel and postponed a visit by Israel's air force chief. The European Union called for an investigation into the incident and urged Israel to allow the free flow of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.

About 10,000 Turks also marched from Israel's Consulate in Istanbul toward the city's main square, shouting slogans denouncing Israel. The protesters earlier Monday tried storm the Consulate building but were blocked by police.

 In response, Israel advised its citizens Monday to avoid travel to Turkey and instructed those already there to keep a low profile.

In neighboring Jordan, hundreds demonstrated in the capital Amman to protest the Israeli action and demand that their government breaks diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

Danny Ayalon, Israel's deputy foreign minister, told a news conference that weapons had been found aboard the vessels and described the flotilla as an "armada of hate and violence."

The activists were headed to Gaza on a mission meant to draw attention to a three-year-old Israeli blockade of the coastal territory. Israel imposed the blockade after Hamas militants took power there.

Pandemonium

Israel had declared it would not allow the ships to reach Gaza and had offered to transfer the aid to Gaza from an Israeli port. Israeli naval commandos raided the ships while they were in international waters after ordering them to stop about 80 miles from Gaza's coast, according to a pro-Palestinian activist in Greece involved in the aid mission.

A Turkish website showed video of pandemonium on board one of the ships, with people in orange life jackets running around as some tried to help an activist apparently unconscious on the deck. The site also showed video of an Israeli helicopter flying overhead and Israeli warships nearby.

Turkey's NTV showed activists beating one Israeli soldier with sticks as he rappelled from a helicopter onto one of the boats.

Israel had expected the operation to end without bloodshed and had prepared tents in an Israeli port for detainees.

The incident created a diplomatic storm with long-time Muslim ally Turkey, under whose flag some of the six ships were flying.

The six-ship flotilla began the journey from international waters off the coast of Cyprus on Sunday afternoon after two days of delays. It had expected to reach Gaza, about 250 miles away, on Monday afternoon.

After nightfall Sunday, three Israeli navy missile boats left their base in Haifa, steaming out to sea to confront the activists' ships.

Two hours later, Israel Radio broadcast a recording of one of the missile boats warning the flotilla not to approach Gaza.

"If you ignore this order and enter the blockaded area, the Israeli navy will be forced to take all the necessary measures in order to enforce this blockade," the radio message continued.

Al-Jazeera earlier reported that the ships initially changed course to try to avoid a nighttime confrontation, preferring a daylight showdown for better publicity.

 First, let me address the "humanitarian aid" part of this BS, by reposting what I said about it just days ago:

...hamas, which took control of Gaza by force (not that it matters, since a majority of its people supported hamas anyway), is a terrorist organization which does not recognize Israel, specifically states it will never do so, and is committed, in writing, to the destruction of Israel through jihad. 

So even though these particular ships may be filled with nothing but benign quality-of-life supplies, if Israel curtails its blockade the subsequent ships will carry the weaponry hamas needs to carry out its commitment.

That is the reason Israel will not allow ships through.  It would have been nice if the news report I excerpted made prominent mention of it, instead of burying a reference or two toward the end of the story.

Please note, also, that Israel offered to transfer the aid items to Israeli ships, from which they ultimately would wind up in Gaza. 

Was Israel's offer credible?  Well, given the fact that Israel already supplies Gaza with enormous amounts of humanitarian aid and supplies - a little something most news venues determinedly avoid reporting about -  of course it is.  That is what Israel does.

And let's not forget that the ships literally changed course so that they would be in harm's way during the daytime "for better publicity".

They wanted this.  They asked for it.  And they got it.

The Israel haters will blame Israel, as they blame Israel for everything else.  The hamas supporters will call for revenge, which is irrelevant because when they aren't calling for revenge they are calling for the end of Israel through jihad, so what's the difference?

What was accomplished, therefore?  Nothing. 

Another rachel corrie moment, brought to you by the haters of Israel.  And you can bet it won't be the last.

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

UPDATE:  As the world - predictably - condemns Israel for its actions, it turns out that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) video-taped what actually happened on the ship where the people died.  And the video clearly shows that lunatics on the ship were engaged in overt violence against Israelis, apparently before any shooting broke out.  A lot of it.  Click here and see for yourself. 

Don't count on the international community to take this into account, though, any more than they would take into account the reasons Israel blockades Gaza. 

Ken Berwitz

Today is Memorial Day.

Never forget the men and women of our armed forces, who gave their lives to potect and preserve the United States of America.  They are our heroes and we honor them today.

And never forget the men and women who joined our armed forces and survived - inured and uninjured both.  They are heroes as well, because they too put their lives on the line for this country. 

Join me, please, in thanking them.  Today especially.  And every other day.

Ken Berwitz

Yeah, I know the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped before Bush was born in a place he didn't live anywhere near.  But since Chris Matthews and Joe Klein seem to agree that the Louisiana oil spill is Bush's fault, why stop there?

Excerpted from Brad Wilmouth's blog at newsbusters.org:

On Sunday’s syndicated Chris Matthews Show, Time magazine columnist Joe Klein joined the ranks of left-leaning media figures like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann in blaming the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on the Bush administration. As the panel discussed President Obama’s handling of the disaster, Klein opined that "this is more Bush’s second Katrina than Obama’s first," and, after agreement from host Matthews, Klein continued: "Yes, because it was the Bush regulations, it was Dick Cheney’s deregulation, and lording over the Minerals Management [Service]-"

The fact that President Bush has been out of office for almost a year and a half?  That Barack Obama has been President for all that time, and has a huge majority in both houses of congress to change regulations almost at will?  Who cares?  It's Bush's fault.

Hey, maybe President Bush was also responsible for the Blizzard of '88 and the bubonic plague.  Just ask the twin twits, Matthews and Klein.  You never know......

Ken Berwitz

As President Obama, his congressional majorities, and the usual leftward suspects all rail against Arizona's new immigration laws (which, it should be noted, are patterned after the federal laws that Mr. Obama and preceding administrations ignored), you might be interested to read the following facts, which come to us from West Coast Russ:

Just One Hospital

 

Parkland   Memorial Hospital in Dallas , Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:

1. John F. Kennedy died there in 1963

2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after

3. Jack Ruby-who killed Oswald, died there a few years later.

On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year.  (That's almost 44 per day---every day)!

A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. That's  11,200   anchor babies  born every year just in Dallas !!!

According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.

The average patient in Parkland in maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child.  She is also an illegal immigrant.  By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay.

OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital , they do. “ Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics.   NINE!!!

The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child---her previous two were also born at Parkland . Her first two deliveries were free and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico . This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I  wonder why they even bother asking at this point.)

"How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects?

Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the US illegally - now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right; she's technically a US citizen.)

These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula.

Most of these things are available to American citizens as well, but only for low-income applicants, and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable.

Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification - no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income - an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word.

Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.)

There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital is going to sue them!  Illegal's get it all free!    But U. S citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued!  How stupid is this?

As if that isn't annoying enough, the  illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish .. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish.

This was apparently a great injustice to her.

In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement.

(Sorry for the length, but this needs wide circulation particularly to our  "employees" in Congress .)

Remember that this is about only  ONE  hospital in Dallas , Texas . There are many more hospitals across our country that must also deal with this.   

And before you dismiss these eye-popping, jaw-dropping facts as internet spam, please be advised that www.snopes.com (no friend to the right) checked them out.  And found them to be true.  You can read the snopes analysis by clicking here.

Does this bring the problem home clearly enough?  I hope, for your sake, that the answer is "yes".

Ken Berwitz

Ed Morrissey of www.hotair.com has dismantled much of the lying and fraud surrounding Joe Sestak's offer of a job in the Obama administration as a bribe (that's what I'd call it) to bug out of the primary race against Arlen Specter.

You can read it all by clicking here, and I urge you to do so.

But here are some of the key excerpts:

The Silence of the Sestak: The Big Me involved?; Update: WH memo released; Update: Sestak corroborates

by Ed Morrissey

With the political world holding its breath for the Friday-afternoon document dump containing the Obama White House response to the Joe Sestak scandal, Greg Sargent gets a sneak peek at the possible defense.  The Obama administration will say that it asked Bill Clinton to conduct “informal” talks with Sestak to determine his political ambitions, which Sestak then mischaracterized afterward:

Senior White House advisers asked former President Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about whether he was serious about running for Senate, and to feel out whether he’d be open to other alternatives, according to sources familiar with the situation.

But the White House maintains that the Clinton-Sestak discussions were informal, according to the sources.

Having someone outside of the administration as a buffer would be very convenient for Obama at this juncture.  It allows Obama to offload the blame to someone other than a staffer.  And like all buffers, it provides the President with plausible deniability for any legal problems that might ensue.

Assuming that Sargent’s sources are correct, we can pretty much predict what the document dump will say.  “We asked President Clinton to see what Rep. Sestak’s intentions were, and how we could help” would cover all the bases — and leave Bill Clinton holding the bag if anything untoward happened.  That, however, seems highly unlikely for a man so slippery that he could parse the meaning of the word “is” under oath. 

Here’s a question, though.  Who was the buffer in Colorado?

Update: The New York Times has the same leak, but even more information about the job offer, emphasis mine:

Mr. Obama promised on Thursday to release an account of the matter, which White House lawyers have been drafting in recent days in consultation with Mr. Sestak’s brother, Richard, who runs his campaign. The White House plans to release its statement later on Friday. Until now, the White House has said publicly only that whatever conversations took place with Mr. Sestak were not inappropriate.

The office of Robert F. Bauer, the White House counsel, has concluded that Mr. Emanuel’s proposal did not violate laws prohibiting government employees from promising employment as a reward for political activity because the position being offered was unpaid. The office also found other examples of presidents offering positions to political allies to achieve political aims.

Update II: What kind of unpaid position would be attractive enough to get Sestak out of the Senate primary?  That’s a darned good question, and I’ll bet the Obama White House is scrambling to make up find an answer.  If Sestak challenges this spin, though, I’d be very surprised.  I think he’s looking for an exit from this scandal at least as hard as Obama and his staff.

Update III: Marc Ambinder has the White House memo.  Shouldn’t this have been released at 5 pm or so?  And the memo itself seems to be evidence of potential wrongdoing, rather than an exoneration:

Uncompensated Advisory Board Options. We found that, as the Congressman has publicly and accurately stated, options for Executive Branch service were raised with him.  Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified.  The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.

White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak.  The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board.

Er, isn’t that at the least an admission of attempting to tamper with the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania?  If this didn’t violate the law, why did Rahm Emanuel ask Bill Clinton to make the pitch rather than do it himself?

I’m guessing this adds gasoline rather than water to the fire.

Update IV: Via the Boss Emeritus on Twitter, Sestak wastes no time in corroborating the White House account:

Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background. He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer. The former President said he knew I’d say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects.

There are many important challenges facing Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. I intend to remain focused on those issues and continue my fight on behalf of working families.

Excuse me, but a position on a Presidential Board is not a “job” in any sense of the word.  Sestak has repeatedly insisted that the White House offered him a job to get him to withdraw from the race.  Now we’re at the who’s-lying stage, and it may well be everyone.

This story stinks like the back of a clam house during a garbage strike.  There are two reasons:

1) The claims being made by the Obama administration and Sestak are palpably false;

2) Our wonderful "neutral" media are clearly in the process of burying this scandal by putting it under the rubric of  "business as usual in Washington DC"

This is an utter disgrace, which is burgeoning into more of a disgrace by the day.  And the public is being sold a disgustingly dishonest bill of goods in an effort, by Obama and much of his fawning media, to slough it over.

Will the public buy what they're selling?  We'll soon find out.

Ken Berwitz

Provocative title, wouldn't you say?

Well, it's not mine.  It is from John Hinderaker at www.powerlineblog.com, who has written an equally provocative (and, characteristically, intelligent, analytical) blog on the subject.

Here is Mr. Hinderaker's entire blog. (I am posting it all because it is short - and because Ive already given you a link to the web site he writes at, which I hope you will click on every day):

Is Obama the New Cheney?

 

May 29, 2010 Posted by John at 9:41 AM

 

No, not in terms of competence, which Cheney oozed and Obama, to put it mildly, does not. Rather, in terms of Cheney's inability to fake emotional involvement. Bill Clinton was a master of insincerity; when he felt our pain, we almost believed it. Cheney, on the other hand, once sheepishly admitted that he "doesn't do funerals." Emotional symbolism wasn't his forte, and he knew it.

 

Obama strikes me as, in that respect, a similar personality. He knew that politics dictated that he make a trip to the Gulf to show his concern over the oil spilll; he also knew that such a trip would do no practical good whatsoever.

Notwithstanding his daughter's misapprehension, there is nothing that Obama can personally do to plug the leak.

 

So what we got was a strikingly half-hearted effort. Obama passed through the Gulf in a whirlwind three hours and fifteen minutes, just long enough to pose for a series of photo ops and then beat it back to Chicago.

 

This is less time than most of us feel obliged to spend with our in-laws on Thanksgiving. And, after speeding back to Chicago, what was the first thing Obama did? He played basketball.

 

I think I finally understand what Obama's supporters have meant all this time when they call him "cerebral." He just doesn't do emotion well. I'm sympathetic to him on that one, as I was to Cheney. But Americans, unfortunately, have come to expect emotional resonance from their presidents. The lack of it could prove a significant liability to Obama.

 I read another web site, where one of the commenters said something like "40 days after the disaster and he shows up for a 3 hour tour?  Who does he think he is, Gilligan?"  I laughed - but through clenched teeth.

Ken Berwitz

Today's Washington Post has a fair, informative article on the issuance of a military report about an incident which occurred on February 21 of this year.  It is a strongly critical report, as you can see by the excerpt I am posting below:

Drone operators blamed in airstrike that killed Afghan civilians in February

By Karin Brulliard
Sunday, May 30, 2010; A06

 

KABUL -- A biting U.S. military report released Saturday criticized "inaccurate and unprofessional" reporting by operators of unmanned drones for contributing to a mistaken February airstrike that killed and injured dozens of civilians in southern Afghanistan.

 

As many as 23 people were killed in the attack in Uruzgan province, where a strike intended for what military officials believed was an insurgent force hit a civilian convoy. The incident was condemned by the Afghan cabinet as "unacceptable," and it prompted Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, to apologize to Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

 

The U.S. military said in a statement that four senior officers were reprimanded and two junior officers were admonished in connection with the strike -- disciplinary actions that could damage their careers. In a memo accompanying the military report, McChrystal announced bolstered training to prevent similar incidents in the future, and he asked the U.S. Air Force to investigate the Predator team.

 

McChrystal has made it a top priority to reduce civilian casualties as the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan has shifted from killing Taliban members to protecting the Afghan populace. He has restricted the use of airstrikes, night raids and home searches, all in a bid to quell public hostility.

 

"Inadvertently killing or injuring civilians is heartbreaking and undermines their trust and confidence in our mission," McChrystal said in a statement.

 

The Feb. 21 incident in Uruzgan occurred when a U.S. helicopter fired Hellfire missiles and rockets on a three-vehicle convoy approaching the village of Khod, where U.S. Special Forces and Afghan troops were battling Taliban fighters. A Special Forces ground commander had determined the convoy was carrying militants arriving to provide backup to the fighters, according to the report, written by Maj. Gen. Timothy P. McHale.

I vaguely remember when this happened.  I remember hoping that the casualty count was wrong and all, or at least most, of the people who were hit deserved their fate. I remember thinking about this as a horrific, but unavoidable consequence of any war, especially one with air attacks.

But the reason my remembrance is so vague is that the incident was covered for a day or so, then promptly buried.  No "building" of the story by doing different angles of it on succeeding days.  No "troubling new information about...." features on the Today show.  No attacks on the commander in chief as a heartless murderer.  It was just allowed to die, like the 23 victims. 

My question is a simple, basic on.  If it were President George Bush instead of President Barack Obama, would this have been treated the same way?

You decide.

Ken Berwitz

How many articles have been written about the flood of illegal aliens who have streamed into the USA from Mexico?  Countless.  How many words have been written about this subject?  Millions.

Now:  How many articles have been written about what the flood of Mexican illegals tells us about Mexico?  How many words have you seen about that part of the story?

I will assume we agree that it is a dramatically lesser amount.  Like next to nothing.

But why?

Why are our wonderful "neutral" media, who are so eager to excoriate the USA - especially Arizona - for trying to treat illegals as illegals, so averse to writing about why they leave Mexico?

As of 2009, Mexico has a total population of about 111,000,000.  And the latest estimate is that something like 12 - 15 million Mexican nationals are in the USA illegally. 

In other words, 10 - 12% of Mexico's entire population would rather live illegally in the USA, often being paid substandard wages, with no union, no OSHA, no worker's comp, and always under the threat of being discovered and deported, then live legally, with full rights and privileges, in their homeland of Mexico.

Wouldn't you think this is an angle that someone would be writing about (other than me, of course, because I'm doing it)? 

Mexico is not a poor country.  It is blessed with enormous natural resources (gold, silver and oil among them), agriculture, industry and a huge tourist trade.  There is no reason whatsoever that Mexico cannot provide the promise of a decent existence to its own people.

No reason, that is, except massive government corruption at all levels, resulting in the lion's share of its bounty siphoned off and handed to a chosen few at the expense of everyone else.  Isn't that the most logical explanation?  Do you know another one?  If so, let me in on it, because I don't.

When do our media pay attention to this?  Investigate it?  Explain to us why 10 - 12% of Mexico's entire population illegally breaches our borders. 

When do they talk about the shame that is Mexico? 

They certainly have no problem attacking the country these millions and millions of Mexicans come running to, do they?

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

Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from an Associated Press article:

JERUSALEM — Ships carrying 10,000 tons of supplies and hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists to blockaded Gaza were being held up near Cyprus on Saturday, as organizers tried to get nearly two dozen high-profile supporters on board.

The flotilla was to set sail toward Gaza on Saturday afternoon, in any event, and approach the territory on Sunday, about 24 hours behind schedule, said Greta Berlin, one of the activists.

A showdown with the Israeli navy appeared inevitable. Israel's deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, reiterated Saturday that the ships would be intercepted, denouncing the sea convoy as a provocation and violation of maritime laws. Israel and Egypt imposed a blockade on Gaza after the Islamic militant Hamas seized the territory by force three years ago.

