Ken Berwitz

From USA Today:

The federal debt will represent 62% of the nation's economy by the end of this year, the highest percentage since just after World War II, according to a long-term budget outlook released today by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

 What's that you say?  The budget was put together by a Democratic house and Democratic senate, then signed by a Democratic President?  The "stimulus package" was passed by that same Democratic house and senate, then signed by that same President 16 months ago?  So this has absolutely nothing to do with President Bush?

Who cares.  Damn that Bush anyway.  And if it works again this time, we'll use it next time too.

Ken Berwitz

Every now and again I read www.mediamatters.org.  I find it entertaining; a little like SNL on line -enough facts to make it seem real, but funny to anyone who knows what actually is going on.

The pieces that grabbed my attention this time are titled "Drudge falsely suggests U.S. has not previously accepted international aid for oil spill" and "In fact, international offers of assistance had alreadly been accepted."

Now, if true, that is news.  And mediamatters.org even put up a PDF of the specific examples that are supposed to prove its contention about the U.S. accepting international assistance.

Unfortunately for them, I read what they put up.  You can too, by clicking here.  And, if you do, this is what you will find: 

There have been 63 individual offers of assistance (I could be off by one in either direction, but I don't think so).  And, from those 63 offers we have this:

Ken Berwitz

As many readers know, www.dailykos.com is a hugely successful hard-left web site, run by Marcos Moulitsas Zuniga, known more familiarly as "kos".

For some time, the daily kos has used a company called Research 2000 to conduct political polling.  It has featured Research 2000's findings on the web site and countless articles there have been based on those findings.

But there is a problem.  Mr. Moulitsas Zuniga now believes that Research 2000 either fudged, or straight-out made up, a lot of the results. 

For that reason he has fired Research 2000 and is suing the company.

Here is an excerpt from yesterday's blog on the Research 2000 situation:

More on Research 2000

by kos

Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 10:01:39 AM PDT

I have just published a report by three statistics wizards showing, quite convincingly, that the weekly Research 2000 State of the Nation poll we ran the past year and a half was likely bunk.

Since the moment Mark Grebner, Michael Weissman, and Jonathan Weissman approached me, I took their concerns seriously and cooperated fully with their investigation. I also offered to run the results on Daily Kos provided that they 1) fully documented each claim in detail, 2) got that documentation peer reviewed by disinterested third parties, and 3) gave Research 2000 an opportunity to respond. By the end of last week, they had accomplished the first two items on that list. I held publication of the report until today, because I didn't want to partake in a cliche Friday Bad News Dump. This is serious business, and I wasn't going to bury it over a weekend.

We contracted with Research 2000 to conduct polling and to provide us with the results of their surveys. Based on the report of the statisticians, it's clear that we did not get what we paid for. We were defrauded by Research 2000, and while we don't know if some or all of the data was fabricated or manipulated beyond recognition, we know we can't trust it. Meanwhile, Research 2000 has refused to offer any explanation. Early in this process, I asked for and they offered to provide us with their raw data for independent analysis -- which could potentially exculpate them. That was two weeks ago, and despite repeated promises to provide us that data, Research 2000 ultimately refused to do so. At one point, they claimed they couldn't deliver them because their computers were down and they had to work out of a Kinkos office. Research 2000 was delivered a copy of the report early Monday morning, and though they quickly responded and promised a full response, once again the authors of the report heard nothing more.

While the investigation didn't look at all of Research 2000 polling conducted for us, fact is I no longer have any confidence in any of it, and neither should anyone else. I ask that all poll tracking sites remove any Research 2000 polls commissioned by us from their databases. I hereby renounce any post we've written based exclusively on Research 2000 polling.  

I want to feel stupid for being defrauded, but fact is Research 2000 had a good reputation in political circles. Among its clients the last two years have been KCCI-TV in Iowa, WCAX-TV in Vermont, WISC-TV in Wisconsin, WKYT-TV in Kentucky, Lee Enterprises, the Concord Monitor, The Florida Times-Union, WSBT-TV/WISH-TV/WANE-TV in Indiana, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Bergen Record, and the Reno Gazette-Journal. In fact, just last week, in an email debate about robo-pollsters, I had a senior editor at a top DC-based political publication tell me that he'd "obviously" trust Research 2000 more than any automated pollsters, such as SurveyUSA. I didn't trust Research 2000 more than I trusted SUSA (given their solid track record), but I did trust them. I got burned, and got burned bad.

I also looked at the Research 2000 web site and, as of this moment, there is no response to Moulitsas Zuniga.  In fact, other than a section for "Google News" (which has several articles about the kos allegations) there does not appear to be anything new on the site since April.  That seems very odd for a company doing political polling.

So who is the screwer and who is the screwee?

Is kos right?  Is Research 2000 - clearly a well-respected company until this situation exploded - a fraud?  Or is kos wrong, and open to a whopping countersuit? 

Since mainstream media are barely, if at all, reporting about this, I'll try to keep you posted on how this plays out.

But just one more thing:  what would have happened if had been the polling venue for, say, www.foxnewschannel.com?  Do think you'd have heard more about it by now?

Now there's a blog I'd like to see "kos" write.

Ken Berwitz

Larry King has announced that, in a few months, he will end his long-running show on CNN.

I respect Mr. King's interviewing capabilities, his amazing knack for snagging highest-profile guests and his sheer longevity.

But let's be honest: he is way past his time, and has become a prime time nightmare for CNN (disastrous ratings, but too iconic to fire).

Is he quitting of his own accord?  Has he been pushed out?  Is it a combination of the two (that's my guess)?  Who knows for sure.

Regardless, he is a pioneer of the cable news genre and, for that, we owe him a debt of gratitude. 

Ken Berwitz

What have you heard about the allegations of sexual molestation against Al Gore?

Not much, have you?

Ok, no problem.  This is the age of cyberspace and, thankfully, we don't need to rely on the selective reporting of media anymore. 

Here is Byron York's article about it, from yesterday's Washington Examiner:

Sex complaint against Gore is detailed, credible

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
June 29, 2010

The allegation that Al Gore sexually assaulted a woman in a Portland, Ore., hotel room nearly four years ago has dealt a serious blow to the former vice president's story that he and wife Tipper simply "grew apart" after 40 years of marriage.

The police report of the masseuse's complaint is 73 pages long and extremely detailed. According to the document, she got a call from the front desk of the trendy Hotel Lucia on the night of Oct. 24, 2006. The hotel had a special guest. Could she come at 10:30 p.m.?

She went to Gore's room carrying a folding massage table and other equipment. Gore, whom she had never met, greeted her with a warm embrace. "The hug went on a bit long, and I was taken just a bit aback by it," the masseuse told police. But she went along because Gore "was a VIP and a powerful individual and the Hotel Lucia had made it clear to me by inference that they were giving him 'the royal treatment.'"

Gore said he was tired from travel and described in detail the massage he wanted. It included work on the adductor muscles, which are on the inside of the thighs. "I mentally noted that a request for adductor work is a bit unusual," the masseuse told police, because it can be "a precursor to inappropriate behavior by a male client."

Gore also requested work on his abdomen. When that began, "He became somewhat vocal with muffled moans, etc.," the masseuse recounted. Gore then "demand[ed] that I go lower." When she remained focused on a "safe, nonsexual" area, Gore grew "angry, becoming verbally sharp and loud."

The masseuse asked Gore what he wanted. "He grabbed my right hand, shoved it down under the sheet to his pubic hair area, my fingers brushing against his penis," she recalled, "and said to me, 'There!' in a very sharp, loud, angry-sounding tone." When she pulled back, Gore "angrily raged" and "bellowed" at her.

Then, abruptly, the former vice president changed tone. It was "as though he had very suddenly switched personalities," she recalled, "and began in a pleading tone, pleading for release of his second chakra there."

"Chakra," in Gore's new-agey jargon, refers to the body's "energy centers," which the masseuse interpreted as having a specific meaning. "This was yet another euphemism for sexual activity he was requesting," she told police, "put cleverly as though it were a spiritual request or something."

She wanted to end the session, but Gore "wrapped me in an inescapable embrace" and "caressed my back and buttocks and breasts." She tried to get away -- in the process calling Gore a "crazed sex poodle" -- but the former vice president was too strong for her.

A little later, she said, Gore produced a bottle of brandy and mentioned there were condoms in the "treat box" provided by the hotel. "He then forced an open mouth kiss on me," she said.

At that moment, the masseuse brought up Gore's long marriage. "How do you rectify this with your wife?" she asked. That brought on another "quick shift" in Gore's mood. "I never saw anybody's moods just go like this," the masseuse told police, snapping her fingers.

The accuser said Gore maneuvered her into the bedroom. His iPod docking station was there, he told her, and he wanted her to listen to "Dear Mr. President," a lachrymose attack on George W. Bush by the singer Pink.

"As soon as he had it playing, he turned to me and immediately flipped me flat on my back and threw his whole body face down over atop of me," she said. "I was just shocked at his craziness."

"He pleaded, grabbed me, engulfed me in embrace, tongue kissed me, massaged me, groped by breasts and painfully squeezed my nipples through my clothing, pressed his pelvis against mine, rubbed my buttocks with his hands and fingers and rubbed himself against my crotch, saying, 'You know you want to do it.'"

Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her "to just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming."

She got a lawyer and made an appointment to talk with authorities. She canceled and did not tell police until January 2009 and even then did not press charges.

In 2007, a Portland paper learned what had happened. Gore's lawyers called the story "absolutely false," and it wasn't published.

Now the National Enquirer has made the police report public. And Gore's family-man image will never be the same

Would our wonderful "neutral" media have buried this if it were, say, Sarah Palin and a mail masseuse?  Or any Republican at all?

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

Ken Berwitz

Do you remember the movie "The Verdict", starring Paul Newman? 

If so, you probably remember that Newman played Frank Galvin, a trial lawyer trying to win a court case even though the judge -- Judge Hoyle, played by Milo O'Shea -- was clearly acting on behalf of the other side.

With that in mind, here is an excerpt from yesterday's Chicago Tribune article about the Rod Blagojevich trial and how Judge Zagel frustrated attempts by Blagojevich's lawyer to determine how involved Barack Obama was in filling the senate seat he had vacated to become President.  Please take special note of how Jeff Coen, writing for the Tribune, frames Sorosky's line of question (no media bias there, I'm sure):

06/29/2010

Judge halts questioning on Obama

Sheldon Sorosky, one of Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers, has been trying to drag President Barack Obama into the fray this afternoon, asking union official Tom Balanoff whether the FBI asked him about campaign money going to Obama.

Prosecutors objected, as they have so often during cross-examinations, and U.S. District Judge James Zagel said Sorosky should only ask in general what the FBI had said to Balanoff.

Sorosky tried the question again, using Zagel’s recommended wording. “I know that won’t be objected to,” Sorosky said, causing the nearby Blagojevich to laugh.

But Balanoff didn’t get to give an answer, and Zagel wouldn’t let the line of questioning go on after a private sidebar discussion among the lawyers.

Balanoff insisted he was acting more on Jarrett’s behalf and less on Obama’s. At one point, Zagel chided Sorosky for asking questions that were too argumentative, suggesting that questions beginning with the word “so” should raise a red flag.

“So, maybe you can eliminate the so’s,” said Zagel, adding to his earlier ban on questions that start with "wouldn't you agree?"

Add in Zagel's ruling, last year, denying a request by Blagojevich's defense team to open all sealed records and transcripts related to the case, and you've got a lot to think about, don't you?.

That said, however, I have to admit that this a somewhat murky situation.  Zagel was recommended by Republican Henry Hyde, and appointed by Republican Ronald Reagan.  Also, from what I have read, he is generally considered to be a prosecutor's judge.   These facts would seem to argue against the premise that his rulings are unfairly tilted against Blagojevich's legal counsel.

On the other hand, Judge Zagel was appointed 23 years ago, and that is more than enough time for him to have changed his judicial philosophy and comportment.

Maybe Zagel is just plain making the right decisions. 

Maybe he just plain has it in for Rod Blagojevich.  

Or maybe he is just plain protecting Barack Obama, either out of political considerations or because he noticed what happened to Inspector General Gerald Walpin and doesn't want to be next.