In Gaza, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said the flotilla signals the end of the blockade.

"If the ships reach Gaza, it's a victory for Gaza," Haniyeh told some 400 supporters after touring Gaza City's small fishing harbor, where several smaller vessels breaking the blockade have docked in the past. "If they are intercepted and terrorized by the Zionists, it will be a victory for Gaza, too, and they will move again in new ships to break the siege of Gaza."

Critics say the blockade has been counterproductive, failing to dislodge Hamas while deepening poverty in Gaza. There have been growing demands by the international community that Israel ease its grip or lift the closure altogether.

Since December 2008, Israel has not permitted boats carrying aid to reach Gaza.

What a fascinating article.  Too bad it left out a teensy weensy little factoid:  That hamas, which took control of Gaza by force (not that it matters, since a majority of its people supported hamas anyway), is a terrorist organization which does not recognize Israel, specifically states it will never do so, and is committed, in writing, to the destruction of Israel through jihad. 

So even though these particular ships may be filled with nothing but benign quality-of-life supplies, if Israel curtails its blockade the subsequent ships will carry the weaponry hamas needs to carry out its commitment.

Gee willikers, why would Israel blockade ships going to a friendly neighbor like that?

Sometimes the biggest lies are not the lies of commission (i.e. saying something that is untrue).  Sometimes they are the lies of omission, where everything that is said is true, but parts are left out which lead people to erroneous, misinformed conclusions.

Think this just might be a case in point?

Ken Berwitz

I have often written about Hillary Clinton's serial dishonesty, lack of any significant accomplishments (other than the ones handed to her on a silver platter by others) and general incompetence.

Here, courtesy of Gene Schwimmer at American Thinker, is the latest example:

May 28, 2010

Hillary: Brazil Growing Like Crazy

Gene Schwimmer

 

What's rapid economic growth to a Democrat?  Or truth?  Or fairness?  Hillary Clinton gave us pretty good indication of all three on May 27th, when she said:

The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] - whether it's individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms.

 

She then went on to cite Brazil as a paragon of economic growth - and taxation:

Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what - they're growing like crazy.

 

But, as with any "fact" a Clinton or an Obama apparatchik cites, you need to look it up for yourself.  Which I did.   Brazil's GDP grew 2.0% in the last quarter.  The average rates for 2007, 2008 and 2009 were 1.61%, 0.39% and 0.96%, respectively.

 

For those who may be wondering, our own GDP growth in the last quarter was 3.00%.  But I digress.  The point is:  Either (1) Hillary didn't know Brazil's actual growth rate; (2) she did know, but lied about it or (3) she knew and considers 3.00% GDP growth "growing like crazy."  Pick any one, two, or - this is the Obama administration, after all - all three.

Thomas Lifson adds:

Brazil's economy is benefitting from offshore oil exploration and development - the sort of thing Obama wants to stop in the wake of his failure to contain the Gulf oil spill by implementing the the existing plan.  

My only objection to Mr. Schwimmer's piece is that he expanded Hillary Clinton's dishonesty and/or incompetence to the overall Democratic Party. 

It is true that there are dishonest and incompetent Democrats (as well as honest and competent ones).  But the dishonesty and incompetency you just read about is Hillary Clinton's, period.  Hers alone.

That is our Secretary of State, folks.  Aren't you proud?

Ken Berwitz

If there is one tried and true maxim in baseball, it is that when a team is not doing well, and the owner makes a point of giving its manager a "vote of confidence", that manager is almost certain to be tossed out on his ear.

Similarly, when a politician tells you he/she takes "full responsibility", you can bet that politician is doing no such thing.

Here, excerpted from Charles Hurt's piece in the New York Post, is President Obama taking "full responsibility" for the oil rig disaster:

It was yet another performance of the "full responsibility" flimflam.

In a rare appearance before his adoring fans in the press corps yesterday, President Obama repeatedly took "full responsibility" for the blundering efforts to clog up the geyser of crude oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico coating everything in sight.

At the same time, Obama repeatedly denied that his administration was complicit in allowing the catastrophe to happen in the first place, slow to realize the devastating nature of it, or ham-handed in the five-week effort to try to stem the toxic tide.

In other words, Obama -- as he often does -- took "full responsibility" for being awesome.

He took "full responsibility" for being, well, nearly perfect.

From the first day, Obama said it has been his "highest priority" and that his administration has been "singularly focused" on the leak.

"Those who think that we were either slow on our response or lacked urgency don't know the facts," he sniffed.

Again and again, Obama disputed charges made by people on the ground that his administration has bollixed things up pretty badly.

Realizing that even his biggest, hand-picked fan club couldn't swallow what he was peddling, Obama came up with a question of his own that he was a little more comfortable answering.

"If the question is, are we doing everything perfectly out there, then the answer is 'No.' We could always do better," he said, bearing his trademark modesty.

Mr. Hurt ends his report by saying "It is the Obama way". 

Yep.  That it is.

Ken Berwitz

I just watched about 3 minutes of MSNBC's morning show.  I do not know who the on-air personality was, but she did a story on Joe Sestak which included footage of Sestak (lamely) defending himself, and tossed off one sentence at the end about Republicans intending to pursue it -- not one second of any Republican's response to Sestak.

Then she did an interview with Christina Bellantoni, who was presented as being from Talking Points Memo.  Left unmentioned was the fact that TPM is a staunchly liberal/left web site.  It sends me its "talking points" every morning and, believe me, they ain't what you'd call middle of the road. 

Ms. Bellantoni was nice enough to tell us that she thought the Sestak controversy "bolstered" (her word) Mr. Sestak, because by turning down the job he showed he was an "outsider" (the fact that he is a two term congressperson in the majority party, which is about as inside as you can get?  Irrelevant'n'immaterial).

That, folks, is what passes for news analysis at MSNBC.  And it is an indication of how blatantly MSNBC (among others) will try to protect Joe Sestak.

Will it work?  The answer is that it has a shot.  A media that abetted Barack Obama's lies about his relationship with william ayers, which a lexisnexis search would have debunked in about one minute flat, will certainly abet Joe Sestak's BS about his job offer -- the one he himself told us about just three months ago.

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

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest on the Sestak cesspool, excerpted from Jeffrey Lord'a article at American Spectator:

Sestak: Brother Collaborating With White House

By Jeffrey Lord on 5.28.10 @ 11:01AM

On Thursday, Congressman Joe Sestak took the centuries old position of all children in trouble: my brother did it.

And his brother? Richard Sestak, the candidate's campaign guru, is now conspiring behind the scenes with the White House on what to say. According to Joe Sestak himself.

In a stunning admission Thursday, the same day President Obama answered Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett's question on the issue at the President's first press conference in almost a year, the Washington Post is reporting this morning that Sestak is now admitting:

"They (the White House) got hold of my brother on his cellphone, and he spoke to the White House… about what's going to occur," said Sestak, who said he expects the White House will release its information Friday. He declined to elaborate on his discussions with his brother.

Get that last line: Congressman Sestak "declined to elaborate on his discussions with his brother."

In other words, in yet another startling revelation, Sestak is now confessing the White House is coordinating their story with his brother -- collaborating on the same day the President was insisting to the nation:

"I can assure the public that nothing improper took place."

The Joe Sestak admission that brother and campaign strategist Richard Sestak is coordinating a future Sestak response with the White House -- a response expected as soon as today -- is certain to increase calls for a special prosecutor. It launches a whole news series of questions:

• What did Richard Sestak and Joe Sestak know, and when did they know it?

• Who from the White House called Richard Sestak yesterday or at any time this week?

• What specifically did Richard Sestak and the unnamed White House official discuss?

• Were there differences in the versions of this story between either of the Sestaks and the White House? 

• Did Richard Sestak collaborate in any fashion with the shaping of either the White House statement or any future statement from his brother in response to whatever the White house will be saying?

• Has Richard Sestak had any other communications with anyone in the White House since his brother's February 19th admission that he, Joe Sestak, was offered a job by the White House?

This administration is to ethics what the Tour de France is to Shamu.

The cesspool stench grows riper and riper.

Expect more to follow.  How could it not?

Ken Berwitz

From CNN:

Washington (CNN) -- White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary last year as part of a failed administration effort to dissuade Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak from running for the U.S. Senate, according to a publicly released memorandum from the White House legal counsel's office.

 

Top White House lawyer Robert Bauer conceded that "options for Executive Branch service were raised" for Sestak, but insisted that administration officials did not act improperly. He characterized the attempt to influence Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary -- ultimately won by Sestak -- as no different from political maneuvers by past administrations from both political parties.

From  US News:

About that job that was offered to Rep. Joe Sestak as an inducement to not challenge Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary? Turns out it was all a misunderstanding, or something close to it.

From the Huffington Post:

The saga surrounding the White House's floating of a job to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Penn.) in the early summer months of 2009 took on new levels of political drama Friday following the release of more detailed information about the offer.

But as both political sides reorient themselves around the fault lines, the more fundamental question of whether laws were actually broken seems to get more dull.

In interviews with the Huffington Post, two prominent public integrity lawyers with white-collar crime and Justice Department experience say that if the White House and Sestak's account of what happened is to be believed, then no sober-minded prosecutor would pursue the case.

Etc. etc. etc.

Now...

From American Thinker (the bold print of the verbatim transcript -- let me say that again, the VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT -- is mine):

Larry Kane, known as the "dean of Philadelphia television news anchors," has been covering Pennsylvania politics for more than 40 years.  During a February 18th interview he asked Congressman Joe Sestak to clarify a rumor he had been hearing for months.

"Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race?" Kane was referring to the Democratic Senate Primary against Arlen Specter.

 

"Yes," Sestak answered.

 

"Was it Navy Secretary?"

 

"No comment," said Sestak.

 

According to Kane, Sestak talked about staying in the race but added that he "was called many times" to pull out.  Later, Kane asked: 

"So you were offered a job by someone in the White House?"

 

"Yes."

 

At the end of the taping, Sestak looked surprised and said, "You are the first person who ever asked me that question."  His response to Kane appeared spontaneous and unscripted.

 

Kane called the White House Press Office that afternoon and played the interview for a staffer, who promised that someone would call Kane back. A few minutes later, at 3:45 PM, another staffer called and said the White House would call back with a reaction "shortly."

 

Kane's station played the report aired all night.  At 6:45 the next morning, 15 hours later, a Deputy Press Secretary called and said, "You can say the White House says it's not true."

 

On the Friday before Memorial Day, 100 days later, a classic news dump day, the White House Counsel Robert Bauer issued his report.  He claimed that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel enlisted the support of Bill Clinton, "who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board." 

 

Remember, when Kane asked a second time, "So you were offered a job by someone in the White House," Sestak did not equivocate.  He said nothing about an "uncompensated" advisory position or an offer by a White House liaison, he simply said, "Yes."

Someone's lying, and Scooter Libby went to jail for less.

The usual Obama-fawning frauds are in protection mode.  Again.  But there is the verbatim commentary from Joe Sestak, on TV, just three months ago.

Which is more credible?  The Obama spin machine or Sestak's own words, when he didn't think they would come back to haunt him?

Anyone who believes the BS that is being shovelled out about this scandal is either hopelessly compromised in favor of Obama or out of his/her mind.

And that is before we get to the similar situation with Andrew Romanoff when he mounted a primary challenge to Michael Bennett for his Colorado senate seat.  The Denver Post reported that Romanoff was offered a job to get out of the race last September.  But no one is talking now.  Not Romanoff.  Not the Denver Post.  And certainly not the White House. 

You can read the Denver Post article that describes the job offer by clicking here.

To repeat:  Anyone who believes the BS that is being shovelled out about this scandal is either hopelessly compromised in favor of Obama or out of his/her mind.

This administration is an ethical sewer.

Ken Berwitz

First, an excerpt from my blog of May 17th, which discusses the trend in Gallup (and other) polling towards more of a "pro-life" position on abortion:

Personally I think the biggest reason attitudes are turning around relates to advances in ultrasound technology, which enable us to see a fetus at early stages of development.  Illustratively, very early in our daughter in law's pregnancies, my wife and I saw our grandchildren's ultrasounds (sonographs), and could make out the shape of an actual baby, not just some lump of tissue in a sac - which, I strongly suspect, is what a lot of people used to picture. 

Seeing the defined shape of an actual child changes things.  A lot.

Well, The New York Times, via Kevin Sack's article in today's edition, is assuring us that not only does ultrasound have no effect on people's attitudes, but is some kind of an outrage. 

Here, see for yourself (the bold print is mine): 

Ultrasound enlisted to raise bar for abortions

20 states now have laws that encourage or require the use of such images

 

By Kevin Sack

 

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - “It’s going to be cold, and some pressure, O.K.?”

The medical assistant guided the gelled ultrasound transducer across the pregnant woman’s belly.

The patient, a 36-year-old divorced woman named Laura, stared straight ahead, away from the grainy image on the screen to her side.

The technician told Laura she was at 11 weeks. “Do you want to see your ultrasound?” she asked. “I’d rather not,” Laura answered promptly.

Laura, who asked that her last name not be used, had come to the New Woman All Women Health Care clinic in Birmingham with her mind set on having an abortion. And she felt that seeing the image of her bean-size fetus would only unleash her already hormonal emotions, without changing her mind.

“It just would have added to the pain of what is already a difficult decision,” she said later.

Over the last decade, ultrasound has quietly become a new front in the grinding state-by-state battle over abortion.

With backing from anti-abortion groups, which argue that sonograms can help persuade women to preserve pregnancies, 20 states have enacted laws that encourage or require the use of ultrasound.

Outrage

Alabama is one of three states, along with Louisiana and Mississippi, that require abortion providers to conduct an ultrasound and offer women a chance to peer inside the womb.

Late last month, Oklahoma went a step further. Overriding a veto by Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, the Republican-controlled Legislature enacted a law mandating that women be presented with an ultrasound image and with a detailed oral description of the embryo or fetus.

A state judge quickly stayed the requirement pending a July hearing in a suit filed by two abortion providers. But the measure has prompted outrage among abortion rights advocates and raised questions about the impact of ultrasound laws.

In one of the few studies of the issue — there have been none in the United States — two abortion clinics in British Columbia found that 73 percent of patients wanted to see an image if offered the chance. Eighty-four percent of the 254 women who viewed sonograms said it did not make the experience more difficult, and none reversed her decision.

That generally has also been the case in Alabama, which enacted its law, the first of its kind in the United States, in 2002.

“About half of women opt to view them,” said Diane Derzis, who owns the Birmingham clinic. “And I’ve never had one patient get off the table because she saw what her fetus looks like.”

Image 'made me feel it was O.K.'

In some instances, the ultrasounds have affected women in ways not intended by anti-abortion strategists. Because human features may barely be detectable during much of the first trimester, when 9 of 10 abortions are performed, some women find viewing the images reassuring.

“It just looked like a little egg, and I couldn’t see arms or legs or a face,” said Tiesha, 27, who chose to view her 8-week-old embryo before aborting it at the Birmingham clinic. “It was really the picture of the ultrasound that made me feel it was O.K.”

The National Abortion Federation, which sets quality standards for abortion providers, does not require ultrasounds in the first trimester. But many clinics routinely perform them to look for anomalies and to establish a precise gestational age, which can determine the method of extraction.

Abortion rights advocates oppose laws that require ultrasounds, even if viewing the images is voluntary.

“The laws don’t work,” said Vicki A. Saporta, the federation’s president. “They inappropriately interfere with the patient-doctor relationship, and they don’t respect women’s ability to make informed choices.”

The anti-abortion movement has regularly used ultrasonic imagery dating back to “The Silent Scream,” the influential 1984 film that depicts an abortion in progress. More recently, Focus on the Family spent an estimated $10 million to buy ultrasound equipment and provide training for centers that steer women away from abortion.

“To be able to put a face on that baby humanizes this process and really allows the mother to connect,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, a Focus on the Family spokeswoman. “Ultrasound is one of the ultimate examples of informed consent because you are seeing what you are giving permission to happen.”

As with many abortion regulations, state laws regarding ultrasound vary widely. Five states, including two that enacted laws this year, require that abortion providers offer to conduct ultrasounds, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which monitors reproductive health issues. In eight others, providers who perform ultrasounds as a standard practice must offer patients a chance to see them.

Ultrasound bills were introduced in 21 statehouses in 2010, according to the institute. Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, a Republican, must soon decide whether to sign legislation that would require doctors to perform ultrasounds and show and describe the images to patients unless they sign a refusal.

Many leave in tears

Oklahoma’s new law exempts women who need an abortion for emergency medical reasons. But it does not allow exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

During the six days the law was in effect, all of the patients at the Reproductive Services abortion clinic in Tulsa averted their eyes from the ultrasound screen, said Linda S. Meek, the clinic’s director.

But they could not avoid hearing descriptions of fetal length and heart activity, she said. Many left in tears, but none changed course.

As you can plainly see, the story Kevin Sack is presenting is that women should be spared the experience of seeing what they are aborting.  And, and since no one decides against the abortion when they do see the ultrasound, it is completely useless anyway.

I wonder if it has occurred to Mr. Sack that ultrasound technology affects how many people walk into the abortion facility in the first place.  The Gallup article said this:

According to a May 3-6 Gallup poll, 47 percent of Americans say they are pro-life on abortion versus 45 percent who say they are "pro-choice," supporting legal abortions.

This is nearly identical to the 47% to 46% division Gallup found last July, which was down from the 51-42 percent split favoring the pro-life position last May.

Because this is the third consecutive time Gallup has found more Americans taking the pro-life position, the polling firm calls the results "a real change in public opinion."

Looking at the Gallup polling data dating back to 1995, the pro-life movement has been successful in changing public opinion on abortion -- as Gallup found a 56-33 percent pro-abortion split in 1995. That 23 percent pro-abortion majority has shifted 25 percent towards the pro-life position to the pro-life majority the movement against abortion enjoys today.