In any event, there are the facts.  You decide.

Ken Berwitz

The media elite have decided.  Elena Kagan is ok by them. 

So instead of reporting what most people have no problem seeing - i.e. that Kagan is a hard-left, activist liberal who would be very likely to adapt court rulings to her beliefs instead of following the constitution - they are telling us she is some kind of centrist.  And they are supplementing that preposterous claim with positive report after positive report about her.

Just like they did for President Bush's nominees, right? (yes, you may detect a tad of sarcasm there)

L. Brent Bozell has written an excellent column detailing this ridiculous farce.  Here some of its key excerpts:

Bozell Column: The 'Elusive' Truth About Kagan

 

By Brent Bozell (Bio | Archive)
Tue, 06/29/2010 - 21:26 ET

 

It's not cute when reporters play dumb. Last year, when Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, CBS anchor Katie Couric said labeling her “won't be easy.” CBS reporter Wyatt Andrews found “no clear ideology” in her public record. This week, the Washington Post embarrassed themselves with a front-page story claiming “Obama has not chosen outspoken liberals in either of his first two opportunities to influence the makeup of the court.”

 

That ridiculous sentence collides with a June 8 report by liberal Los Angeles Times legal reporter David Savage. “The early returns are in, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor is proving herself to be a reliable liberal vote on the Supreme Court. Cases this year on campaign speech, religion, juvenile crime, federal power and Miranda warnings resulted in an ideological split among the justices, and on every occasion, Sotomayor joined the liberal bloc.”

 

That verdict came before Sotomayor voted with the gun-controllers in the Chicago gun-rights case; before Sotomayor voted for allowing public universities to deny recognition to Christian student groups who dare to oppose homosexuality; and before Sotomayor voted as part of a 6-3 minority that it shouldn't be illegal to provide material support to groups defined by our government as foreign terrorists.

 

Now match that record with what the liberal media claimed about Sotomayor. “You know, for a Democrat, she has a pretty conservative record,” NPR reporter Nina Totenberg announced on PBS’s “Charlie Rose” show last year. “In fact, on a lot of criminal law issues, you could say that she's more conservative than some members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia.”

 

If Totenberg sold shoddy diet pills that fraudulently, she'd be a red-hot case for the Federal Trade Commission.

So why should anyone believe the media are telling the truth now when they suggest Elena Kagan cannot be called liberal? Kagan's views are “elusive,” the media chant in unison. They all tried to evade Kagan's vivid writing as a college student in the Daily Princetonian in 1980, about how she cried and got drunk when Ronald Reagan won and “ultraconservative” Al D’Amato defeated her candidate, ultraliberal Democrat Liz Holtzman.

 

She wished that “our emotion-packed conclusion that the world had gone mad, that liberalism was dead and that there was no longer any place for the ideals we held or the beliefs we espoused” would be replaced by the hope that the Reagan era would be “marked by American disillusionment with conservative programs and solutions, and that a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore.”

 

Unbelievably, our journalistic geniuses can read that and say Kagan's political views are “elusive.”

 

Liberal partisans expect the “objective” media to spout obvious lies that there are no liberals to be found in Obama's Supreme Court selections, that they have been far too “elusive” to be categorized. That is why Americans are turning away in droves: they're not finding the media's biases to be “elusive.”

It's Charlie Brown and the football again. 

Sadly, however, for a lot of people it will work like a charm.  Just as it always does. 

Especially for the ones who have convinced themselves that they're too smart to be fooled by media -- even as those same media thoroughly manipulate them.

I'd bet you know people like the ones I just described.  I hope you're not one of them.

Ken Berwitz

Why is President Obama taking major hits in the polls over the oil rig disaster? 

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States is accepting help from 12 countries and international organizations in dealing with the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The State Department said in a statement Tuesday that the U.S. is working out the particulars of the help that's been accepted.

The identities of all 12 countries and international organizations were not immediately announced. One country was cited in the State Department statement -- Japan, which is providing two high-speed skimmers and fire containment boom.

Unbelievable.  70 days after oil started belching into the Gulf of Mexico and 67 days after help was first offered......"the U.S. is working out the particulars"?  

When will "the particulars" be worked out?  When troops start showing up at the Arizona-Mexico border?  When the moon is colonized?  When Harry Reid grows a personality?

Could this administration possibly perform less competently?  If so, tell me how.

Ken Berwitz

Here is another of the seemingly countless incidents when someone from the left spews hate-filled vitriol...and is ignored by the same media which have a collective apoplexy if they find any example of it from the right.

This latest salvo comes to us from a particularly fecund source; keith olbermann - who, if media were serious about being against extreme rhetoric, would condemn him for it every day.

olbermann's opportunity was created by a mistake Sarah Palin made when speaking at UC-Stanislaus.  Ms. Palin wrongly stated that Ronald Reagan had attended Eureka College in California.  In fact, Eureka College is in Illinois.

I would hope we can agree that, as mistakes go, citing the wrong town for a college is not a biggie.  Illustratively, compare it to Joe Biden's completely misstating the job of Vice President when debating Ms. Palin - an astonishing gaffe, especially given that he was a six term senator, and running for the job whose description he was mangling.  Which would you figure is the more significant of the two? 

But stuff like that is irrelevant'n'immaterial to olbermann.  He was going to "get" Sarah Palin, and this was his chance. 

Here are the key excerpts from what I will charitably call his commentary:

She said perhaps 100 things that brand her as a phony, but none is more symbolic of her imbecility, her corner-cutting, her downright endorsement of stupidity instead of intelligence than this one

(A VIDEO OF HER MISTAKE IS PLAYED)

There is a town of Eureka in California, but it doesn’t have a college.  And Palin went to three colleges and doesn’t have an education.  (In a voice trying to imitate Ronald Reagan):  Well, that woman is an idiot.

Tell me:  Does that qualify as extreme rhetoric?  Do you think Chris Matthews who is on the same network and whose show airs just before olbermann's, might use it as an example of extremism some day? 

Yeah, sure.  Count on it.

Further, let's keep in mind that this is the same keith olbermann who ended his shows for years with the statement (paraphrased) that "it is now ____________days since President Bush declared mission accomplished in Iraq". 

Every time olbermann said that, he was wrong.  Bush never declared "mission accomplished" for the war in Iraq, and never implied it. 

How many times did olbermann end his show that way?  How many hundreds of times?  Total it up, and that's how many times olbermann talked like......what were those words?  Oh, yeah:  a phony, an imbecile, an endorser of stupidity instead of intelligence and an uneducated idiot.

Ken Berwitz

It isn't often that I have a chance to agree with New York Times columnist Bob Herbert.  And I don't agree with at least some of what he has written today.

But I agree with enough of what he has to say about the Obama administration's performance on job creation, so that I'm posting the key portions below. (You can read Mr. Herbert's entire column by clicking here):

Wrong Track Distress

By BOB HERBERT

Published: June 28, 2010

 

It’s getting harder and harder for most Americans, looking honestly at the state of the nation, to see the glass as half full. And that’s why the public opinion polls contain nothing but bad news for Barack Obama and the Democrats.

The oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, the war in Afghanistan and, above all, the continuing epidemic of joblessness have pushed the nation into a funk. All the crowing in the world about the administration’s legislative accomplishments — last year’s stimulus package, this year’s health care reform, etc. — is not enough to lift the gloom.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats have wasted the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity handed to them in the 2008 election. They did not focus on jobs, jobs, jobs as their primary mission, and they did not call on Americans to join in a bold national effort... (which would have required a great deal of shared sacrifice) to solve a wide range of very serious problems, from our over-reliance on fossil fuels to the sorry state of public education to the need to rebuild the nation’s rotting infrastructure.

All of that could have been pulled together under the umbrella of job creation — short-term and long-term. In the immediate aftermath of Mr. Obama’s historic victory, and with the trauma of the economic collapse still upon us, it would have been very difficult for Republicans on Capitol Hill to stand in the way of a rebuild-America campaign aimed at putting millions of men and women back to work.

Mr. Obama had campaigned on the mantra of change, and that would have been the kind of change that working people could have gotten behind. But it never happened. Job creation was the trump card in the hand held by Mr. Obama and the Democrats, but they never played it. And now we’re paying a fearful price.

Fifteen million Americans are unemployed, according to the official count, which wildly understates the reality. Assuming no future economic setbacks and job creation at a rate of 200,000 or so a month, it would take more than a decade to get us back to where we were when the Great Recession began in December 2007. But we’re nowhere near that kind of sustained job growth. Last month, a measly 41,000 private-sector jobs were created.

We are in deep, deep gumbo.

There is a widespread feeling that only the rich and well-placed can count on Washington’s help, and that toxic sentiment is spreading like the oil stain in the gulf, with ominous implications for President Obama and his party. It’s in this atmosphere that support for the president and his agenda is sinking like a stone.

Employment is the No. 1 issue for most ordinary Americans. Their anxiety on this front only grows as they watch teachers, firefighters and police officers lining up to walk the unemployment plank as state and local governments wrestle with horrendous budget deficits.

And what do these worried Americans see the Obama administration doing? It’s doubling down on the war in Afghanistan, trying somehow to build a nation from scratch in the chaos of a combat zone.

By nearly 2 to 1, respondents to the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll believed the United States is on the wrong track. Despite the yelping and destructive machinations of the deficit hawks, employment and the economy are by far the public’s biggest concern. Mr. Obama is paying dearly for his tin ear on this topic. Fifty-four percent of respondents believed he does not have a clear plan for creating jobs. Only 45 percent approved of his overall handling of the economy, compared with 48 percent who disapproved.

Yes.  Yes.  And Yes again.

Mr. Obama's most important mission was to have righted the economy (maybe "lefted" it is more accurate, since that's the perspective he was working with).  And the truth - BS claims of "saving or creating" millions of jobs to the contrary - is that he has performed with all the competency of his efforts in the Gulf of Mexico and in sealing the USA-Mexican border. 

In other words, Mr. Obama has been an abject failure.

That's the part that Bob Herbert won't say (whether or not he believes it).  But I will.

Ken Berwitz

Just a few moments ago we received an email "signed" by Vice President Joe Biden.  In it, Mr. Biden tells us that "We've put millions of Americans back to work".  I swear, that's really what it says.

Presumably Mr.Biden (or whomever wrote the email for him) is basing this on the claim, made last week, that the Obama administration either "saved or created" 2,200,000 to 2,800,000 jobs

Don't ask me what "saved" means or how it is measured, I don't know any better than the Obama administration does.  And don't ask me how they measure created jobs either, for the same reason.

But here is what I do know:

-The day Barack Obama signed the so-called "stimulus package" into law, unemployment was at 8.1%.  Mr. Obama scared the country, and the congress (not that he needed to, given its Democratic majorities in both houses), by ominously warning that, without it, the economy would completely tank.  However, he happily intoned, unemployment would cap right there.

-But unemployment didn't cap right there.  And it certainly didn't start dropping.  Instead, unemployment jumped over 10%.  And right now, only because there is a temporary work force for the census bureau that will be finished in a couple of months, it is at 9.3%.  Without this temporary bubble of employment it would still be in the neighborhood of 10%.

-But what about the future?  Are we headed in the right direction?  In answer, read this excerpt from a just-released Associated Press article and see for yourself:

Stocks began the day by following Asian and European markets lower. Asian exchanges fell after economic figures in Japan signaled that the nation's recovery has slowed. And then European indexes fell sharply after Greek workers walked off the job to protest steep budget cuts.

Then, shortly after U.S. trading began, the market was hit with news that consumer confidence fell sharply this month because of worries about jobs and the overall economy. The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index fell nearly 10 points to 52.9, down from a revised 62.7 in May. Economists polled by Thomson Reuters had forecast only a modest drop.

The index needs to climb above 90 to indicate the economy is on solid footing.

The bottom line?  Joe Biden's email is a load of BS.  Period.  End of story.

Tell me you're surprised.  I dare you.

Ken Berwitz

Here is another example of why boycotting Arizona, for the crime of daring to believe it has a border with Mexico, is idiotic. 