Ken Berwitz

From my sister -- and, given the quality of news these days, a welcome dose of comic relief:

Ponder on these imponderables:

1. If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several times, does he become disoriented?

2. If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland called Holes?

3. Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

4. If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? 

5. If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

6. Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

7. When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say?

8. Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist but a person who drives a racing car not called a racist? 

9. Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

10. Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?

11. Why isn't the number 11 pronounced onety one?

12. 'I am' is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language.

Could it be that 'I do' is the longest sentence?

13. If lawyers are disbarred and clergymen defrocked, doesn't it follow
that electricians can be delighted, musicians denoted, cowboys deranged,
models deposed, tree surgeons debarked, and dry cleaners depressed? 

14. What hair color do they put on the driver's license's of bald men?

15. I thought about how mothers feed their babies with tiny little
spoons and forks so I wondered what do Chinese mothers use? Toothpicks?

16. Why do they put pictures of criminals up in the Post Office? What
are we supposed to do, write to them? Why don't they just put their
pictures on the postage stamps so the postmen can look for them while
they deliver the mail? 

17. You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.

 

18. No one ever says, 'It's only a game' when their team is winning.

19. Ever wonder about those people who spend $2.50 apiece on those little bottles of Evian water?

Try spelling Evian backwards: NAIVE 

20. Isn't making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool? 

21. If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea , does that mean that one enjoys it? 

.

Ken Berwitz

First the story, from thehill.com:

Tongue firmly in cheek, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) on Tuesday afternoon called on reporters to demand to see the birth certificate of new Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii).

As Djou (pictured here) was being sworn into office, Frank walked the hallway of the Speaker's Lobby off the House floor calling on the media to "do your job" and review Djou's papers. 

It was a small bit of payback for the enormous amount of attention some conservatives (and the media) paid to the is-the-president-really-from-America controversy.

But, unlike the commander-in-chief, as Frank knows, being born outside the U.S. does not preclude you from becoming a member of Congress.

Now my modest proposal:

-Rep. Djou should call a press conference and make sure to invite Barney Frank to it;

-At the press conference Mr. Djou should call Hawaii's Department of Health and order his original birth certificate - the long form that Barack Obama has spent millions hiding from us. 

-Then he should tell the press that how much it cost (all of $10), note how little time it took for him to order it, and inform them that he will be calling another press conference when it arrives, to show them what a real Hawaii birth certificate looks like, as opposed to the "Certification of Live Birth" that Obama and his media toadies have lied about by claiming it is the same thing. 

-Rep. Djou should also note that, if he so chose, the next time he was in Honolulu he could just walk into the Department of Health offices -- Room 103 (1^st floor) of the Health Department building, 1250 Punchbowl Street (corner of Beretania and Punchbowl Streets -- between the hours of 7:45AM and 2:30PM Monday through Friday, pay the $10 and literally walk out with the birth certificate.  Just like Barack Obama could if he weren't so desperately trying to prevent us from seeing what is on it.

This would show Barney Frank up as the world class jackass he is.  And it would also demonstrate to everyone just how easy it is to get a real original birth certificate, thus just how suspicious they should be about the fact that Barack Obama has spent all that money to withhold his original birth certificate from us.

Wow.  What a poilitical daily double! 

Do it, Charles!

Ken Berwitz

My cousin Shelly sent me this today. 

It is not the first time Ms. Rahola has spoken on this subject; not by a long shot.  You can see her commentaries at www.pilarrahola.com, and I strongly urge that you do.

But this particular statement is so worthwhile that I want it on my blog.  So here it is.

Pilar Rahola is a Spanish politician, journalist and activist and member of the far left. Her articles are published in  Spain and throughout some of the most important newspapers in  Latin America.  Here she addresses that pro-Palestinian demonstrations:

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


Why don't we see demonstrations against Islamic dictatorships in  London ,  Paris ,  Barcelona ? 

Or demonstrations against the Burmese dictatorship? 

Why aren't there demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of women who live without any legal protection? 

Why aren't there demonstrations against the use of children as human bombs where there is conflict with Islam? 

Why has there been no leadership in support of the victims of Islamic dictatorship in Sudan ?

Why is there never any outrage against the acts of terrorism committed against Israel ? 

Why is there no outcry by the European left against Islamic fanaticism? 

Why don't they defend  Israel 's right to exist? 

Why confuse support of the Palestinian cause with the defense of Palestinian terrorism? 

And finally, the million dollar question: Why is the left in Europe and around the world obsessed with the two most solid democracies, the United States and Israel, and not with the worst dictatorships on the planet? The two most solid democracies, who have suffered the bloodiest attacks of terrorism, and the left doesn't care. 


And then, to the concept of freedom. In every pro Palestinian European forum I hear the left yelling with fervor: "We want freedom for the people!" 

Not true. They are never concerned with freedom for the people of  Syria or  Yemen  or  Iran  or  Sudan , or other such nations.  And they are never preoccupied when Hammas destroys freedom for the Palestinians. They are only concerned with using the concept of Palestinian freedom as a weapon against Israeli freedom. The resulting consequence of these ideological pathologies is the manipulation of the press. 

The international press does major damage when reporting on the question of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. On this topic they don't inform, they propagandize. 

When reporting about Israel, the majority of journalists forget the reporter code of ethics. And so, any Israeli act of self-defense becomes a massacre, and any confrontation, genocide. So many stupid things have been written about  Israel , that there aren't any accusations left to level against her. 

At the same time, this press never discusses Syrian and Iranian interference in propagating violence against  Israel ; the indoctrination of children and the corruption of the Palestinians. And when reporting about victims, every Palestinian casualty is reported as tragedy and every Israeli victim is camouflaged, hidden or reported about with disdain. 

And let me add on the topic of the Spanish left. Many are the examples that illustrate the anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiments that define the Spanish left. For example, one of the leftist parties in  Spain has just expelled one of its members for creating a pro-Israel website. I quote from the expulsion document: "Our friends are the people of Iran, Libya and Venezuela, oppressed by imperialism, and not a Nazi state like  Israel ." 

In another example, the socialist mayor of Campozuelos changed Shoah Day, commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, with Palestinian Nabka Day, which mourns the establishment of the State of Israel, thus showing contempt for the six million European Jews murdered in the Holocaust. 

Or in my native city of Barcelona, the city council decided to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel , by having a week of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Thus, they invited Leila Khaled, a noted terrorist from the 70's and current leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist organization so described by the European Union, which promotes the use of bombs against  Israel . 

This politically correct way of thinking has even polluted the speeches of president Zapatero. His foreign policy falls within the lunatic left, and on issues of the  Middle East, he is unequivocally pro Arab. I can assure you that in private, Zapatero places on  Israel  the blame for the conflict in the  Middle East , and the policies of foreign minister Moratinos reflect this. The fact that Zapatero chose to wear a kafiah in the midst of the  Lebanon  conflict is no coincidence; it's a symbol. 

Spain has suffered the worst terrorist attack in  Europe  and it is in the crosshairs of every Islamic terrorist organization. As I wrote before, they kill us with cell phones hooked to satellites connected to the Middle Ages. And yet the Spanish left is the most anti Israeli in the world. 

And then it says it is anti Israeli because of solidarity. This is the madness I want to denounce in this conference. 

Conclusion: 

I am not Jewish. Ideologically I am left and by profession a journalist. Why am I not anti Israeli like my colleagues? Because as a non-Jew I have the historical responsibility to fight against Jewish hatred and currently against the hatred for their historic homeland,  Israel . To fight against anti-Semitism is not the duty of the Jews, it is the duty of the non-Jews. 

As a journalist it is my duty to search for the truth beyond prejudice, lies and manipulations. The truth about Israel is not told. As a person from the left who loves progress, I am obligated to defend liberty, culture, civic education for children, coexistence and the laws that the Tablets of the Covenant made into universal principles. 

Principles that Islamic fundamentalism systematically destroys. That is to say, that as a non-Jew, journalist and lefty, I have a triple moral duty with Israel, because if Israel is destroyed, liberty, modernity and culture will be destroyed too. 

The struggle of Israel , even if the world doesn't want to accept it, is the struggle of the world.

Ken Berwitz

Here's your answer, short and sweet, from (of all places) the Los Angeles Times:

About that boycott of Arizona over its new illegal immigrant law? 82% of Americans say, Nah!

May 27, 2010 |  5:44 am

Despite President Obama's claim that he sees no congressional appetite to address immigration reform this midterm election year, there's more convincing evidence this week that Americans want it.

No White House administration wants to admit that it governs by polls. And this one hasn't. For more than a year now polls have shown the top concerns on American minds are....

...jobs and the economy. As a result, this Obama White House and the whopping Democratic congressional majorities lead by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi invested those many months in rancorous intra-party debate to obtain broad healthcare legislation.

But pollsters keep asking the other questions: 

Out Wednesday is a new CNN/Public Opinion poll indicating that even more Americans want:

-- The number of illegal immigrants decreased (76%, up from 73%).

-- Illegal immigrants removed from the country (41%, up from 37%).

-- To halt the influx of illegal immigrants and deport those here (60%).

-- To assign more federal agents to security on the Mexico border (88%).

-- To fine employers of illegal immigrants tens of thousands of dollars (71%).

As you may know, frustrated with federal inaction on border security, Arizona recently passed its own tough new law on illegal immigrants. Asked, "Do you favor or oppose this law?" 57% were in favor of it and 37% were opposed.

Now, how about boycotting Arizona over this new law? Nope -- 82%.

How out of touch is the Obama administration?  If the above data are accurate, the answer is hugely and then some.

The question then becomes whether it cares at all about what most people think?

If actions speak louder than words, the administration's actions are screaming NO at the top of their lungs.

Ken Berwitz

Last year I wrote a lot about Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General Barack Obama illegally fired while (because?) he was conducting a serious investigation into the illegal financial dealings of a big-time Obama supporter; Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

Today, as the demands grow louder to find out what Mr. Obama's involvement was in the illegal job offer made to Joe Sestak as a perk to get him out of the senate primary against Arlen Specter, and the demands grow louder to find out whether he did the same with Colorado Democrat Andy Romanoff last September, we have an eminently deserved resurrection of Walpingate.

Here are excerpts from the Washington Times' editorial on what happened to Mr. Walpin:

Republican senators ought to place an open and immediate hold upon the nomination of Jon A. Hatfield as inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). The legislative hold is necessary not to question Mr. Hatfield's fitness for the job, but to insist that the job itself should not yet be deemed open. The former inspector general (IG), the improperly dismissed Gerald Walpin, filed a motion in court May 20 to force a judge to stop ignoring his lawsuit for reinstatement. Until he receives his day in court, no replacement should be confirmed.

 

President Obama dismissed the widely respected Mr. Walpin on June 11, 2009, shortly after Mr. Walpin issued two reports highly embarrassing to political allies of the president. Despite a legal requirement that presidents provide 30 days' notice to remove any IG and provide an explanation for the dismissal, Mr. Obama originally did neither. When the White House belatedly offered some reasons, they were rife with errors, inconsistencies and a few outright falsehoods.

 

On July 17, Mr. Walpin filed a federal lawsuit demanding reinstatement. Since then, Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has sat on motion after motion, countermotion after countermotion, without lifting a finger to move the case along. In so doing, he has ignored specific time limits contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He also has played into the hands of the Obama administration, which has used every possible stalling tactic to keep the case buried and its merits unexamined.

 

Mr. Walpin's latest motion seeks a writ of mandamus, an order from a superior court to force a lower court to do its job. In this case, Mr. Walpin is trying to have the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issue an order for Judge Roberts to rule on all pending motions or else transfer the case to another judge who will actually do his job.

 

In an administration increasingly known for outlandish stonewalling of Congress and the press and for its Justice Department's refusal to investigate any purported administration wrongdoing, IGs are essential. Yes, it is important to fill the IG slot at CNCS. It is even more important to ensure, through Mr. Walpin's suit, that IGs throughout government have enough protections to know they can keep government honest without fear of retaliation.

I don't know what the biggest disgrace is here:  The Obama administration's absolute ignoring of the law or, with precious few exceptions (the Washington Times among them, obviously) our wonderful "neutral" media's absolute ignoring of the fact that the Obama administration is doing it.

Ethically, this administration is a sewer. 

Shame on the media venues that continue to facilitate its actions.

How dare they call themselves professional journalists?

Ken Berwitz

What happens if you bring up your child with religious beliefs, she incorporates those beliefs into what she tallks about with other students on her school bus - not preaching them, but in general conversation - and the bus driver then viciously and personally insults her in front of the other children, tries to get at least one other child to incriminate her as a racist (unsuccessfully, as it turns out) and....

Tell you what:  a video will explain the story far better than I can.  So CLICK HERE to see it:

Just one question:  Would the school have retained, and tried to protect, this bus driver if she had harangued a child for being, say, pro Obama and in favor of gay marriage? 

Just curious.......... 

Ken Berwitz

"If you're digging yourself into a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging".

No truer words were ever spoken.

But the Obama administration, fresh from digging us a crushing $800 billion dollar "stimulus package" hole that resulted in unemployment rising by 25% (from 8% to 10%), is now thinking about another $200 billion "stimulus package" to add to it. 

Excerpted from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's piece in today's London Daily Telegraph.  The bold print is mine:

US money supply plunges at 1930s pace as Obama eyes fresh stimulus

 

The M3 money supply in the United States is contracting at an accelerating rate that now matches the average decline seen from 1929 to 1933, despite near zero interest rates and the biggest fiscal blitz in history.

 

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 9:40PM BST 26 May 2010

 

The M3 figures - which include broad range of bank accounts and are tracked by British and European monetarists for warning signals about the direction of the US economy a year or so in advance - began shrinking last summer. The pace has since quickened.

 

The stock of money fell from $14.2 trillion to $13.9 trillion in the three months to April, amounting to an annual rate of contraction of 9.6pc. The assets of insitutional money market funds fell at a 37pc rate, the sharpest drop ever.

 

"It’s frightening," said Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research. "The plunge in M3 has no precedent since the Great Depression. The dominant reason for this is that regulators across the world are pressing banks to raise capital asset ratios and to shrink their risk assets. This is why the US is not recovering properly," he said.

 

The US authorities have an entirely different explanation for the failure of stimulus measures to gain full traction. They are opting instead for yet further doses of Keynesian spending, despite warnings from the IMF that the gross public debt of the US will reach 97pc of GDP next year and 110pc by 2015.

 

Larry Summers, President Barack Obama’s top economic adviser, has asked Congress to "grit its teeth" and approve a fresh fiscal boost of $200bn to keep growth on track. "We are nearly 8m jobs short of normal employment. For millions of Americans the economic emergency grinds on," he said.

There you go. Barack Obama and his Democratic congress passed the initial "stimulus package", which put us, our children, our grandchildren, etc. almost a trillion dollars in the hole.  The premise of doing so was that it would cap unemployment at 8%. 

Instead, unemployment jumped to 10%. 

So instead of doing something else, they are now considering another $200 billion to pour down that same hole.

And as long as Democrats own and operate congress by the margins they do, there is little reason to believe it won't happen.

Dig that hole deeper guys.  Make sure there is plenty of room for all the money being poured into it.  What the hell, you can always blame it on George Bush, can't you?

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.

And that goes double for 2012.

Ken Berwitz

Did you know that Paul Olden, who has replaced the legendary Bob Shepard as Yankee Stadium's announcer, is Black?

Personally, I didn't know until recently.  That is because Mr. Olden was selected with no fanfare and no P.R. about his skin color whatsoever;  only because he is good at what he does.

This is not the first time that the New York Yankees have done this.  When Bill White was hired in 1971 he became, I am reasonably sure, the first Black play by play announcer in the major leagues.  But, as with Mr. Olden, Mr. White wasn't thrust at us as some kind of trophy hire.  He was picked because he was good (and was he ever!) without any special  mention of his skin color. 

The "anonymously Black" way Bill White was hired made me proud to be a Yankee fan then, as the "anonymously Black" way Paul Olden was hired makes me proud to be a Yankee fan now.

That is the way it should be. I absolutely love it.

Ken Berwitz

He didn't say that, did he?

Well, yeah.  He did.

Excerpted from an article at CNN (among many others):

"I was not in Vietnam. I don't want to make a Blumenthal mistake here. Our attorney general from Connecticut, God love him," said Biden, according to a pool report of a Tuesday night at an event at the vice president's residence for wounded troops.

I'm sure Republicans everywhere thank Mr. Biden for reminding us all, vividly, that Richard Blumenthal is a liar.

Not for nothing do I call him Jackass Joe.

Ken Berwitz

Do you want to be good and mad?  Then read this, from John Crudele at the New York Post.  You will be:

You know the old saying: "Everyone loves a charade." Well, it seems that the Census Bureau may be playing games.

Last week, one of the millions of workers hired by Census 2010 to parade around the country counting Americans blew the whistle on some statistical tricks.

 

The worker, Naomi Cohn, told The Post that she was hired and fired a number of times by Census. Each time she was hired back, it seems, Census was able to report the creation of a new job to the Labor Department.

 

Below, I have a couple more readers who worked for Census 2010 and have tales to tell.

 

But first, this much we know.

 

Each month Census gives Labor a figure on the number of workers it has hired. That figure goes into the closely followed monthly employment report Labor provides. For the past two months the hiring by Census has made up a good portion of the new jobs.

 

Labor doesn't check the Census hiring figure or whether the jobs are actually new or recycled. It considers a new job to have been created if someone is hired to work at least one hour a month.

 

One hour! A month! So, if a worker is terminated after only one hour and another is hired in her place, then a second new job can apparently be reported to Labor . (I've been unable to get Census to explain this to me.)

 

Here's a note from a Census worker -- this one from Manhattan:

 

"John: I am on my fourth rehire with the 2010 Census.

 

"I have been hired, trained for a week, given a few hours of work, then laid off. So my unemployed self now counts for four new jobs.

 

"I have been paid more to train all four times than I have been paid to actually produce results. These are my tax dollars and your tax dollars at work.

 

"A few months ago I was trained for three days and offered five hours of work counting the homeless. Now, I am knocking (on) doors trying to find the people that have not returned their Census forms. I worked the 2000 Census. It was a far more organized venture.

 

"Have to run and meet my crew leader, even though with this rain I did not work today. So I can put in a pay sheet for the hour or hour and a half this meeting will take. Sincerely, C.M."

 

And here's another:

 

"John: I worked for (Census) and I was paid $18.75 (an hour) just like Ms. Naomi Cohn from your article.

"I worked for about six weeks or so and I picked the hours I wanted to work. I was checking the work of others. While I was classifying addresses, another junior supervisor was checking my work.

 

"In short, we had a "checkers checking checkers" quality control. I was eventually let go and was told all the work was finished when, in fact, other people were being trained for the same assignment(s).

 

"I was re-hired about eight months later and was informed that I would have to go through one week of additional training.

 

"On the third day of training, I got sick and visited my doctor. I called my supervisor and asked how I can make up the class. She informed me that I was 'terminated.' She elaborated that she had to terminate three other people for being five minutes late to class.

 

"I did get two days' pay and I am sure the 'late people' got paid also. I think you would concur that this is an expensive way to attempt to control sickness plus lateness. I am totally convinced that the Census work could be very easily done by the US Postal Service.

 

"When I was trying to look for an address or had a question about a building, I would ask the postman on the beat. They knew the history of the route and can expand in detail who moved in or out etc. I have found it interesting that if someone works one hour, they are included in the labor statistics as a new job being full.

 

"I am not surprised that you can't get any answers from Census staff; I found there were very few people who knew the big picture. M.G."

 

When I received my Census form in the mail, I filled it out. Nobody had to knock on my door.

 

I answered truthfully about the number of people living in my household. But I could have just as easily dou bled the number. Why not? Didn't Census ad vertisements imply that my community would get more federal money if the popula tion were larger?

 

I'm glad people are finding work with the Census. For some it's the only work they have had this year and the chump change they are making for a few hours' work is a godsend.

 

But wasting taxpayers' money on busywork isn't going to do much for the economy.

If that doesn't anger you I don't know what will.

And let's not forget the masive job-creation fraud we have already seen from the Obama administration.  Before media stopped counting, it included tens of thousands of jobs that didn't exist. A ton that were saved (whatever that means), thus unquantifiable, a ton more from congressional districts that do not even exist ---- and now this new fraud is added to the pile.

How can you believe anything the Obama administration says?

Ken Berwitz

I just received this email, and I'm passing it along to you.

It is offensive.  And funny as hell.  This time funny wins out, so here it is:

Drinking with an Arizona Girl

 

A Mexican, an Arab, and an Arizona girl are in the same bar.  

 

When the Mexican finishes his beer, he throws his glass in the air, pulls out his pistol, and shoots the glass to pieces. He says, 'In Mexico , our glasses are so cheap we don't need to drink with the same one twice.'

The Arab, obviously impressed by this, drinks non-alcohol beer (cuz he's a Muslim!), throws it into the air, pulls out his AK-47, and shoots the glass to pieces. He says, 'In the Arab World, we have so much sand to make glasses that we don't need to drink with the same one twice either.'

The Arizona girl, cool as a cucumber, picks up her beer, downs it in one gulp, throws the glass into the air, whips out her 45, and shoots the Mexican and the Arab.

Catching her glass, setting it on the bar, and calling for a refill, she says, 'In Arizona , we have so many illegal aliens that we don't have to drink with the same ones twice.' 

Ken Berwitz

One of the all time greats of broadcast media has left us.

Art Linkletter died today in Los Angeles, at the age of 97.  No specific cause of death was announced (not that I saw, anyway).

Mr. Linkletter's career ran almost the entire length of broadcast history.  He started on radio in the early 1030's, while still a college student.  He was enormously successful on radio, with his seminal "People Are Funny" show starting in 1942, and seamlessly transferred that show, and others as well (Art Linkletter's House Party prime among them) to television.

Mr. Linkletter also was a prolific, highly successful author.  He wrote 23 books, with his biggest best-seller being "Kids Say The Darnedest Things", which sold millions of copies.  Wow.

He is also the only man who ever hosted 5 - count 'em, 5 - network TV shows at the same time.

In his "spare time", Mr. Linkletter was a tireless volunteer for a variety of humanitarian causes, such as Goodwill, Easter Seals and the Heart Foundation.

Mr. Linkletter was married one time, to his beloved wife Lois - who actually survives him.  November 25th would have been their 75th wedding anniversary.

Regarding their children, the Linkletters had tragedy after tragedy.  Three of his five children died prematurely:  a daughter committed suicide at the age of 20, a son died in a car crash and another son died of cancer.

I hope he is with them all now.

May Art Linkletter rest in peace.  If any man deserved it, he's the one.

Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from an article in today's USA Today:

May 26, 2010

Poll: Majority give Obama, feds failing grade on oil spill response

04:00 PM

 

The oil spill off the Gulf Coast is staining more than Louisiana's beaches.

 

The response to the disaster by energy giant BP, President Obama and the federal government all get terrible grades from Americans in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

 

Nearly three-fourths of those surveyed Monday and Tuesday say BP is doing a "poor" or "very poor" job in handling the calamity. Six of 10 say that of the federal government. And a 53% majority give Obama a poor rating.

Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama's new tactic:  telling a receptive (i.e. left-wing) audience that he has been the picture of bipartisanship, but that Republicans have spurned that bipartisanship for political reasons.

Does this seem to fly in the face of everything you know about the Obama presidency?  Does it seem to deny the fact that he and his lopsidedly Democratic congress - with virtually no Republican input allowed -  have passed  legislation that puts the USA into hopeless debt while moving us closer and closer to a social-democrat pararise like, say, Greece? 

If that's the way it seems to you, congratulations are in order.  You are seeing things clearly.

Here, excerpted from Carol E. Lee's blog at politico.com, is Mr. Obama's fantasy:

SAN FRANCISCO – President Barack Obama traveled to one of the most liberal enclaves in the country to deliver some of his harshest criticism yet of the Republican Party – attacking the GOP on points where Democrats sense vulnerability, such as energy legislation and immigration reform.

Noting that sometimes conservative activists portray him with a Hitler moustache, Obama seemed to put to rest any notion that there could be broad-based bipartisan cooperation – something he promised to try to bring to Washington during his 2008 campaign.

“There are members of their base who think if somebody even smiles at me, they think, ‘You’re a traitor. You smiled at Obama,’ ” the president said at fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “The day has passed when I expected this to be a full partnership.”

There is hardly any “room for cooperation” in the Republican Party, Obama said.

At the same time, he said he understands why the GOP is “sitting on the sidelines.”

“Politically it hasn’t been bad for them,” he said – an apparent reference to the Republicans’ expected gains in the midterm congressional elections this fall.

By the way, did Mr. Obama, or the folks at this "liberal enclave", ever protest the hitler moustaches drawn on pictures of President Bush continuously for 8 years?  I don't recall that they did. 

And that is before we get to the fact that the people doing this ugly, disgusting hitler comparison, are individuals.  Jerks, but individuals, and not Republican legislators from either house of congress.  Thus this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Obama administration's lack of bipartisanship.

In short, this is another hot steamy load from Barack Obama.  A load being dumped out by a Chicago machine politician, in way over his head, who desperately needs to divert us from the truth.

If the poll data are correct, it seems to be working less and less.  Hallelujah.

Ken Berwitz

It's not hard to tell that we are failing in Afghanistan.  The tipoff is that our wonderful "neutral" media barely talk about it anymore:  if it were a success they would be hailing commander-in-chief Obama as a military genius.

Paul Mirengoff of powerlineblog.com has an excellent blog today on why things are going wrong.  I urge you to use the link I've just provided and read his entire piece.  But I'd like to show you a particularly salient excerpt below:

Consider the situation in Marjah. Our military campaign, designed to be the first blow in a decisive campaign to oust the Taliban from their spiritual homeland in adjacent Kandahar province, is faltering in large part because we cannot persuade the Afghans in the area to side with the government against the Taliban. This, in turn, is due in part to threats by the Taliban to kill residents who cooperate with the U.S. and the government. That threat is entirely credible, given the fact that we plan to begin withdrawing in about a year. If the U.S. were more committed, the threat would be far less credible.

The president's timetable also gives the new British government, which has no more desire to be fighting in Afghanistan than Obama does, a pretext for excusing itself from the fight at a time of its choosing. Thus, William Hague, the new foreign secretary, told the BBC during a visit to Afghanistan, "I don't think setting a deadline helps anybody; so much of what we're doing in Afghanistan, setting targets for people then to jump through hoops towards, doesn't help them in their work."

Mark Sedwill, Britain's former ambassador to Afghanistan and NATO's current representative there, was more direct:

If there are politicians anywhere in the alliance who are making a judgment that we shouldn't have gone for the surge unless we could have been confident by the end of 2010 it would all look completely different, then we shouldn't have gone for the surge, because that was never practical,"

After dithering throughout much of 2009, Obama may well have delivered a plan for Afghanistan that "was never practical."

Paul has this spot-on.  I wish it were not so, but it is.

Remember Marjah?  Remember all that fanfare about our initiative there, about how it was going to blow the taliban away? 

If anything like that were actually happening, you can bet that we would be fully informed.  Instead, Marjah has fallen back into the "and in other news" category, not to be exhumed by our media unless and until things turn around.

Simply stated, you cannot run a war by advising the enemy of your moves. 

Going public with a withdrawal timetable is very heartening for the hard left theorists, dreamers and USA-haters.  But it is just as heartening for our enemies, because it gives them a heads-up on how to run their end of the war.

Can we possibly want to do that?  Evidently the answer is yes, because that is what we're doing.

Is there any way to move up the 2012 election?  Please?

Ken Berwitz

I have already blogged about the raw thuggery displayed by a SEIU (Service Employee's International Union) goon squad, escorted by the police, who put on their version of terrorist intimidation against, as it turned out, a 14 year old child.

Here is how Investors Business Daily editorialized about this sick event.  Please pay special attention to the paragraphs I have put in bold print:

Mob Rule From SEIU

 

Labor: Does belonging to the service workers' union give you the right to invade private homes, terrorize children and smear anyone questioning such tactics? Apparently so, based on recent events in Maryland.

 

On May 16, Washington, D.C., police escorted 14 busloads full of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members at least part of the way to storm the Chevy Chase, Md., home of Bank of America's deputy legal counsel, Greg Baer.

 

Some 500 protestors affiliated with SEIU and their allies in the community organizing group National Political Action (NPA) trampled his lawn, blocked his doorway to his home and screamed "greed." Legally, it was burglary, trespassing and, possibly, assault.

 

But Maryland cops didn't enforce the law. And Baer had to brave the insult-hurling mob alone to rescue his 14-year old son who, home alone, had locked himself in the bathroom in fear.

 

But there was one thing these thugs didn't count on — a credible journalist next door who reported what happened.

 

Fortune Magazine's Nina Easton wrote about what happened and asked SEIU spokesman Stephen Lerner to explain.

 

His response was chilling: "People in powerful corporations seem to think they can insulate themselves from the damage they are doing," Lerner said, implying that physical intimidation was indeed the intent.

 

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. Aggressive, personalized protests have been a fact of life in the world of unions and community organizers influenced by the radical philosophy of Saul Alinsky.

 

But they're now growing in frequency as SEIU officials top the White House visitors' list and union influence grows.

It started in earnest last year, when SEIU thugs gave a "beat down" to a black trinket seller at a tea party protest — with no consequences.

 

It also was seen when the SEIU teamed up with its community-organizing ally Acorn to set up bus harassment tours of AIG executives' homes during last year's insurance bailout.

 

In recent weeks in New York and Washington, SEIU and NPA protestors invaded and shut down banks, frightening customers.

 

What's important here is that these mobs act with near impunity and lash out at critics like Easton. What Stern calls "the persuasion of power" is identical to the violent means of maintaining political order in Cuba and Venezuela.

 

It's going full blast in the U.S. now as the party in power loses popularity. That's a bad sign that democracy itself is under attack.

Tell me:  Has anyone at the White House - maybe even Barack Obama, who treats SEIU's people as his long-lost brothers - spoken out against this unbelievably depraved performance?

Has anyone at the White House - or within the Washington DC government - demanded to know why these thugs were given a police escort?  Why the police literally facilitated their illegal, thoroughly sickening actions?  

Has anyone asked for the names of these police officers, or their superior who presumably ok'ed what they did?

And, perhaps most importantly, why have our wonderful "neutral" media - other than IBD and a few other right-leaning venues - been ducking away from this scandal?  Why are they not demanding answers? 

Illustratively, read bigjournalism.com's blog, which details how the DC police continue to "fine-tune their story" while the Washington Post accommodatingly looks the other way. 

What is happening to our country?

Ken Berwitz

Months ago, Joe Sestak made a huge political mistake.  He told us that the White House, either directly or through an emissary, offered him a job in the administration if he would withdraw from the Pennsylvania senate primary and leave Arlen Specter a clear field to run for re-election.

Well, the good news for Sestak is that he stayed in and won.

But the bad news?  That offer he told us about is almost certainly illegal and almost certainly an actionable offense, probably a felony.

Now the Democrats not only have a candidate they clearly did not want, but one who is going to be pressured every day to come clean on who offiered him what job. 

And the more he ducks this question the worse he looks.

Excerpted from an Associated Press article:

BLUE BELL, Pa. — Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey said Tuesday that "it would be helpful" if Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak was more forthright about what job the White House offered him to drop a primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter — but that he wants to move on.

Toomey, speaking at an event in suburban Philadelphia with Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, said he prefers to focus on the candidates’ ideological differences.

"I do think that it would be helpful if Joe would be more forthcoming and clear the air, but I’m not going to dwell on this," Toomey said after his remarks at the rally for Republican candidates from across Pennsylvania.

Sestak and the White House have declined to discuss the offer in detail, but Sestak has said he was offered a job to avoid challenging Specter. Sestak defeated Specter, a longtime Republican who switched parties last year, in last week’s primary.

Steele told dozens of Republican supporters at the rally that Pennsylvania needs "real, principled leaders" — and then took a swipe at Sestak.

"Speaking of forthright, don’t you just love Congressman Sestak right now?" Steele said. "Singing all kinds of tunes. White House is not happy."

A Sestak campaign spokesman had no immediate comment on the remarks when reached Tuesday afternoon.

 Personally, I think Pat Toomey is using this pleasant language ("it would be helpful if Joe would be more forthcoming....") to sucker Sestak into thinking he won't pay a huge political price for not answering the question.

It is enormously damaging for Mr. Sestak to duck this question now -- but even more damaging after Labor Day, when voters will be paying the most attention, thus will be maximally impacted by Sestak's clumsy evasions. 

I'm no Sestak operative.  But if I were, I'd be warning him that, as bad as it may hurt to own up right now, it will hurt worse later on in the campaign.

Any way you look at it, this issue puts Joe Sestak is in a world of political hurt -- possibly so much so that his candidacy will become untenable.

Maybe Arlen should pack his things a little slower.....   

Ken Berwitz

Last night I blogged about the fact that the networks - finally - may have turned a corner, by reporting dispassionately about the Obama administration's non-performance regarding the oil rig explosion.

Now, amazingly, we have this excerpt from today's column by Bob Herbert of the New York Times; a major-league Obama fan if there ever was one:

BP got off much too easy with the fines it agreed to in 2007. And for some odd reason, it’s being treated much too deferentially now. This crisis has gone on for more than a month, and neither BP nor the Obama administration seems to know what to do.

No one has a handle on how much oil is gushing out of control into the gulf. No one understands the environmental impact of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical dispersants that BP is injecting into the gulf. No one has any idea how far this awful stain on the environment will spread.

President Obama should have taken charge of the response to the oil spill — which he called a “potentially unprecedented” environmental calamity — from jump street. He should have called in the very best minds and operatives from the corporate and scientific worlds and imposed an emergency plan of action — to be carried out by BP and all others who might be required. Instead, after all this time, after more than a month of BP’s demonstrated incompetence, the administration continues to dither.

Incredibly, until The Times blew the whistle in an article on Monday, environmental waivers were still being offered for oil drilling in the gulf. What will it take for sanity to prevail? How many people have to die or face ruin, and how much of nature has to be despoiled before we rein in the cowboys of these runaway corporations?

Steadily increasing numbers of anxiety-ridden coastal residents are watching not just their livelihoods but an entire way of life slip away. Even as BP’s lawyers are consumed with the task of limiting the company’s liability, the administration continues to insist it has little choice but to follow the company’s lead in fighting the spill. That is dangerous nonsense.

President Obama has an obligation to make it unmistakably clear that BP’s interests are not the same as America’s interests. He needs to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people who are taking the brunt of this latest corporate outrage. The oil has now stained nearly 70 miles of the Louisiana Coast. No one can say what terrible toll the gusher is taking in the depths of the gulf. And spreading right along with the oil is a pervasive and dismaying sense of helplessness from our leaders in Washington.

 Does Mr. Herbert nail BP along with Mr. Obama?  You bet he does -- and, frankly, that doesn't bother me a bit.  BP certainly deserves it.

But the point is that Barack Obama is getting the back of Bob Herbert's hand every bit as much as BP is. 

Not so long ago, this column would most likely have been entirely, or nearly entirely, about BP - with Obama & Co. getting the deferential treatment it clearly has come to expect.

Are the days of deference towards Mr. Obama now irrevocably over?  I don't know.  But I hope they are. 

Will media now just report/opine on the facts, without letting partisan cheerleading obscure them?  I don't know.  But I hope so:  it is all I ever ask.

Regardless of what happens in the future, today Bob Herbert gets my thanks for doing just that.

Ken Berwitz

Can it be?  Is it really happening?  Have our wonderful "neutral"' media finally, at long last, decided to see what is in front of their eyes (or, at any rate what they would see if their eyes were actually open)?

Read this www.drudgereport.com teaser, and be sure to click on each link (all of which are from the www.realclearpolitics.com web site):

FLASH: NETWORKS BEGIN TO TURN ON OBAMA... ABC 'WORLD NEWS' TAKES NEW 'CRITICAL' TONE... CBS 'EVENING NEWS', HALF OF SHOW ON SPILL, AND WHAT ADMIN HASN'T DONE... NBC: 'NO END IN SIGHT'...

 

DEVELOPING...