This one comes to us via excerpts from an article by Jan Norman, writing for the Orange Country register. The bold print is mine:

Owner: Ariz. boycott causes local layoffs

June 29th, 2010, 4:25 am posted by Jan Norman, small-business columnist

“California politicians calling for boycotts of Arizona need to realize that the boycott will hurt California businesses and workers,” says Huntington Beach resident George Saffarrans who owns Rogers Poultry, a food processor with plants in Vernon and Huntington Park.

He was responding to another recent story about the local impact of calls to boycott Arizona. The state’s new immigration enforcement law requires police to ask for documentation of legal status of people they stop for violating another law. The police must have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally.

Saffarrans is the third generation owner of a family business founded in 1927. He employs about 200 people, mostly Hispanic, “U.S. citizens and legal immigrants; we’re a union company, and my guys are union workers,” he emphasizes.

They’re members of the United Food and Commercial Workers, he adds.

Rogers Poultry supplies chicken to such hotels and restaurants as Claim Jumper, the Islands and Four Seasons and does about 5% of its business in Arizona.  The company ships poultry products to Phoenix six days a week, according to its website. Orders placed before 3 p.m. will be delivered the next day.

“If I lose 5% of my business, that’s two or three guys I’ll have to lay off,” Saffarrans says. “Here’s what boycotting Arizona means to me: I sell less product, make less revenue, pay less business taxes and may have to lay off some workers who are, in fact, legal immigrants.

“It angers me that the city of Los Angeles already has an official boycott; ( Los Angeles City Councilman) Richard Alarcon is a big union guy. Now the (California) Assembly wants to pass a boycott and (Assembly Speaker) John Perez (D-Los Angeles) is a union crony for the union I use,” Saffarrans says. “They don’t understand that they are hurting union workers here.”

But Saffarrans notes that the Los Angeles City Council, despite its own boycott, voted to continue a contract with an Arizona company for red light cameras.

Great going, California.  Damage your own businesses and hurt Latinos who are legally here in the bargain. 

I guess The Golden State's economy is in such great shape that it can do this without blinking an eye.  Right?

Hey, I have a great idea.  Since so many panderin...er, sincere, dedicated politicans in California want that border to be opened, why don't they make a major effort to convince illegals who are leaving Arizona to come there. I'm sure Los Angeles, San Francisco (which proudly calls itself a "sanctuary city") and the other locations voting to boycott Arizona will be happy to take as many of them as they can. 

Just warn them to be careful of running red lights, or Arizona will get 'em.

Ken Berwitz

Why that title?  Because what you are about to read is certainly is racist.  And it certainly is being protected by the Obama Department of Justice, headed by the disgraceful toadie eric holder. 

Here is the latest in the scandalous, racist saga of the Philadelphia Black panthers, from Scott Johnson of www.powerlineblog.com.  The bold print is mine:

Investigate this

June 29, 2010 Posted by Scott at 6:17 AM

We learned from the mainstream media during the administration of George W. Bush that the politicization of justice is a grave offense (even if Bush didn't commit it). In the first year of the Obama administration, we saw how justice can be politicized when the Department of Justice dismissed the civil rights charges brought against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation at a polling station in Philadelphia on election day 2008. Jennifer Rubin provides a useful summary of the case:

On Election Day 2008, two members of the New Black Panther party (NBPP) dressed in military garb were captured on videotape at a Philadelphia polling place spouting racial epithets and menacing voters. One, Minister King Samir Shabazz, wielded a nightstick. It was a textbook case of voter intimidation and clearly covered under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

A Department of Justice trial team was assigned to investigate. They gathered affidavits from witnesses--one of the poll watchers was called a "white devil" and a "cracker." A Panther told him he would be "ruled by the black man." The trial team, all career Justice attorneys and headed by voting section chief Chris Coates, filed a case against the two Panthers caught on tape. Malik Zulu Shabazz, head of the national NBPP, and the party itself were also named based on evidence the party had planned the deployment of 300 members on Election Day and on statements after the incident in which the NBPP endorsed the intimidation at the Philadelphia polling station.

The trial team quickly obtained a default judgment--meaning it had won the case because the New Black Panther party failed to defend itself. Yet in May 2009, Obama Justice Department lawyers, appointed temporarily to fill top positions in the civil rights division, ordered the case against the NBPP dismissed. An administration that has pledged itself to stepping-up civil rights enforcement dropped the case and, for over a year, has prevented the trial team lawyers from telling their story.

The Obama administration's dismissal of the charges occurred over the stalwart opposition (of) Chris Coates and Christian Adams, the career Department of Justice attorneys who brought it. For his efforts, Coates has been reassigned to South Carolina. Hans von Spakovsky reported Coates's remarks on the occasion of his departure from the Voting Rights Section of the Department of Justice earlier this year.

Coates's colleage Christian Adams has now resigned from the Department of Justice and is free to discuss the case. Adams discussed the case last week in the Washington Times column "Inside the Black Panther case." Adams returned to the subject yesterday in the equally important Pajamas Media column "Unequal law enforcement reigns at Obama's DoJ." PJTV has also posted an interview with Adams on the case.

Adams writes of the case in a manner that one would think might attract the attention of organizations devoted to the dissemination of news: "The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice attorney." Adams describes a genuine scandal.

Indeed, Coates and Adams are principal actors with first-hand knowledge of this scandal. What they reveal is the tortured ground on which the Obama administration has overridden their efforts to bring the New Black Panther Party to justice. It is the by now familiar Orwellian ground that when it comes to the administration of justice, some are more equal than others.

This is a scandal that, thanks to Rubin, von Spakovsky, and Adams, is now hiding in plain sight....Yet other than a few posts by Dave Weigel regarding the Civil Rights Commission's hearings in the case on the Post site, I cannot find a trace of it in either the Washington Post or the New York Times. While justice has been politicized in a most disgusting manner in the Obama administration, the mainstream media have averted their eyes and moved on.

I've written about this scandal numbers of times over the past year.  And, despite my skepticism regarding the integrity of mainstream media, I have continued to hope against hope that, at each step along the way, they would finally start talking about it.

Who am I kidding?