Is this the beginning of serious, non-partisan reporting about the Obama administration; especially regarding its utter uselessness as Louisiana's marshlands are destroyed?

If so:  hallelujah. 

Better late than never.

Ken Berwitz

Read this chilling account by Scott Johnson of www.powerlineblog.com - with all credit to journalist Nina Easton (Fortune Magazine's Washington bureau chief) for acting like a journalist - what a refreshing change! - and see what most of our wonderful "neutral" media are trying to keep you in the dark about:

A thug too far, part 2

May 24, 2010 Posted by Scott at 6:31 AM

Nina Easton's account of the SEIU demonstration that terrorized the son of her next-door neighbor -- the deputy general counsel of Bank of America -- has drawn remarkably little attention. That's the way that SEIU wanted it; the union only alerted one of its handmaidens at the Huffington Post of the event. Easton notes that only "a friendly Huffington Post blogger showed up, narrowcasting coverage to the union's leftist base. The rest of the message these protesters brought was personal--aimed at frightening Baer and his family, not influencing a broader public."

Easton provided a straightforward eyewitness account of the demonstration, purportedly protesting mortgage foreclosures. Based on her reporting, Easton concludes that the protest was something of a pretext. She offered an explanation of SEIU's demonstration based on its current organizing goals and noted in passing that "SEIU, suffering financially, owes the bank nearly $4 million in interest and fees. Bank of America declined comment on the loans."

Easton is almost certainly on to something. We should pause to consider the event she witnessed long and hard. It provides another window onto the phenomenon that Michael Barone has dubbed "gangster government."

The folks at Big Government and Big Journalism have followed up on Easton's column. They note that the union and the lapdogs at Huffington Post and Media Matters have attacked Easton for reporting on the doings in her yard.

Big Journalism reports that the union demonstrators at the Bank of America lawyer's house outside Washington, D.C., had a police escort. The escort comprised D.C. police offers; the primary role of the Washington cops in this event was to protect the protesters. Big Journalism observes:

A caravan of SEIU buses receive a Metropolitan (D.C.) Police Department escort to a private home in Maryland where the protesters, from all appearances, violate Montgomery County law by engaging in a stationary protest. The Montgomery County police were not informed by their cross-jurisdictional colleagues of the impending, unusually large protest pending in their jurisdiction.

What's up with that? Had the mob decided to torch the house, the D.C. police would not have been authorized to intervene. Not their jurisdiction. They're just escorts. Meanwhile, a teenage boy is home alone [at the Bank of America lawyer's house], frightened by what's happening outside his front door.

Big Government also takes a look at the loans SEIU has taken out with Bank of America. The aptly named LIberty Chick reports that as of 2007, the SEIU owed Bank of America nearly $95 Million. By the end of 2008, SEIU owed more than $156 Million in total outstanding liabilities. Ms. Chick speculates: "Perhaps all that campaigning for President Obama has emboldened the union to think that they deserve a free pass on their debts to Bank of America, and encouraged them to employ their usual thuggish shakedown tactics."

At this point it is safe to make one point at least. The event outside Nina Easton's house deserves more attention than it has received to date.

UPDATE: The Washington Examiner arrives on the scene today in its editorial: "No more police escort for union thugs."

MORE: The Examiner editorial has been updated to note the denial of an escort by the D.C. police.

Suppose it were during the Bush presidency, and a group of Enron goons, accompanied by law enforcement to back them up, had terrorized a teenager at the home of someone they were trying to intimidate.  Do you think you'd be hearing about it on, say, the network news?  Or the morning shows like Today?  Or from the MSNBC crowd - especially  keith olberstiltskin?

But listen to these shameful partisans posing as journalists squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Ken Berwitz

Credit to the New York Times for breaking the story about Connecticut Attorney General/presumptive Democratic senate candidate Richard Blumenthal's lies regarding his military service during the war in Vietnam - namely that he claimed to have been fighting there but never set foot in the country.

And shame - immense shame - on our wonderful "neutral" media for giving this liar, this king of stolen valor, the one/two-day-and buried treatment on coverage of his dishonorable, execrable lies.

And if new instances of Blumenthal lying about his military service are found - as they almost certainly will be?  Who do you think these same media will be more likely to attack:  Blumenthal or whomever unearths the new instances?

Based on their coverage so far, the answer is pretty obvious.

Ken Berwitz

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal can't wait any longer.

It is over a month of inaction, courtesy of the Obama administration, while the Louisian coast dies.

Here is the report, from NECN (Comcast).  See for yourself:

 

Jindal tired of waiting for approval, to build sand booms

 

May 23, 2010 6:51pm

 

 (NECN: Barataria Bay, La.) - Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said the state will not waiting for federal approval to begin building sand barriers to protect the coastline from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Oil has pushed at least 12 miles into Louisiana's marshes, with two major pelican rookeries awash in crude.

Gov. Jindal was critical of the amount of boom his state received to ward off the oil seeping toward the coastline. But his major gripe comes at the expense of the Army Corps of Engineers, who have yet to give the go-ahead for the building of sand booms to protect the Louisiana wetlands. He used photographic evidence of oil breaking through hard booms, soft booms and another layer of protection, before being finally being corralled by a sand boom built by the National Guard.

"It is so much better for us. We don't want oil on one inch of Louisiana's coastline, but we'd much rather fight this oil off of a hard coast, off of an island, off of an island, off of a sandy beach on our coastal islands, rather than having to fight it inside in these wetlands," Gov. Jindal said, making the case for sand booms.

The governor said he has been forced to protect Louisiana without the approval of the Army Corps of Engineers, which is weighing the ecological impact of the construction of more sand booms.

"We are not waiting for them. We are going to build it," Jindal said.

"We can either fight battle -- we can fight this oil -- on the Barrier Islands 15 to 20 miles off of our coast, or we can face it in thousands of miles of fragmented wetlands," Gov. Jindal said, clearing favoring the first option.  "Every day we're not given approval on this emergency permit to create more of these sand booms is another day when that choice is made for us, as more and more miles of our shore are hit by oil."

The oil spill, which has lasted 33 days since the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, has yet to be stopped by British Petroleum at the source. The situation is dire for Gulf coast states.

"It is clear the resources needed to protect our coast are still not here," Gov. Jindal said.  "Oil sits and waits for cleanup, and every day that it waits for cleanup more of our marsh dies."

Now: When do our media start blaming the Obama administration for its uselessness, as Louisiana's marshlands and fishing industry are decimated?

Whining about BP and Transoceanic and Halliburton may wow 'em at moveon.org.  But it doesn't do a damn thing about remediating this problem. 

Does this administration have the slightest clue about how to do anything but assign blame?

Ken Berwitz

South Korea and North Korea hate each other and are currently in a state of war (though hostilities have been minimal for over 50 years, there has never been a final peace agreement).

kim il jong is North Korea's head of state.  He is a madman, whose people starve, and do without the most basic essentials, while he spends over 1/3 of his country's entire revenues on weapons.

In March, jong apparently had his military blow up a South Korean warship, killing an estimated 46 members of its navy. 

So what is the United Nations going to do about trying to diffuse this potential horror?  It is going to do what the UN usually does, which is nothing of any value.

And what is the Obama administration going to do?

Here, excerpted from an Associated Press article, is your answer:

WASHINGTON - The U.S. and South Korea are planning two major military exercises  off the Korean Peninsula in a display of force intended to deter North Korean acts like the March torpedo attack on a South Korean warship.

President Barack Obama ordered his military commanders to coordinate closely with their South Korea counterparts "to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression" by North Korea, the White House said.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters on Monday the joint exercises will be conducted in the "near future." He said the operations will test the nations' ability to defeat submarines and to monitor and prevent illicit activities.

Has this administration gone out of its collective mind?  kim il jong is a world-class lunatic who is overloaded with weaponry, including nuclear weapons (don't get me started on how he got nuclear weapons, or I will spend the next half hour uncontrollably cursing jimmy carter and Bill Clinton).  jong is itching to use those weapons on the hated South Koreans, and has intentionally tried to provoke them by this act of war on the South Korean ship.

And what is our administration's response?  To announce that we will join South Korea in significant war exercises while this issue is still smoldering-hot.  Right in jong's face.

We are daring a madman to act like the madman that he is. 

For once, I prefer the UN's reaction.  Being weak and useless is far preferable to pouring gasoline on flames.

Ken Berwitz

Which is it?  Is Sarah Palin nuts, or on to something?  Read this excerpt from an article from Agence France Presse and draw your own conclusions:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Right-wing darling Sarah Palin accused US President Barack Obama on Sunday of leading a lax response to the Gulf of Mexico spill because he is too close to the big oil companies.

 

The former vice presidential candidate and Alaska governor, who champions off-shore drilling, criticized the media for not drawing the link between Obama and big oil and said if this spill had happened under former Republican president George W. Bush the scrutiny would have been far tougher.

 

"I don't know why the question isn't asked by the mainstream media and by others if there's any connection with the contributions made to president Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration," she told Fox News Sunday.

 

More than 3.5 million dollars has been given to candidates by BP over the last 20 years, with the largest single donation, 77,051 dollars, going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

 

Palin suggested this close relationship explained why Obama was, "taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there, and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico."

 

The Obama administration has been forced to defend its response to the disaster as some Republicans have sought to portray it as their Katrina, an allusion to president Bush's mishandling of the response to the 2005 hurricane that devastated Louisiana.

 

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs mocked Palin's suggestions that Obama was somehow in bed with big oil because of 2008 presidential campaign contributions.

 

"Sarah Palin was involved in that election, but I don't think, apparently, was paying a whole lot of attention," Gibbs said.

Robert Gibbs can "mock" Ms. Palin all he wants.  But.....

-The Obama administration has been a week late and a $1,000 dollars short (a day late and a dollar short doesn't begin to tell the whole story) when it comes to acting decisively on the oil rig disaster.  Regardless of whether it is BP, Transoceanic, Halliburton or the Disney company that caused that explosion, it is the USA's shoreline.  And either there was no viable plan in place to deal with a major oil spill, or there was one and its implementation was disastrously incompetent;

-If the Center for Responsive Politics is right, and President Obama has gotten that kind of money from BP, why weren't we told about it - if not by Mr. Obama himself than by our wonderful "neutral" media, which seemed to find out about every penny given to President Bush by Enron and to the Republican party by Jack Abramoff?  Did  the BP money affect how Mr. Obama has handled (mishandled is more like it) this disaster?

-And why are our media not assigning significant blame to the Obama administration for the ecological disaster that we are witnessing - as they blamed the Bush administration for the effects of hurricane Katrina?  The plain truth is, President Bush did more BEFORE Katrina hit (he declared Louisiana a disaster area on August 27th, 2005 - two days prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans) than the Obama administration has done since the oil rig explosion and for a month thereafter.

-Never forget that it is our government that gave BP the right to drill.  Did it not have some plan of action if there were a problem with the drilling?  At what point do media stop kissing the Obama administration's collective rear end and start demanding that it take some responsibility for acting on this disaster?

Look, I don't know if Sarah Palin is on the right track.  But the facts I just enumerated are sitting on this issue like a bad piece of roast beef sitting in your stomach at 3:00 in the morning..

I want to know more.  Don't you?

Ken Berwitz

Are you as tired as I am of Democrat and/or liberal and/or leftward and/or Obama-fawning parrots trying to sell you on the premise that Democrat Mark Critz winning John Murtha's former seat in the house of representatives is some kind of major, pro-Democratic event?

William Galston certainly is.  And given that he is a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institute, and former policy advisor to, among others, President Clinton, I'd say it is worth paying attention to what he has to say on the matter.

So here it is.  Please pay special attention to the final paragraph, which I have put in bold print:

A Single Democratic Victory in a Single Pennsylvania Race Doesn’t Change Anything

William Galston

May 21, 2010 | 12:00 am

 

Conventional wisdom: it is a fickle, fickle thing. The latest example of the incredible lightness of opinion in today’s media and political climate is the reaction to the results of the race in Pennsylvania’s 12th congressional district. Politicians and pundits, right- as well as left-leaning, are taking it as evidence that Republican hopes of retaking the House this November are too optimistic. That may turn out to be the case, but PA-12 is hardly enough evidence to warrant the conclusion.

 

First, let’s place that district in context. Yes, it was one of Obama’s ten worst Appalachian congressional district’s during his 2008 primary contest with Hillary Clinton. But it was his best of those ten, by far, during the general election (he got 49 percent of the vote), and it was the only one of the ten that John Kerry carried in 2004. The reason: its party registration is so overwhelmingly Democratic that even when lots of conservative Democrats peel off, a majority or near-majority remains for the party’s nominee. So while the Republicans may have believed their own hype in the run-up to this week’s special election, PA-12 was always going to be tough for them. 

 

Now let’s look at three Gallup surveys released within the past two days. One notes that so far in 2010, only 23 percent of Americans have been satisfied with the way things are going—well below the 40 percent average of the past three decades, and the lowest reading recorded in a mid-term election year going back to 1982. [LINK to Gallup, May 19] A second survey observes that the two political parties have been at or near parity among registered voters since January in the generic congressional ballot. This is especially significant because (as the survey shows) “the structure of voting preferences seen in the first three months of the [election] year generally carried through to the end.” And parity among registered voters would be bad news for Democrats: on average, Republicans have enjoyed about a five-point turnout edge in midterm elections. 

 

The third survey underscores this point. It highlights a 19-point gap between conservatives and liberals in their enthusiasm about voting in this year’s midterm elections. And 62 percent of those who describe themselves as “very conservative” (10 percent of registered voters) say that they are very enthusiastic, versus only 44 percent of those who term themselves “very liberal” (a scant 4 percent of registered voters). 

 

Connect the dots and we have the portrait of an electorate that’s highly dissatisfied with the status quo and that seems poised to give more votes in the aggregate to Republican than to Democratic candidates this fall. I don’t know how many House seats that translates into, but I’d be surprised if the number didn’t start with a “3” (at least). As far as I can see, only a big change in the economy—a significant increase in the rate of GDP growth leading to a noticeable reduction in top-line unemployment numbers and a bump up in real disposable income for those who have jobs—would be enough to change the overall outlook for November.

Thank you, Mr. Galston, for a hefty dose of reality. 

Given the ridiculous puffery about Mr. Critz's victory from Democratic propagandists posing as journalists (Eleanor Clift's column about this special election is a classic example, and far from the only one), it is truly a breath of fresh air.

Ken Berwitz

Most people don't know that the Korean war is still ongoing.  In July 1953, North Korea signed an armistice agreement.  South Korea did not.  That is the "end" of the war - which is to say it didn't end at all.

Well, now - almost unreported by our ever-vigilant media - it stands an excellent chance of reverting to full-tilt mode - but this time with the added possibility of nuclear weapons.

Albeit belatedly, and not on its front page, The New York Times has started taking this at least somewhat seriously.  Yesterday it had a short article in its Asia-Pacific news, along with an article on page 4 noting that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is warning North Korea there will be "consequences" for sinking the ship (that should scare the crap out of them).

And the network news?  Forget it.  They're too busy deciding who brings the flowers to Mr. & Ms. Obama this week.

Regular readers may recall that I posted the US's initial take on this incident, which was that North Korea had nothing to do with the ship's sinking.  That, obviously, has become - what was Ron Ziegler's line from the Nixon era - "inoperative".

Look, I don't mean to be flip about what is happening in this terrible part of the world.  Any day that full-scale war breaks out between the two Korean entities will not surprise me.  And, given their hatred of each other, the unbridled ruthlessness of North Korea "leader" kim il song, and the insane amount of weaponry he has amassed, it could be unspeakably brutal in no time at all.

When does the UN get involved?  Isn't this what the organization exists for?

When does Mr. Obama stand up, supersede his feckless Secretary of State, and try to head it off by using the leadership and diplomacy only an American President has?  Or is he too busy sucking up to Mexican illegals because they might turn into Democratic votes?

And when do our media decide to educate their readers/viewers/listeners about this possible world-threatening horror?

Apparently, the answer is...the day after it happens.

Ken Berwitz

So what do you do with over a million and a half bucks raised to rebuild a hospital that does not exist?

That delightful problem is now in the hands of Gazan "authorities" (translation:  hamas), after the money was raised in Greece to rebuild a hospital that, in point of fact, does not exist.

Sound bizarre?  Read this article from Arutz-Sheva (Israel national news) and see for yourself:

Israel ‘Destroyed’ Gaza Hospital that Never Existed

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

 

Another anti-Israeli campaign, this time charging that the IDF destroyed a Christian hospital in Gaza earlier this year, has gone up in smoke following an investigation by the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA). One question remains: what was supposed to happen with the $1.67 million raised for “rebuilding” the hospital?

 

Several months ago a fundraising campaign was conducted in Greece, with a star-studded telethon for the hospitals that Israel allegedly “destroyed with their bombs” during the Operation Cast Lead counterterrorist campaign from last December through mid-January.

 

The JTA revealed that the supposed hospital was not on United Nations and Red Crescent Society lists of damaged structures. Officials of non-government groups (NGOs) in Gaza told the American Jewish news network that only one Christian hospital was used during the campaign and that it did not sustain any damage.

 

When questioned, the Greek television station that broadcast the telethon said it was only responsible for providing the air time and that the government and a trade union were behind the campaign. The union referred the JTA to the government.

 

The Greek ambassador in Israel in turn referred the JTA to the Greek consulate in Jerusalem.

 

After the investigation began, a financial newspaper in Greece published a small article that “a project is being sought in Gaza to be financed by the money" that was raised in the February telethon.

Got that?  The 1.67 million dollars extracted from hard-up-for-money Greek people who thought they were engaging in a humanitarian project, is now being held, unspent, in Gaza because it was collected to rebuild a phantom hospital. 

But it did serve a purpose.  The Greek people who contributed now "know" that Israelis are butchers who destroyed that hospital in the first place.

Don't you love that last paragraph?  a small article saying Gaza is looking for a project to spend the money on?  How about a major, fully conspicuous statement by the STATION THAT HELD THE TELETHON, telling its duped viewers about it?  That would be nice.

Of course they then would understand that Israel did not destroy the hospital and that they were jobbed by Gazans who lied about why they needed the money.  So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that statement.

Ken Berwitz

My congratulations to Charles Djou, who won yesterday's special house election in Hawaii to replace Rep. neil abercrombie (no capitals for this Israel-hating sack of shit), who resigned to concentrate on his run for Governor.

Mr. Djou is the first Republican congressperson from Hawaii in almost 20 years.  And, in all likelihood, he won only because two Democrats were competing against him - as noted by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin:

Djou won the special mail-in election with 39.7 percent of the vote in the final printout, released at 9 p.m.

The final printout represented 171,417 ballots returned by voters in the district, which stretches from Waikiki and downtown to Mililani.

 

Democrat Colleen Hanabusa was second at 31 percent, with Democrat Ed Case third at 27.8 percent.

But a win is a win, nonetheless.  And I hope he does a bang-up job for his state. In November he presumably will face just one Democrat, and will probably be the underdog. 

Then again, this looks like a strong Republican year.  You never know.

Ken Berwitz

How serious is homeland security about protecting our borders?  And how serious is the Obama administration about effective use of the "stimulus package" funding?

Read this piece by Mark Steyn and find out (the bold print is mine):

Saturday, May 22, 2010

That Ain't Hay, It's The USA   [Mark Steyn]

Kate McMillan has an interesting juxtaposition:

A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

That would be John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. As he sees it:

The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not “good government,” Morton said.

I gave a speech for the Goldwater Institute in Tucson a few weeks back, and several people came up from the border to see me. Like many letter writers I've heard from since, they told tales of living in remote properties where every night illegals cross their land. They lie awake at night frightened for their children and listening for footsteps in the yard. In effect, the sovereignty of the United States of America no longer applies in this territory - and John Morton and the Department of Homeland Security are entirely cool with that.

On the other hand:

FRANKLIN, Vt. — This is one sleepy border crossing.

At the Morses Line Port of Entry, on the U.S.-Canada border, the border station is located smack-dab in the middle of a Vermont dairy farm.

On average, 2 1/2 cars pass through an hour. The pace is so slow that U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents who man it have been known to fill out their days by driving golf balls in an adjoining meadow, shooting skeet or washing their cars.

As (I'd wager) the only National Reviewer ever to use the Franklin crossing, I would say that's a fair description. But that was until the stimulus came along!

The government, which got $420 million from the federal bailout to modernize land ports like this, wants to spend about $7 million to build an expanded station. To do it, the government says, it needs an adjoining 4.9-acre parcel now used to grow hay and corn.

Owners of the Rainville dairy farm were told last week that if they won't sell the hayfield for $39,500, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will use eminent domain to seize it.

"The arrogance of it is breathtaking," said Brian Rainville, 37, whose parents and two brothers run the 220-acre farm and milk 80 cows on it. "Why are we being asked to make that kind of sacrifice when they can't demonstrate a public need?"

The public need is national security, according to Customs and Border Protection... "Our airports, seaports, and land ports of entry are all part of an interconnected security network to facilitate entry and exit to and from our country," the agency said in a statement Tuesday. "When we fail to fortify one, we weaken the entire system, putting our national security at risk."

So what? On the southern border your national security is "at risk" as a matter of policy. Why can't a Vermont dairy farm get the same deal?

(PS Bonus points if you spotted that the title of this post comes from the 1941 Republic Picture Sis Hopkins, in honor of the impending centenary of the great Frank Loesser.)

That is how serious homeland security is.  And it is how seriously the "stimulus package" money is being used.

Thank you, Obama administration, for this truckload of Bull droppings.

Can they move the next elections up and make them come faster?  Please?

Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama has been President for almost a year and a half.  Congress has been run by Democrats for almost 3 1/2 years.

So if things are going wrong, who is to blame?  Why President Bush of course.

Is this lame?  Yes.  It could hardly be lamer.

Is it working?  Less and less.

Is President Obama still going to trot it out anyway?  You bet your bippy he is.  Welcome to Chicago.

Excerpted from Carole Lee's article at politico.com:

President Barack Obama is trying to ride the wave of anti-incumbency by taking on an unpopular politician steeped in the partisan ways of Washington.

It doesn’t matter that George W. Bush left office 16 months ago.

The White House’s mid-term election strategy is becoming clear – pit the Democrats of 2010 against the Republicans circa 2006, 2008 and 2009, including Bush.

It’s not clear that voters still want to hear it.

“If you’re the leader of a large corporation and you’re in power for a year and a half and you start off a meeting with your shareholders by blaming your predecessor, that wouldn’t go over very well,” said Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University. “This is a very weak approach. ... And I can’t imagine it having an impact on these very swing voters.”

Some Democrats would like Obama to shift his argument.

“The president needs to indict not simply Bush or even Republicans. He is a visionary thinker, and his rhetoric should reflect that,” said Democratic strategist Paul Begala. “I want President Obama to make a consistent, compelling indictment of conservative ideas.”

The message is layered. A shot at Bush (without mentioning his name.) A jab at congressional Republicans (although rarely saying “Republicans.”) A defense of the actions he’s taken so far.

It’s a striking approach for a president who often talks of looking forward not backward. But Obama’s aides believe that explaining how the economic crisis occurred and what happened since is a fair argument to make and an important contrast to draw.

“I don’t necessarily think of it as blame,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

If Obama wants to run against the Bush record again, Republicans welcome that debate.

They argue that Democrats have been in charge in Congress for four years, and the White House going on two. And with unemployment still nearing double-digits despite billions being added to the deficit, the GOP thinks Obama will have a tough time making his case.

“First of all I think that his attempt to try to blame 10 percent unemployment on the past administration will be viewed as a – I was trying to think of some other word other than a joke, but – I just don’t think people buy it,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee

“At some point after you’ve been president for a while, knowing you have the substantial majorities in the House and the Senate, people are going to say, ‘You know what? This is your responsibility.’ And I think we’ve arrived at that point.”

While the results of Tuesday’s elections don’t change the White House’s course of action, Republicans point out that running against Bush has backfired in elections so far. “That strategy didn't work so well in Virginia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, so they can knock themselves out,” said former Bush press secretary Dana Perino.

Democrats also are facing an enthusiasm problem this fall. Turnout was very low in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary between Sen. Arlen Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak. And a Gallup poll showed conservative voters are much more excited about voting in November – 45 percent say they’re “very enthusiastic,” compared with 22 percent of moderates and 26 percent of liberals.

Lame.  Lame and pathetic.  Lame, pathetic and increasingly rejected by voters.

But what other way does Barack Obama know besides the Chicago way? 

Well, the good news for Mr. Obama is that Democrats are virtually certain of winning in Chicago this year.  But I wouldn't expect them to be very happy with the national results. 

Maybe President Obama can push through a law enabling Mayor Daley to annex the rest of the country before November.  Yeah, that's the ticket......

Ken Berwitz

Governor Jan Brewer (R-Arizona) has thrown down the gauntlet to President Obama - and to the sanctimonious, smart-ass bordering states that have such a problem with her attempts to stanch the flood of illegals into Arizona.

Excerpted from an Associated Press article:

PHOENIX (AP) - Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is asking President Barack Obama to reallocate National Guard helicopters from other states to help Arizona secure its border with Mexico.

Brewer made the request in a letter to Obama dated Thursday and released Friday.

The governor acknowledges her request may be unpopular with other governors, but she says she believes there are legitimate national interests in sending more aircraft to Arizona.

What an interesting situation.  After all, why wouldn't a border state that has condemned Arizona be willing to give those helicopters up?

Let's think about California, which not only has done so, but has cities - Los Angeles among them -  which are specifically boycotting Arizona because it intends to be serious about illegal aliens. 

Since the powers that be in California think it is fine and dandy for illegals to stream in, eat up social services they did not pay taxes to provide, take jobs at lower wages that legal Californians a) will be denied or b) if they get them, will be paid lower wages because they are competing with illegals, etc. etc. etc. .....  what exactly does it need those helicopters for?

And if California does need the helicopters to try stopping illegal aliens from coming into the state, thus does not want illegals in the state, then what the hell are they complaining about if Arizona, for exactly the same reason, wants a way to get rid of the illegals who are already there?

Incidentally, I'm still waiting to hear Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa's response to the letter from Gary Pierce, a member of Arizona's utility commission, asking if he would like to give up the power that is supplied by Arizona to that city (about 25% of its total usage).

Here is Pierce's letter to Villraigosa:

Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona.  Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine.  As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Gary Pierce

Good for Mr. Pierce.  When someone makes a complete idiot of himself, as Villaraigosa did, it's nice to see him called on it.

Ken Berwitz

Did you know that there are plans to build a huge Mosque virtually on top of the “ground zero” site in lower Manhattan? 

It turns out that these plans may be in trouble.  And, personally, I am very glad.

From NBC News New York:

Ground Zero Mosque Plans Might Be Derailed

Decades-old Landmark ruling may stop building from being torn down

By KATIE HONAN

Updated 8:48 PM EDT, Fri, May 21, 2010

The plan to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero may have hit a snag, due to an over 20-year pending landmark status.

The American Society for Muslim Advancement purchased the 152-year-old building at 45 Park Place last year for $4.8 million.  Their controversial plan to tear down the building and construct a 13-story mosque and community center has had many critics who feel it's disrespectful to those lost during the September 11th attacks.

A 1989 decision by the Landmarks Commission to propose the landmark status of the building may now prevent the building from being razed and the $100 million mosque from being constructed.

The building is located on a site once owned by Columbia College, and is "a prominent example of the store and loft structures that dominated the drygoods warehouse districts of Lower Manhattan," said Elisabeth de Bourboun, the Landmarks Commission's Director of Communications.

It was was one of a handful in Tribeca that were proposed as individual landmarks and heard in the 1980s, but not designated, explained de Bourbon.

"These buildings were part of the community requests we received in the 1980s to designate the four Tribeca historic districts," she said. "The commission held a public hearing on a proposal to landmark the building in September 1989, and has taken no formal action since then."

The building was converted to a discount clothing store in the late 1960s, and was most recently leased to Burlington Coat Factory.

The Landmarks Commission plans to hold another public hearing in the future, although a date has not been scheduled.

Is there any legal reason the mosque should not be built?  Not that I am aware of.

Are all Muslims terrorists or terrorist sympathizers?  No.

But is it astoundingly insensitive – a big, crusty thumb in our eye, and a clearly intentional one at that – to build a mosque at that site?  You’re damn right it is.

This is the equivalent of building a museum of German culture next to Auschwitz.  It is the equivalent of building a monument to Turkey in Armenia.

And what a spectacular propaganda tool a mosque would be at ground zero.  What a great story to tell al qaeda and its pals:  “We not only blew it up, but we put the biggest, most expensive mosque in the world right where it was, and they couldn’t stop us!  We own them!”

So, bottom line:  While I cannot provide any specific reason for stopping a mosque from being built at that site, I would be thrilled, and relieved, if New York found a way to deep-six it.

Based on the NBC story, maybe that is what has happened.

Ken Berwitz

With all the opprobrium being heaped on Arizona by Democrats, including the appalling spectacle of them giving Mexican President felipe calderon a standing ovation as he stood in the house of representatives and trashed its new immigration laws, you might think that the state is pretty isolated right now. 

But you would be wrong.

Read this excerpt from an article at Fox News and see for yourself:

While Arizona faces the scorn of the White House and local governments across the country for its immigration law, lawmakers in several states are looking to follow the Grand Canyon State's lead. 

Lawmakers and politicians in Texas, Rhode Island, Utah and Georgia are among those who, in the month since Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law, have announced plans to introduce similar legislation. 

The officials say states need to take matters into their own hands to tackle illegal immigration and in turn reduce the taxpayer cost associated with large undocumented populations in their hospitals, schools and prisons. They draw inspiration directly from the Arizona law, bucking the trend of local and state officials who have protested Arizona and called for boycotts against the state. 

Rhode Island state Rep. Peter Palumbo has filed a bill that looks nearly identical to Arizona's. It requires law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally -- provided they don't stop someone on that basis alone. The proposal empowers police to turn over illegal immigrants to federal custody and also bars local jurisdictions from limiting immigration enforcement. Several other provisions in the bill are based on Arizona's law. 

Palumbo, a Democrat, told Fox News that Arizona residents were "merely trying to protect themselves" and that the Rhode Island bill could help the state save millions every year. 

"You don't need to be a ... border state to have problems with illegals," he said, estimating the number of undocumented residents in Rhode Island at 40,000. 

Palumbo acknowledged that his state might not be as receptive as Arizona to such a bill. He said he's got about a half-dozen co-sponsors but hopes media coverage can build support. 

"It's difficult. We have a lot of progressives in Rhode Island," he said. 

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, an anti-illegal immigration group, has tracked 17 states to date where lawmakers are pushing for Arizona-style enforcement bills

Our wonderful "neutral" media have decided to make Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats happy by providing we plebes with little other than negative coverage of what Arizona has done.  But the reality, as you can plainly see, is very different.

This country supports serious laws regarding the flood of illegal aliens across our borders -- even if some politicians try to pretend otherwise, and even if they are abetted by a media that have decided to avoid the other side of the story.

But the other side is there.  Don't think for a minute that it isn't.

Ken Berwitz

Can Connecticut Attorney General and presumptive senate candidate survive, when the New York Times, which figured to be among his most important supporters, is running exposé after exposé on his lies about his military service?

Here is the latest, via excerpts from Raymond Hernandez' article in today's edition: 

WASHINGTON -- Broader newspaper archival searches continue to turn up instances in which Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut portrayed himself as a Vietnam War veteran even though he did not serve in the war.

The most recent article unearthed is one published in The Milford Mirror, a weekly, describing an appearance he made at a May 2007 Memorial Day Parade in Milford, Conn., attended by local officials, military people and the relatives of a local man killed while serving in Iraq.

As people gathered around a bandstand to give praise to fallen veterans, the article said, Mr. Blumenthal recalled his days during the Vietnam War.

“In Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said, according to the article, “we had to endure taunts and insults, and no one said, ‘Welcome home.’ I say welcome home.”

The disclosure of the Milford episode comes days after The New York Times reported that Mr. Blumenthal, who is running for the United States, had falsely claimed that he had served in Vietnam, and had failed to correct reports in the news media that perpetuated the claim.

In one instance, according to The Times, Mr. Blumenthal told a Norwalk audience in 2008, “We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam.”

The article also described his attendance at a rally in Bridgeport, where about 100 military families gathered to express support for American troops overseas. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” he said. “Let us do better by this generation of men and women.”

Mr. Blumenthal has acknowledged that on occasion, he has misspoken about his military service. But he has said that he never intentionally misled the public about his military record.

The report in The Times was followed by a report in The Advocate of Stamford that described Mr. Blumenthal speaking about his military service during the Stamford Veterans Day parade on Nov. 9, 2008.

“I wore the uniform in Vietnam,” he said, “and many came back to all kinds of disrespect. Whatever we think of war, we owe the men and women of the armed forces our unconditional support.”

An honorable man would apologize profusely, take himself out of the senate race and resign as Attorney General.

But Blumenthal is not apologizing, not taking himself out of the senate race and not resigning as Attorney General.  Yet.

Common sense tells me that if his poll numbers stay down or drop further, however, his current supporters in the Democratic Party will quickly morph into erstwhile supporters, and he won't have a choice.

If it's going to happen, Democrats know that the sooner he does so, the better for them.

The next week or so should be interesting, and then some.

Ken Berwitz

If you believe the polling, Arizonans definitely are having second thoughts about the legislation regarding illegal aliens, which the Democratic party, especially the Obama administration, is so upset about.

From Rasmussen:

Arizona voters now support the state’s new immigration law more than ever and are still more inclined to think the law will be good for the state’s economy rather than bad. A lot of voters in the state are thinking it’s payback time, too, to those cities or states that boycott Arizona.

 

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Arizona finds that 71% now favor the immigration law, while 24% oppose it.

 

In late April, the law was supported by 64% of the state’s voters and opposed by 30%

Nationally, 55% of voters favor passage of such a law in their state.

There you have it. 

Arizonans used to be in favor of the laws by 64% - 30%. 

But now?  They are in favor of the laws by 71% - 24%.

And the overall country is solidly in favor of Arizona's laws as well.

Most U.S. voters have been following news reports about the new immigration law in Arizona, and 55% favor passage of such a law in their own state.

 

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 33% of voters are opposed to enactment of that kind of law. Another 12% are not sure.

 

When asked specifically about the chief provision of the Arizona law, support is even higher. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters believe a police officer should be required to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic violation or violation of some other law if he suspects the person might be an illegal immigrant.

 

Just 23% say police officers should not be required to do this.

But Democrats?  They stand and cheer while Mexico's President, instead of apologizing for running a country with so little opportunity that over 10% of its entire population has fled illegally to the United States, trashes those laws.

If that doesn't tell you something, you are immune to being told anything.

Ken Berwitz

Now that I've shown you a video of Mexican President felipe calderon telling us that Arizona has no right to protect its border - to the enthusiastic delight of house Democrats who gave him a standing ovation for his comments - I thought you would like you to see Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) tell this loudmouthed ingrate where to go and what to do when he gets there.

THANK YOU TOM MCCLINTOCK! 

And shame on you, house Democrats.  Which side are you on, anyway?  Or is that standing ovation your way of answering the question?

Ken Berwitz

Did Barack Obama and his sycophants dump Dennis Blair because Mr. Blair's competence and honest embarrassed them?

Read Steve Gilbert's excellent take-apart of the Associated Press article on Blair, from www.sweetness-light.com, and decide for yourself.:

DNI Admiral Blair Forced Out By Obama

May 21st, 2010

From an always compliant Associated Press:

Intelligence director knew his days were numbered

By Kimberly Dozier, Associated Press Writer Fri May 21, 2010

WASHINGTON – For months, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair has been a dead man walking — and he knew it. So constant and vicious were the leaks from the White House and Congress of his imminent departure that he opened a recent speech on intelligence reform with a joke that his replacement would be Redskins quarterback Donovan McNabb.

The crowd’s laughter was just a little uncomfortable, as Blair himself spotlighted the elephant in the room by suggesting that even the just-traded NFL star was being mentioned to fill the job.

So Mr. Blair was able to ‘connect’ some ‘dots.’