This is clearly a case of what the eric holder Department of Justice considers "acceptable racism" - i.e. racism by Blacks against Whites.  And since that kind of racism is acceptable, instead of pursuing action against the perpetrators the DOJ protects them.  Even a default judgement (i.e. the accused declined to bother defending themselves), which gave the case to DOJ, was not allowed to result in a conviction.

Think about what would have happened if the races had been reversed, and it was White goons, from a White supremacist organization, intimidating Black voters instead of the other way around.

The point isn't very hard to see, is it?

Ken Berwitz

On June 3, after Arizona asked for 3,000 troops to seal its border with Mexico, the Obama administration promised (a woefully inadequate complement of) 1,200 troops for the entire border - not just Arizona -  and that they would arrive in two weeks.

Today, almost four weeks after that promise was made, we get this, excerpted from an Associated Press article:

PHOENIX (AP) -- Federal officials have told Arizona's attorney general and a congresswoman that 524 of the 1,200 National Guard troops headed to the U.S.-Mexican border will be deployed in the state.

The troops are being trained for deployment in August, and Goddard said two drone aircraft also will be used in Arizona. Goddard calls the commitment a first step.

In other words, Arizona requested 3,000 troops.  It was given less than 1,200 instead.  And now it has been told it will get just 524 troops, and they will arrive months later than promised. 

Is this the performance of an administration that gives a damn about sealing the border?  

I keep asking:  who's side is Barack Obama on? 

Frankly, the answer is becoming very clear.

Ken Berwitz

If you think anti-Semitism is the only notable characteristic of Democrat congressperson jim moran of Virginia, you would be wrong.  He is also a moron.

Only a moron would actually believe that our economy has recovered - not that it is trying to come back, not that it is in the process of recovery, but that is has recovered, as in we're in great shape right now.

Here, from his interview on Chris Matthews' "Hardball", are moran's exact words:

This may be the most successful 6, last 6 months, in American presidential history.

 

I can’t think of a time that we have accomplished as much as we have.

 

And, in fact, y’know, in the last six months more jobs were created than Bush was able to generate in 8 years, Chris.

 

People don’t understand that.  The economy has recovered.

Let's forget the attack on Bush, because a) Democrats use Bush as an excuse for everything and b), Bush's job numbers include the fact that he inherited an economy in free-fall (something these geniuses never talk about) and then we were hit with 9/11.  Take those events into account and Bush's job creation wasn't half bad. 

Let's also forget that to claim job growth under Obama necessitates ignoring all loss of jobs.  From the time Mr. Obama signed his "stimulus package" - the one he told us would create 3,500,000 - 4,000,000 new jobs - to the end of 2009, the USA economy lost about 4,000,000 jobs.  It seems to me, therefore, that job growth could not be on the plus side unless those 4,000,000 lost jobs were regained. 

Do you recall 4,000,000 jobs being gained in the past 6 months, and then so many additional jobs beyond those 4,000,000 that the total eclipses all 8 years of President Bush?  Me neither.

So what is jim moran talking about?  When did this economy recover?  Is this what an economic recovery looks like in his happy horsemanure world? 

Maybe he thinks it's all a Jewish plot, like he thinks the Iraq war was. 

And, finally, where are our wonderful "neutral" media on this moron's comments?  If a senior Republican congressperson ever said something this idiotic, it would be news.  But other than the viewers of Hardball, however many that might be, has any major news venue done a story on it? 

I just googled "Jim Moran The economy has recovered" and, on the first two pages, the closest I came was the Washington Post's blog (not its print edition).  Not one major news source bothered to mention it.

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

Ken Berwitz

Blackwater.  The hated Blackwater.  The company that was used relentlessly by Democrats against Republicans in the 2008 campaign. 

But that was then.  This is now.  Now Democrats are in charge and they have to deal with reality, not campaign BS.  So Blackwater is suddenly seen in a very different light.

Here is CIA Director, and Democrat, Leon Panetta, interviewed by ABC's Jake Tapper yesterday:

"I have to tell you that in the war zone, we continue to have needs for security. You've got a lot of forward bases. You've got a lot of attacks on some of those bases. We've got to have security. Unfortunately, there are few companies that provide that kind of security"

"State Department relies on them. We rely on them to a certain extent. So, we've bid out some of those contracts. They provided a bid that underbid everyone else by about $26 million and a panel that we had said that they can do the job, that they've shaped up their act.  There was really not much choice but to accept that contract" 

Translation:   The Obama administration needs Blackwater as much as the Bush administration did -- and the Clinton administration before that.  

But if you're waiting for some kind of apology from Democrats regarding their tidal wave of political bilge aimed at Republicans who used Blackwater for precisely the same reasons, settle in.  You're in for a long one.

Ken Berwitz

There used to be a joke about how things worked in the USSR:  "What's mine is mine.  What's yours is negotiable"

These days we have a version of that joke when it comes to political reporting.  "Right wing violence is violence even if we don't see it.  Left wing violence is not left wing, even when we do see it".

For all the assurances by media that Tea Party events are racist and violent, how much racism have you actually been shown?  How much violence have you been shown (not counting the violence by left wing agitators against tea partiers, that is)?

Unfortunately, today we have another case in point.  There is an Associated Press article today which details left wing violence in Toronto, Canada during the G-20 summit.  Butr you can look at the excerpt I'm posting below, and/or use the link I've provided for the entire article.  See if you find the term "left wing" anywhere:

TORONTO – Black-clad demonstrators broke off from a crowd of peaceful demonstrators protesting a global economic summit in Toronto, torching police cruisers and smashing windows with baseball bats and hammers.

Police with shields and clubs earlier pushed back another small group of demonstrators who tried to head south toward the security fence surrounding the perimeter of the Group of 20 summit site. Some demonstrators hurled bottles at police.

"This isn't our Toronto and my response is anger," Toronto Mayor David Miller told CP24 television. "Every Torontonian should be outraged by this."

The roving band of protesters in black balaclavas shattered shop windows for blocks, including at police headquarters, then shed some of their black clothes, revealing other garments, and continued to rampage through downtown Toronto.

Protesters torched at least two police cruisers in different parts of the city, including one in the heart of the city's financial district.

See that?  Not one word about the politics of these people.  They're "vandals" you see.  No other identification.  Just like the Muslims who riot and burn cars in France, Sweden, etc are "immigrant youth". 