Everyone seemed to know this just wasn’t working.

His 16-month tenure had been studded with public intelligence failures, turf wars and that uniquely inside-the-Beltway ritual humiliation via leaks to the press.

Of course the greatest “humiliation” was probably that nobody has ever heard of him before. Indeed, we are probably only hearing about him now because the Obama administration needs a fall guy.

And Dennis Blair is so outside the Obama circle, he didn’t even go to Harvard. He went to the Naval Academy instead, which is Harvard’s polar opposite.

And, weirdly, Admiral Blair actually had some background for his job. Which probably made him stick out like a sore thumb, as well.

Blair’s official decision to step down came Thursday after an Oval office meeting with President Barack Obama, according to two senior congressional staffers. They said it became clear by the end of the meeting that Blair had "lost the confidence of the president." …

The good news is that Mr. Holder and Ms. Napolitano and Mr. Panetta – all still enjoy Mr. Obama’s full confidence.

Two other government officials said several candidates already had been interviewed for the DNI job, which is to oversee the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies…

It’s a cinch they will pick a leftwing radical with little or no on-the-job experience, but who went to Harvard or near abouts.

Blair’s later testimony before Congress did not endear him to the White House, the officials said, when he acknowledged that an elite interrogation team known as the High-Value Interrogation Group had not been deployed to question Abdulmutallab. Blair may have further damaged himself by admitting that he had not been consulted on whether the HIG unit should have been used…

In other words, Mr. Blair “damaged himself” by telling the truth. Actually, that makes sense. Since it is clear such a man would not fit in with the rest of Mr. Obama’s acolytes.

Blair was the first Obama administration official to describe the deadly shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, last fall as an act of homegrown extremism. The administration had previously been reluctant to call the suspect, an Army psychiatrist, a homegrown terrorist or extremist…

Again, Mr. Obama certainly cannot have people in his administration speaking the obvious truth. Or as Mr. Obama put it, “jumping to conclusions.”

What a blunder, putting someone into a position of authority with an actual background in what he was doing and a serious intention to address it honestly instead of politically.

No wonder Blair is unceremoniously dumped. 

Didn't he ever hear of the Chicago way?

Ken Berwitz

Warning:  If you have a weak stomach, this video is not for you.

Here is a video of Mexican President Felipe Calderon, standing before the US house of representatives and lecturing us on why he is against Arizona's new laws - the laws enacted to prevent the tidal wave of CALDERON'S OWN PEOPLE from illegally coming into the United States.

And the house of representatives' reaction?  Its Democrats give calderon a standing ovation.

Do yoiu think I must be kidding?  Just Crazy? 

Do you think it is impossible that congressional Democrats would give a standing ovation to a head of state with the gall to stand before them and criticize an attempt to secure this country's borders from his own people - an attempt that Calderon is either incapable or unwilling to mount? 

Then watch and see for yourself:

Ken Berwitz

Here's a construction project you won't hear a peep about from President Obama.

It comes to us via H'aaretz, the (decidedly leftward) Israel daily:

Latest update 01:35 21.05.10

Hamas to raze 180 Gaza houses to erect Islamic religious center

Palestinian Center for Human Rights says Gaza authorities already destroyed 20 homes, forcing 150 people to live in tents.

By Avi Issacharoff

The Hamas government in the Gaza Strip plans to raze another 180 Palestinian houses, on top of the 20 it recently demolished in the southern town of Rafah, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights charged on Thursday.

The 20 houses already destroyed were home to some 150 people, who are now homeless and living in tents, the organization said.

The government said it razed the houses because they were built illegally on government land. The organization said that Hamas plans to use the same pretext to demolish houses in Khan Yunis and other towns.

Most of these houses' inhabitants are poor, the organization said, and several saw their previous houses demolished during the years of fighting with Israel.

Palestinians sources told Haaretz that the area in question, comprising around 200 dunams (some 50 acres ), had been given by the Hamas government to a charitable organization called Fadila so that it could build a religious study center there comprising a school, a college and a mosque. But when Fadila sought to begin construction, it discovered that dozens of houses had been built on the site. In most cases, these houses were built by owners whose original homes had been destroyed by the Israel Defense Forces.

Fadila applied to the Hamas government, which asked the residents to leave. When they refused, saying they had nowhere to go, the government went to court, and the court ordered them to leave. The government then began razing the houses.

Hamas halted the demolitions after they sparked outrage among ordinary Gazans and the Palestinian media. But the Palestinian Center for Human Rights fears they are slated to resume soon.

This is not the first move Hamas has made recently that sparked an outcry in Gaza. Another was its decision to impose a hefty tax on the cigarettes that are smuggled in from Egypt via tunnels, and which until then were very cheap. It has also imposed taxes on various other products smuggled through the tunnels, as well as on market stalls and all shops that sell produce by weight.

The taxes are meant to improve the Hamas government's financial plight. Its revenues have recently declined, due to the international community's efforts to crack down on fund transfers to Hamas from overseas banks, especially in Europe. In addition, less cash is being smuggled in via the tunnels, due to Egypt's crackdown on the cross-border smuggling business.

Last month, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine even warned of a popular uprising against the new decrees - or in other words, an intifada.

Interesting, wouldn't you say?  Hamas, which enthusiastically joined in condemning Israel for building housing units in a primarily Jewish part of East Jerusalem, has no problem tearing down housing for its own people, to build a "religious center" (and, given that it is hamas-controlled Gaza, you can guess what quality of "religion" will be taught there).

Maybe they just don't like housing.

I'm also fascinated by the "hefty tax on the cigarettes that are smuggled in from Egypt via tunnels....(and) various other products smuggled through the tunnels...". 

How do you tax stolen goods?  How do you know where they are and that they were stolen - unless, of course, you are involved in the operation.

Wouldn't it be a tad easier to make a serious peace settlement with the Israelis and peacefully coexist with them?  Then Israel, with dramatically more of everything Gaza lacks, would be a major asset and benefit to the Palestinian Arabs living there, instead of just a bunch of Jews they want dead.

That would benefit both sides immeasurably, very especially Palestinian Arabs.  Which, sad to say, intuitively explains why hamas won't ever allow it to happen.

Ken Berwitz

It wasn't hard to find a positive view of the finance and banking reform legislation.  I just looked at the New York Times news section (not opinion, its news story).

Here, excerpted from the Times' article by David M. Herszenhorn, is the positive side:

Senate Passes Broader Rules for Overseeing Wall Street

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

Published: May 20, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday approved a far-reaching financial regulatory bill, putting Congress on the brink of approving a broad expansion of government oversight of the increasingly complex banking system and financial markets.

 

The legislation is intended to prevent a repeat of the 2008 crisis, but also reshapes the role of numerous federal agencies and vastly empowers the Federal Reserve in an attempt to predict and contain future debacles.

 

The vote was 59 to 39, with four Republicans joining the Democratic majority in favor of the bill. Two Democrats opposed the measure, saying it was still not tough enough.

Democratic Congressional leaders and the Obama administration must now work to combine the Senate measure with a version approved by the House in December, a process that is expected to take several weeks.

While there are important differences — notably a Senate provision that would force big banks to spin off some of their most lucrative derivatives business into separate subsidiaries — the bills are broadly similar, and it is virtually certain that Congress will adopt the most sweeping regulatory overhaul since the aftermath of the Great Depression.

“It’s a choice between learning from the mistakes of the past or letting it happen again,” the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said after the vote. “For those who wanted to protect Wall Street, it didn’t work.”

The bill seeks to curb abusive lending, particularly in the mortgage industry, and to ensure that troubled companies, no matter how big or complex, can be liquidated at no cost to taxpayers. And it would create a “financial stability oversight council” to coordinate efforts to identify risks to the financial system. It would also establish new rules on the trading of derivatives and require hedge funds and most other private equity companies to register for regulation with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Passage of the bill would be a signature achievement for the White House, nearly on par with the recently enacted health care law. President Obama, speaking in the Rose Garden on Thursday afternoon, declared victory over the financial industry and “hordes of lobbyists” that he said had tried to kill the legislation.

“The recession we’re emerging from was primarily caused by a lack of responsibility and accountability from Wall Street to Washington,” Mr. Obama said, adding, “That’s why I made passage of Wall Street reform one of my top priorities as president, so that a crisis like this does not happen again.”

The president also signaled that he would take a strong hand in developing the final bill, which could mean changes to the restrictive derivatives provisions the Senate measure includes and Wall Street opposes. It is also likely that the administration will try to remove an exemption in the House bill that would shield auto dealers from oversight by a new consumer protection agency. Earlier, Mr. Obama had criticized the provision as a “special loophole” that would hurt car buyers.

Ok.  with this and the previous blog you have seen both sides. 

Now you're on your own.

Ken Berwitz

The Obama banking reform bill has been voted through to debate, and a vote - a successful one, given the huge majority Democrats have in both houses - is virtually certain.

But what is it and what does it do?

I'm not going to pretend to know about financial regulatory legislation.  So I'm going to give both the positive and negative sides, as I find them, for you to make up your own mind.

Here, from Mark Calabria (the Director of Financial-Regulatory Studies at the Cato Institute) is a negative view:

Dodd's do-nothing financial 'reform'

Last Updated: 4:44 AM, May 21, 2010

 Mark A. Calabria

Wall Street is heaving a quiet sigh of relief: All Washington is going to give us for "financial reform" in the wake of the collapse of 2008 is a law based on Sen. Chris Dodd's bill.

That thin semblance of reform will let Congress and the Obama administration claim they brought Wall Street to heel. But by dodging all the hard issues, this "reform" makes it likely that the next crisis will put the last one to shame.

 

Start with ending "too big to fail": Despite Dodd's floor statements (and improvements made at the request of Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on Dodd's committee), the bill actually fur ther enshrines the special and privileged status of our largest financial institutions. It squashes whatever hope there was of bringing back market discipline to our largest financial institutions -- and guarantees ever-increasing concentration in our financial markets.

 

Going forward, we are left with relying on only the discretionary wisdom of the same regulators who were asleep at the wheel last time. And though that crisis cost millions their jobs, the Dodd bill won't see even one incompetent bureaucrat lose his.

 

Yes, the Dodd bill eliminates the Office of Thrift Supervision -- but it guarantees that all OTS employees will have jobs at the new bank regulator. How exactly is moving around boxes on the organizational chart going to prevent the next financial crisis? (Ironically, OTS was itself created in the "crackdown" after another Washington-sparked meltdown, the savings-and-loan crisis of the late '80s.)

 

Indeed, the real theme of the Dodd bill is: Give the bureaucrats more power and discretion, without any accountability. Its main achievement is to set up a new agency that will largely determine who, what and how it will regulate.

But the bill itself doesn't touch even blatant problems.

 

For example, with almost universal recognition that banks lacked sufficient capital going into the financial crisis, it should be a "no-brainer" to fix our flawed regulation of bank capital -- in other words, to prevent banks from borrowing 40 times as much as their assets, as Lehman Bros. was doing shortly before its collapse.

 

Sorry, no: The Dodd bill simply proposes that its new "council of regulators" may recommend that the Federal Reserve impose more stringent standards. Yes, that's may. The bill doesn't even require regulators to change the current levels or framework for bank capital.

 

Even where Dodd claims to be the toughest, on issues of consumer protection, he simply punts to the regulators and the trial bar. That is, he orders bureaucrats to do better -- and makes it easier for lawyers to sue.

 

The bill doesn't even eliminate zero-down mortages -- or any of the irresponsible lending products that plainly contributed to the crisis. Indeed, Dodd twice fought off floor amendments to require modest down payments.

Perhaps most insulting is Dodd's pretense that ordering up a "study" should count as addressing an issue. By my count, the bill requires the Government Accountability Office or the financial regulators to conduct no less than 28 separate studies.

 

What's Dodd's solution to the failings of the credit-rating agencies? A study.

 

His answer to the crisis in the auction-rate-securities and municipal-debt markets? A study. What to do about proprietary trading? A study. How about the flawed home-appraisal process that contributed to inflated housing prices? You got it, another study.

 

The worst of all; How do we protect the taxpayer from further losses from Fannie and Freddie? One more study, of course -- although Dodd has assured us that this one will be a "tough study."

 

Our system of financial regulation is an embarrassing mess. But rather than restructure it, the Senate bill doubles down on the flaws and weakness of that mess.

 

It would be nice, just once, to see Congress make some hard choices and legislate -- especially when the longterm health of America's financial system is at issue.

Obviously, Mr. Calabria is not taken with this "reform".  So there's your negative side.  I will look for, and post, a positive view before the day is out.

Ken Berwitz

....nothing will. 

Ken Berwitz

This blog is from Ed Morrissey of www.hotair.com.  Ed dismantles President Obama's absurd, dishonest claim that he is cutting taxes. 

Please read Ed's analysis below (paying special attention to the last two paragraphs which I have put in bold print), to see just how bogus the Obama claim is.  And - in fairness to Mr. Morrissey since I am lifting his entire blog - please log onto hotair.com and read him, and the other contributors there, every day.  You won't material like this in mainstream media, I assure you.

Obama tax cuts a “bait and switch”

posted at 2:55 pm on May 20, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The AP decided today to fact-check one of the Obama administration’s favorite claims — that they have passed so many tax cuts that Tea Partiers should be rallying to thank him.  The White House unveiled a small business tax credit this week, as part of the ObamaCare bill, that they claimed would stimulate job creation.  However, as the AP discovers, it may actually hinder both job creation and salary growth:

Zach Hoffman was confident his small business would qualify for a new tax cut in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law.

But when he ran the numbers, Hoffman discovered that his office furniture company wouldn’t get any assistance with the $79,200 it pays annually in premiums for its 24 employees. “It leaves you with this feeling of a bait-and-switch,” he said.

When the administration unveiled the small business tax credit earlier this week, officials touted its “broad eligibility” for companies with fewer than 25 workers and average annual wages under $50,000 that provide health coverage. Hoffman’s workers earn an average of $35,000 a year, which makes it all the more difficult to understand why his company didn’t qualify.

Lost in the fine print: The credit drops off sharply once a company gets above 10 workers and $25,000 average annual wages.

It’s an example of how the early provisions of the health care law can create winners and losers among groups lawmakers intended to help—people with health problems, families with young adult children and small businesses. Because of the law’s complexity, not everyone in a broadly similar situation will benefit.

CBS actually took the lead on reporting the skewed incentives in the tax credit, prior to the final vote on the bill.  Their report mainly focused on the disincentives to provide health insurance, given the cost of such policies and the much lower cost of the penalties involved.  The AP picks up what CBS missed, which is that even the tax credits create strange incentives and disincentives for business owners.

In order to qualify for the full tax credit, business owners have to keep their staff to 10 or fewer workers and the average salary at the poverty line. What will business owners do under that set of incentives?  They certainly won’t take the risk of expansion past the 10-worker level, not unless they’re certain to get a return greater than both the extra costs of the workers and the lost opportunity cost of the tax credit.  The same is true for offering higher wages.  Instead of only having to scale the market burden for labor costs, the Obama administration has a tax penalty that now must be overcome before an owner pays something above poverty-level wages.

Actually, it’s worse than that.  The tax credit disappears unless the business has 10 or fewer workers and pays less than $25K per worker in average salary. In an economy that’s having trouble creating jobs and getting real wage growth, why did the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress set the incentives against both?

Ken Berwitz

Here, from London's Daily Mail, are a series of products from around the world with names you might find, well, less than appetizing.

Read them below, and then see how long it takes you to want to ingest food and drink again:

.

Swedes think this candy is dandy, they account for 95 per cent of sales. Wonder why...

Drink enough of Pee Cola and you will feel the effects of the beverage which keeps Ghanaians on the go... Bottoms up with Arse wine! It's a cheeky wine from French vineyards

Fillipina women are very serious about skincare - they use this Placenta night cream to keep their faces silky soft

R Whites has a rival, but does it keep the Danes off the Carlsberg? And with Deeppresso coffee there is no chance of a caffeine buzz!

You've been warned: These Chinese crisps have a unique taste. Golden Gaytime? In New Zealand, of course, real men don't eat ice lollies...

You thought that was tomato pizza sauce? For red-blooded Mexicans. They may want to try Canadian pasta too - Fagottini tastes great with mushy peas

Is the drug problem that bad in the Netherlands? This starch obviously won't work on high collars. While Snob is not so much a Brazilian kitchen towel, more a roll of honour

Don't try taking this soft drink on your flight from Venezuela... and as for Pocari sweat, the Japanese drink a lot of it. They work those Pocaris very hard

Genetically modified to include Viagra, perhaps? From the U.S. comes the all-new five a day

Ken Berwitz

On March 26th, a South Korean ship sunk, with loss of life and cargo.  There appeared to be an explosion, and it was speculated that the ship had intentionally been sunk by North Korea.   At that time I wrote the following:

Do you find this story as bizarre as I do?

 

It says that, according to US officials, there was no indication the boat was attacked or that the North was involved in any way. 

 

But then, in the next sentence, a South Korean spokesperson says "it is not clear" whether North Korea was involved, which means the answer is in doubt. 

 

And the next sentence after that says that staff in Seoul "could not conclude" that North Korea attacked the ship, which means they don't know one way of the other.

 

Tell me:  How does the US know more about this than the South Koreans?  Based on what, other than wishful thinking?

 

Personally, I hope the US officials are right.  Because if they aren't we may be about to see a grotesquely bloody war that could quickly draw other countries into it. 

 

Keep  your fingers crossed.  This is no joke.

Our ever-vigilant media, however, treated it as little more than a joke, and have written virtually nothing about this incident since it occurred.

But now we have the following, excerpted from an Associated Press article today:

SEOUL - North Korea said Thursday that South Korea fabricated evidence implicating the North in a torpedo attack in order to pick on the North and any attempt at retaliating for the warship's sinking would be answered with "all-out war."

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak vowed "stern action" for the attack after a multinational investigation issued its long-awaited results Thursday, concluding the North fired a torpedo that sank the Cheonan navy ship March 26 near the Koreas' tense sea border.