A whitewash is a whitewash.  And the Associated Press clearly is engaged in one here. 

When a news venue selectively reports, or hides, this kind of information, apparently based on which agenda(s) it wishes to promote or protect, it is providing propaganda, not news. 

It is disgraceful.  Pathetic.  Thoroughly unprofessional.  And all too common from the Associated Press - and countless other elements of our wonderful "neutral" media.

Ken Berwitz

Robert Erlich was the Republican governor of Maryland.  He was succeeded by Democrat Martin O'Malley.  Now Erlich is running against O'Malley again.

According to Paul Mirengoff of powerlineblog.com, a lot of people assumed O'Malley would breeze to victory, but they appear to be wrong.  The polls show this to be a close race.

So what is O'Malley doing about it?  I'll let Paul tell you, via excerpts from his latest blog:

A few months ago, the Washington Post attempted to paint Ehrlich as a no-hoper who is just going through the motions of a campaign. But the polls tell a different tale, one in which the race may well be a dead heat.

O'Malley certainly understands that he's in a horse race. Accordingly, he has launched a series of attack ads on Ehrlich that, according to the Post itself, "contain questionable claims."

In one ad, O'Malley portrays Ehrlich as a lobbyist. As the Post points out, however, Ehrlich has never registered as a lobbyist and denies being one. O'Malley is relying on the fact that Ehrlich works for a law firm that engages in lobbying. But one does not become a lobbyist by association.

O'Malley also tries to pin the Gulf oil spill on Ehrlich. An ad called "Drill Baby Drill" states that Ehrlich voted to open new parts of the Gulf to drilling. This apparently is a reference to a vote for a 2001 measure which allowed only a fraction of the exploration President Bush wanted and that was passed almost unanimously, with support from every Maryland Democrat in the House.

The ad features Ehrlich using the phrase "drill baby drill." But according to the Post, the O'Malley campaign grabbed this sound bite from a portion of Ehrlich's call-in radio program in which Ehrlich talked about Michael Steele's use of this slogan during the 2008 campaign.

In running ads that even the Washington Post can't quite stomach, O'Malley is relying on Ehrlich's lack of the resources required to respond. The campaigns have not disclosed their current financial situations, but at the beginning of the year, O'Malley had close to $6 million. Ehrlich, who had about $150,000 at that time, is still thought to be millions behind O'Malley in the fundraiser race.

Simply stated, Martin O'Malley's strategy seems to be that he has enough money to lie his way to victory over Erlich. 

To use a variation of the hackneyed, hillaryesque cliché, that is the politics of desperation. 

Here's a sobering little reminder for Mr. O'Malley:  Robert Erlich became Governor by beating out Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy's daughter, in the blue state of Maryland.  If could do that then, he can beat you now.

Ken Berwitz

"You can see a lot, just by observing":  The inimitable Yogi Berra

Yogi's way of making that point might cause you to do a double-take, even cringe a little.  But he had a point.

He must have had a point.  Because, evidently, the G-20 nations saw a lot just by observing how abysmal a failure his so-called "stimulus package" has been, and acted accordingly. 

Excerpted from a report at abcnews.com:

President Obama lost the argument. His G-20 colleagues decided here in Toronto to turn their economic attention from spending on stimulus to cutting deficits. The president faces financial reform and Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

That is exactly what Obama warned against, arguing that turning off the stimulus spigot could stop the fragile global economic recovery in its tracks.

Despite all the president's cajoling and arm-twisting, the host of summit of the world's industrialized and developing economies delivered the message that it is time to stop spending.

"Advanced countries must send a clear message, that as our stimulus plans expire we will focus on getting our fiscal houses in order," Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said.

Now why do you suppose the G-20 nations would ignore President Obama's advice on this?  Could it have anything to do with the fact that since the "stimulus package" was inflicted on us by Mr. Obama and his Democratic congress unemployment went up instead of going down, millions of jobs were lost instead of gained and the economy has barely nudged upward?  D'ya think?

But look at the bright side.  In return for soaring unemployment, millions of lost jobs an economy down the crapper, the "stimulus package" has given us a huge jump in....er....our national deficit.   Whoops, that's not good at all. Never mind.

I guess you can see a lot just by observing. 

Now:  have voters seen enough by observing this administration's performance to do something about it in November?   With a tip of the cap to Yogi, I hope they "catch" on.

Ken Berwitz

When I blog about someone who dies, I almost always use a title of that person's name and either R.I.P. (Rest In Peace) or R.I.H. (Rot In Hell).

Senator Robert Byrd died at about 3:00AM this morning, at the age of  92.  For him, I won't use either acronym, because I consider Byrd to be somewhere in between - leaning to the R.I.H, but somewhere in between.

On the positive side, Byrd has to be respected as a 9 term senator (the one and only).  He was an expert in the constitution and in legislative procedure.  He also had a stable marriage (68 years until his wife died) and could play the fiddle very well.

Other than that?  He was a career racist. 

Byrd joined the ku klux klan in his youth, and stayed in it for four years and held leadership positions in the "organization".  He then left the klan (probably because it looked better politically).  But the attitudes that caused him to join stayed right where they were. 

Years after his klan tenure, Byrd wrote to a "grand wizard" of the klan that:

"The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."

Byrd also wrote a heartfelt letter to segregationist Senator Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi condemning integration of the United States military.  His exact words:

"I shall never submit to fight beneath the banner [the American flag] with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

It is true that both of those incidents occurred in the 1940's, and Byrd later apologized profusely for them.  And I'll bet he fooled a lot of folks with those apologies too. 

But let's also remember that Byrd filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  And in 2001, while being interviewed by Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, on race relations, he said:

"There are white niggers.  I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time"

The meaning of that comment?  That, to Byrd, Blacks are still niggers and there are White people just as bad as Black niggers.

No, the leopard never changed his spots. 

Finally, add in the prodigious list of pork projects he created and steered to West Virginia, which cost taxpayers god only knows how many billions of dollars.  That is the Byrd Legacy.

So Robert Byrd doesn't get an R.I.P. or R.I.H from me.  Let's just leave it at the fact that I'm glad he's out of the senate.