"If the (South Korean) enemies try to deal any retaliation or punishment or if they try sanctions or a strike on us ... we will answer to this with all-out war," Col. Pak In Ho of North Korea's navy told broadcaster APTN in an exclusive interview in Pyongyang.

Do you think, just maybe, it is time for media to start covering this story?

Ken Berwitz

First, the news itself, which is excerpted from an Associated Press article:

WASHINGTON - The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months. The surge is evidence of how volatile the job market remains, even as the economy grows.

Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.

The forecast had been for claims to fall by around 4,000 from the previous week.

"Although no one expects this volatile series to go in one direction every single week, this is clearly a disappointment," said Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets.

The total was the highest since new claims stood at 480,000 on April 10. It also pushed the average for the last four weeks to 453,500.

Employers are hiring again, but not at levels needed to make a dent.

Now a few questions:  Will we be hearing about this prominently on the nightly news this evening?  The morning shows tomorrow?  Will we be reading about it prominently in the New York Times, or Washington Post or LA Times?

I would love the answer to be "yes" across the board, because this is extremely important news.  But I know that isn't going to happen.

A media which told us it was good news when unemployment jumped from 9.7% to 9.9% earlier this month, is a media that will not talk turkey about jobless claims.

Remember when President Obama insisted his Democrat-majority congress pass the so-called "Stimulus Package" immediately - literally before almost anyone could even read it - because it would cap unemployment at 8%?  The unemployment numbers certainly were important then, weren't they?

But when congress did pass it, and unemployment jumped to 10.2% before drifting back to the current 9.9%?  That's ok.  It's not a problem.  Besides, if it is, blame Bush, not Obama - it's his fault, you see. 

This is another example of why people are running from mainstream media in droves, to seek out alternative sources of information.  Can you blame them?

Ken Berwitz

The Obama administration’s commentaries on illegal immigration are a pack of lies.  There’s no other way to describe them.

Let’s start with the following excerpts from an Associated Press article by Ben Feller, and see what they tell us.  Please pay special attention to the paragraph I’ve put in bold print:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Confronting soaring frustration over illegal immigration, President Barack Obama on Wednesday condemned Arizona's crackdown and pushed instead for a federal fix the nation could embrace. He said that will never happen without Republican support, pleading: "I need some help."

In asking anew for an immigration overhaul, Obama showed solidarity with his guest of honor, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who called Arizona's law discriminatory and warned Mexico would reject any effort to "criminalize migration." The United States and Mexico share a significant economic and political relationship that stands to be damaged the more the nations are at odds over immigration, which affects millions of people on both sides of the border.

Obama sought to show that he, too, is fed up with his own government's failure to fix a system widely seen as broken. He said that would require solving border security, employment and citizenship issues all at once - the kind of effort that collapsed in Congress just three years ago.

The president's stand underscored the forces working against him in this election year: the need for help from Republican critics, the impatience of states like Arizona after federal inaction, the pressure to show movement on a campaign promise, and the mood of the public disgusted by porous borders.

The Arizona law requires police to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and it makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. People may be questioned about their status if they've been stopped by police who are in the process of enforcing another law.

The law will take effect July 29 unless legal challenges are successful. Almost twice as many people support it as those who oppose it, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll this month. It found that 42 percent favored it, 24 percent opposed it and another 29 percent said they were neutral.

Yet in a Rose Garden appearance with Calderon, Obama called the Arizona law "a misdirected expression of frustration." He expects to announce soon what action his government may take about it, once the Justice Department finishes reviewing whether the law violates civil rights.

"In the United States of America, no law-abiding person - be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico - should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like," Obama said.

Ok, let's review:

-The idea that Republicans will not sign on to significant legislation that seriously addresses illegals flooding the USA from Mexico?  A lie.  Republicans have been begging for it.

 

-The idea that “Obama is fed up with his own government’s failure…” when it comes to illegal immigration?  A lie.  What legislation has Barack Obama proposed to stem this tidal wave of illegals?  When did he propose it?  Who backed it and who criticized it?  The answers are none, never, and no one since it doesn’t exist.  

 

Other than using BS palaver like “comprehensive immigration reform” which means nothing and suggests nothing specific, not a thing has been done since Mr. Obama took office.  The fault lies squarely on his shoulders, along with his lopsidedly Democratic congress.  Blaming Republicans is fraud in the first degree.

 

-The idea that anyone can be rousted and asked for ID at any time just because of the way they look? A lie.  Read that paragraph in bold print again, and see for yourself.

 

Could police officers abuse the limits of their authority and profile by race?  Yes they could, as police could abuse the limits of their authority for every other law that exists.  But a) it doesn’t mean they will do so and b) even if they did, what are we supposed to do, take all the laws off the books because they might at some point be abused?  The argument is ludicrous. 

In the past week we have heard President Barack Obama, Attorney General eric holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Asst. Secretary of State Michael Posner tell us that they have not read Arizona’s new immigration laws (a total of about 15 – 20 pages in their entirety).  

My initial impulse was to be appalled that they have been lecturing us about what’s wrong with this law and threatening legal action to stop it, without even reading what it says.  That makes them look like a bunch of idiots.

But I have reconsidered.

In thinking about it further, I now realize that they had to say they didn’t read the legislation in order to perpetuate the lies they are telling about it – most specifically that it enables police to walk up to anyone at any time regardless of cause and ask for ID.  

If they admitted to reading the laws, they could not possibly make this claim.  So they had to pretend they are idiots who did not read the law, to avoid being called on the lies they are telling about it – lies which our wonderful “neutral” media have happily perpetuated and implanted in people’s minds for over a week.  

Now it won’t matter if, after the fact, some media acknowledge they are misstating what the law says - as Mr. Feller did in the above write-up.  People already “know” that law enforcement officers, using the same techniques perfected in nazi Germany,  will accost Mexican-looking people who take their children out for ice cream, and demand to see their papers.  Even though it is not at all true.

The title calls this a pack of lies.  And that is exactly what it is.

Thank you Mr. Obama and thank you mainstream media.  Mission accomplished.

Ken Berwitz

I know it won't happen, at least not because of this.  But it should, damn it.  It should.

Here is Investors Business Daily's latest editorial on the national disgrace that is eric holder, posted this evening.  It stands by itself, no need for me to elaborate.

Read what IBD says, and  you'll understand why:

Eric Holder Vs. Black Panthers

 Posted 06:49 PM ET

Civil Rights: The Justice Department explains that it dropped a Black Panther voter-intimidation case because of lack of evidence. Pay no attention to the thugs outside the polling place. Yet another reason Eric Holder must go.

On Election Day 2008, New Black Panther Party members King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Sha-bazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint with civil violations by "allegedly" violating the Voting Rights Act through intimidation, threats and coercion as they stood outside a Philadelphia polling place.

It was what Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, called "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen" — Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb, one brandishing a nightstick and saying things like, "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"

In January 2009, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit charging violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. When none of the defendants filed a response or showed up at a subsequent hearing, we'd have thought DOJ would have won its suit by default.

Instead, in May 2009, it let two of the three walk and issued a weak injunction against Shabazz forbidding him from showing up at another Philadelphia polling place with another nightstick and intimidating other voters for the next three years, an action that was already illegal. He is presumably free to do the same thing in, say, New Jersey in 2012.

No real explanation of this outrageous decision was forthcoming, and DOJ refused requests for its documentation on the case. On Tuesday, J. Christian Adams, a career DOJ attorney in the Voting Rights Section, resigned, citing his personal exposure in the DOJ's refusal to honor Civil Rights Commission subpoenas.

Last Friday, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission held a hearing on the matter to which DOJ sent Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, to explain why DOJ dropped a case it had won. He testified that "the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes." Say what?

"After reviewing the evidence, the department concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the party or Malik Zulu Shabazz violated Section 11(b)," Perez said in his testimony.

Perhaps Perez or Holder has not seen the YouTube video of the Panthers doing exactly what they were charged with doing or saw the statements of witnesses.

Last August, Gerald A. Reynolds, chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, told the Washington Times, in a bit of an understatement, that the Justice Department had been offering "weak justifications."

"If you swap out the New Black Panther Party in this case for neo-Nazi groups or the Ku Klux Klan, you likely would have had a different outcome," he said.

 

At an April 23 commission hearing, witnesses testified to how the Black Panthers acted in concert, threatening black Republicans and whites who showed up. Two witnesses testified that they saw some would-be voters turn back and leave without voting after seeing the nightstick and being called "white devils."

 

As we recently noted, Eric Holder's Justice Department refuses to enforce U.S. law as written but bends it and shapes it to serve the purposes of the administration's political agenda. Tea Party members who protest the administration's policies are racists; Black Panthers threatening voters are no threat at all.

 

Holder will not enforce federal immigration law to protect our borders while railing against an Arizona version he has not read. He wants to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed minutes from the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, having given him the same rights as the thousands he murdered. The crotch-bomber from Yemen is Mirandized minutes after failing in his attempt at a "man-caused disaster."

 

The iconic statue showing a lady holding the scales of justice while wearing a blindfold is meant to show that justice should be blind. In the case of Eric Holder, she is hiding her shame that it isn't.

Ken Berwitz

Since the left, especially among its media people, has made such a big deal about incivility from the right being dangerous and possibly engendering extremism and violence - and since this has been echoed by top-echelon members of the Obama administration, including the President himself - I thought I would show you a couple of really disgusting examples.  Except they ain't from the right:

First we have dylan ratigan of MSNBC talking about Glen Beck, who wipes up the floor with MSNBC ratings-wise every day:

"The only problem here is that Glenn Beck and Goldline are largely snake oil salesmen and scumbags, trying to create money for themselves at the expense of everybody in this country." 

Then there is mike malloy, who seems to think the only way he will get ratings on his radio show is to say things like this, speaking of Rep. Michele Bachmann:

"You know Michelle Bachmann, this fruitcake from - no, that gives fruitcakes a bad name - this half-ass, this half-wit; this jerk-ward from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann

Yep, they do have a point.  I'll bet mainstream media, which happily reported the danger of this kind of language posed when it was from the right (whether real or imagined - think about those phony, non-existent racial slurs) will have these comments all over their papers and newscasts tomorrow.

Sure.  And 12 million illegal aliens will stream back to Mexico on Thursday, apologizing to Joe Arpaio as they cross the border.

Ken Berwitz

Holy mackerel (and I do not mean mackerel).

Remember that cheerleading squad of military veterans Richard Blumenthal surrounded himself with, to conjure up an aura of credibility? 

Well, it seems that at least one of them looks to be as fraudulent as Blumenthal.

From the www.pownetwork.org web site, which tracks phony vets and vets who exaggerate their accomplishments, we have this:

 

WILLIAM JOSEPH TRUMPOWER aka Elliott Storm CLAIMING BRONZE STAR w/VALOR device.  Claims 2nd Lt, Claims Wears 3 Purple Hearts, 2 Bronze Stars w/V.   The jacket in EARLIER pictures boasted 8 ribbons.  This NEW pic has more and includes V device on Bronze Star and 2nd Lt bars. Claims he worked with Ollie North. Reported to have an officer's ID card for 100% disability. Noted as a Disabled American Veteran, commissioned officer 01, Marine Corps.

ACTUAL - National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Combat Action Ribbon, Purple Heart w/1*.  Served 11 Oct 1968 to 30 Jan 1970 as a USMC rifleman (MOS 0311). Has enlisted service number (not officer's). Most likely discharged an E-2 or E-3.

So we see that Trumpower/Storm did serve in Vietnam per se.  But apparently he decided to significantly embellish his accomplishments there, probably to sell his book (I won't provide its name - if you want to find out you'll have to do it on your own).

Just like Richard Blumenthal served in the military during the Vietnam era, but significantly embellished his accomplishments by claiming to have fought in Vietnam when he never set foot there.

What's that old saying about birds of a feather?

Ken Berwitz

This incredibly sick report is excerpted from an article by Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller of ABC News:

Mexican President Felipe Calderon took the unusual step Wednesday morning of criticizing an American law while visiting the White House, saying cooperation is needed to fix the US-Mexican immigration issue but "such laws as the Arizona law that is forcing our people to face discrimination. If we are divided, we cannot overcome these problems."

President Obama welcomed Calderon and Mexican First Lady Margarita Zavala this morning with a hearty, “bienvenidos” during a ceremony on the South Lawn marking the start of a full day’s worth of events culminating in a formal state dinner this evening, President Obama’s second.

The Arizona law has not yet taken effect, but the president has voiced repeated opposition to it and Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department is looking into how it will be implemented to ensure against racial profiling, though last week Holder told a congressional committee that he had not yet read the law. (A Justice Department spokesman later said that Holder had been “thoroughly briefed” on the law, which has since been amended.)

President Obama did not specifically mention his opposition to the Arizona law, though White House officials say it will be a topic of discussion during the two leaders closed-door meetings throughout the day at the White House.

“Mexican-American families have been here for centuries,” President Obama said, noting “our proud tradition as a nation of immigrants, all of whom strengthen our American family and who join us today. Working together, we have built upon these bridges.  We've forged a new era of cooperation and partnership between our countries based on mutual interest, mutual respect and mutual responsibility.”

How nice of President Obama to be so deferential to President Calderon of Mexico, a country in which over 10% of its entire population has fled to the United States, most of them illegally. 

How nice of President Obama to listen to, and apparently accept, a lecture on borders from President Calderon of Mexico, a country which immediately jails and then deports people who cross its borders illegally.

I have a great idea.  Maybe, just maybe, President Obama should find a reasonably diplomatic way of telling President Calderon to take his lectures and shove them straight where the sun don't shine.

Mexico is pathetic.  It has the financial strength to take care of its people, but does not.  How else do you account for the 12 - 15 MILLION of them who have fled over the border into the United States?  Do you think they do that because Mexico offers them opportunity?  Respect? 

But instead of telling Mr. Calderon to take care of his own people before giving us lessons in immigration, Mr. Obama is busy accepting the crap sandwich Calderon is serving, and apparently agreeing with him.

When does President Obama ever act like he thinks we are the good guys?  When does he ever not see us as the bad guys?  With a President like this, who needs enemies of the state?

Dear 2012 election:  Please try to get here faster.

Ken Berwitz

Ever hear of Dale Peterson? 

He is running for Agricultural Commissioner in Alabama.  So, unless you live there, you probably don't know about him at all.

But a man who puts up a political ad like this?  In the words of Willie Loman's wife Linda, "Attention must be paid".

Watch it by clicking here, and you'll see why.  Believe me.

Ken Berwitz

For those of you following the saga of this @*&#$%@ bird that spent almost a week waking us up at 5:30AM by bouncing itself off the window over our bed......

That greenish plastic cover I put over the window worked!!  The bird has not bothered us for two mornings!!

Ok, ok, I admit it might be a coincidence, the bird's eggs might have hatched and they're all gone.  But I don't know that one way or the other.  So I prefer to think that covering the window did it. 

You got a problem with that?  If you do, see the bird.

Ken Berwitz

The disastrous outing of Richard Blumenthal as a liar who claimed to serve in Vietnam but never set foot there, continues.

Excerpted from James Hohmann's blog at politico.com:

The commander of Connecticut’s Veterans of Foreign Wars organization blasted Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal Tuesday, referring to his prior statements of service in Vietnam as “outrageous.”

 

“Mr. Blumenthal was considered one of the best friends a veteran could have in Connecticut. It is a true shame that he let a false claim of Vietnam service change that,” said Richard DiFederico, in a statement. “Those who served in uniform during the Vietnam era also deserve our gratitude, which makes Mr. Blumenthal's claim to be something he is not so outrageous.”

 

DiFederico’s statement came after Blumenthal’s dramatic and defiant press conference Tuesday at a VFW hall in West Hartford, an event which took place in response to a New York Times report that the Connecticut attorney general had on more than one occasion said he had served in Vietnam, although his time in the Marine Corps Reserve was in fact spent in Washington and Connecticut

 

Blumenthal is not a member of the VFW, and national leaders noted that he wouldn’t meet the eligibility requirement if he tried to join because he didn’t actually serve in a theatre of combat. The group’s bylaws also do not allow any level of the organization to endorse political candidates.

I have to believe that, however many instances of Blumenthal lying either directly or by implication about his "service" in Vietnam we currently know of, there are more.  The man has been in and out of public service for over 30 years.  It stands to reason that someone who lied several times about his military career that we already know about would have done so other times as well.  And if there are other such instances, you can count on them being squirreled away by Republicans so that his eventual opponent can use them to maximum benefit during the general campaign.

Yesterday, I wondered if the revelations about Blumenthal's military service (or non-service if you wish) would force him to bow out as the Democratic Senate candidate.  I would have to say that Commander DiFederico's condemnation increases that possibility.

Ken Berwitz

Who is J. Christian Adams?  Why would he be a problem to Barack Obama - and even moreso to Attorney General eric holder?

In answer, let me post Jennifer Rubin's piece from www.commentarymagaznine.com.  Read it and, believe, me, you'll have your answer:

DOJ Trial Attorney on Black Panther Case Resigns

Jennifer Rubin - 05.19.2010 - 7:32 AM

 

Wow. We may finally learn the inside story of the New Black Panther case. This report explains:

 

A trial attorney with the Department of Justice’s Voting Rights Section has resigned, citing concerns about the government’s refusal to prosecute a case involving voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party. A letter of resignation obtained by The Washington Examiner from a former Justice Department employee makes clear DOJ has refused to allow attorneys in the Voting Rights Section to testify before the congressionally-chartered bipartisan U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, despite subpoenas that could result in their being held in contempt.

 

In his letter of resignation, J. Christian Adams writes:

 

On the other hand, the events surrounding the dismissal of United States v. New Black Panther Party, et al., after the trial team sought and obtained an entry of default, has subjected me, Mr. Christopher Coates, and potentially at some point, all members of the team, to a subpoena from the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The subpoena is based on an explicit federal statute and seeks answers about why the case was dismissed.

 

I have incurred significant personal expense in retaining a number of separate attorneys and firms regarding this subpoena in order to protect my interests and advise me about my personal legal obligation to comply with the subpoena. Over the last few months, one of my attorneys has had multiple communications with Federal Programs regarding the subpoena. My attorney suggested to them that the Department should file a motion in district court to quash the subpoena and thereby res