Ken Berwitz

This is for anyone who wonders what jeremiah wright, the "man" whose church Barack Obama attended for almost 20 years, who married the Obamas, who baptized their children, and who Mr. Obama described as his "spiritual mentor", is up to these days.  I've put a number of the lowlights in bold print:

Excerpted from an article in today's New York Post:

Obama's race-rant Rev. rages on

'White folk done took this country'

By MAUREEN CALLAHAN

Last Updated: 5:00 PM, June 27, 2010

Posted: 2:35 AM, June 27, 2010

 

EXCLUSIVE

 

CHICAGO -- He's been keeping such a low profile since nearly derailing Barack Obama's campaign for president in 2008 -- is it possible that the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright has mellowed?

Hardly.

 

During a five-day seminar Wright taught last week in Chicago, he was back at it, claiming that whites and Jews are controlling the flow of worldwide information and oppressing blacks in Israel and America.

 

"White folk done took this country," Wright said. "You're in their home, and they're gonna let you know it."

 

The course, advertised as focusing on politics and public policy in South Africa and America, was taught in a small, ground-floor room at the Chicago Theological Seminary, where Wright's voice echoed out an open window. The class was composed of about 15 to 20 students, mainly older African-American women who would arrive early and giddily linger during lunch breaks and after class, looking for the reverend's attention. (The course cost a little over $1,000 if taken for college credit and $300 if taken without.)

 

The absence of young people was telling: The lectures seemed ossified, relics of a pre-civil-rights America -- a point that Obama himself made during his famous speech on race in March 2008, prompted by the incendiary comments ("God damn America!") made by his former pastor and mentor.

 

"Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect," Obama said.

 

Yet during this course -- which was described as asking, "What is the response and public witness of persons of faith to ongoing developments in both countries?" -- Wright made many statements about what he believes are the true aims of whites and Jews.

 

"You are not now, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be a brother to white folk," he said. "And if you do not realize that, you are in serious trouble."

 

He cited the writings of Bill Jones -- author of the book "Is God a White Racist?" -- as proof that white people cannot be trusted. "Bill said, 'They just killed four of their own at Kent State. They'll step on you like a cockroach and keep on movin', cause you not a brother to them.' "

 

Wright referred to Italians as "Mamma Luigi" and "pizzeria." He said the educational system in America is designed by whites to miseducate blacks "not by benign neglect but by malignant intent."

 

He said Ethiopian Jews are despised by white Jews: "And now the Knesset [Israeli parliament] is meeting with European Jews, voting on whether or not these African Jews can get into [Israel]."

 

The civil-rights movement, Wright said, was never about racial equality: "It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do." Martin Luther King, he said, was misguided for advocating nonviolence among his people, "born in the oven of America."

 

"We probably have more African-Americans who've been brainwashed than we have South Africans who've been brainwashed," he said, and seemed to allude to President Obama twice: "Unfortunately, I got in trouble with a fella for saying this . . . All your commentaries are written by oppressors." At the mention of Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan -- whom Obama disavowed during the campaign -- black leaders "go cuttin' and duckin'," he said.

Ken Berwitz

Here, excerpted from an article at Reuters, is Venezuelan President hugo chavez discussing Israel.

His comments are in rust.  Mine are in blue:

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez described Israel on Saturday as a genocidal state that acted as an assassin for the United States, predicting the Middle East nation would one day be "put in its place."  Genocidal?  Let’s forget the insanity of that comment for a moment, and deal with the ironic.  If Israel wanted to act genocidally against Gaza, it could.  Israel has the military capability to vaporize so-called “Palestinian Territories”, and has for decades.  The fact that it could do so at will, but has not, is the answer to chavez’s vile, hate-filled dishonesty for anyone with an IQ above 34.  

The socialist Chavez is a harsh critic of both Israel and the United States and cut relations with Israel after accusing it of "holocaust" for its 2009 offensive in the Gaza Strip.  Great going, hugo.  A military operation in Gaza of a couple of months' duration, after it spent the last three years attacking Israel daily, is equivalent to a specific plan by Israel to wipe out the entire Gazan population for no reason other than a desire to commit genocide against Arabs.  Brilliant.

"It has become the assassin arm of the United States, no one can doubt it. It is a threat to all of us," Chavez said, during a visit by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.  “No one can doubt it”?  Now we’re talking about those 34 IQs again.

Chavez said he supported a peaceful struggle for the return to Syria of the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in 1967.  How about a peaceful struggle to return democracy to Venezuela and re-establish its rule of law?  How about a peaceful struggle to un-nationalize the media so that it is able to broadcast something other than chavez adoration again.  How about a peaceful struggle to give back the industries you stole from others?  How about a peaceful struggle to --- ok, enough.  If I did every one of the “peaceful struggles” needed to undo what chavez has wreaked on Venezuela, this blog would exceed my server’s capacity.

"The territory will one day return to the Syrian hands," Chavez said. "Of course we want it to be peaceful because we don't want more war."

"But one day the genocidal state of Israel will be put into its place, and let's hope that a really democratic state emerges there, with which we can share a path and ideas."  “Put in its place"?  Who exactly is going to do that?  chavez?   "Hope that a really democratic state emerges"?  Like the "democratic state" chavez has inflicted on Venezuela?

I could go on, but somehow I think you get the message.

Now:  how about a statement from the Obama administration castigating chavez for this libelous BS? 

Yeah, right.  From the Obama administration. 

Keep waiting, it should come any day now.  Any day...........

Ken Berwitz

How do you feel about  instances in which people are discriminated against by their skin color, or their gender, or their age, or a plethora of other factors?  Are you outraged?  I hope so, because you should be.

Well, how do you feel when people are discriminated against because they don't belong to an organization - a politically connected organization that gives money and manpower to the people doing the discriminating?

With that in mind, here are excerpts from Jeff Jacoby's column in today's Boston Globe.  See how your high the dial on your outrage-meter goes (the bold print is mine):

The union-only protection racket

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
June 27, 2010

 

THIS IS THE KIND OF THING, Charlie Baker was saying one day last week, that "makes people crazy about state government."

The Republican gubernatorial candidate was standing near the site of the University of Massachusetts-Boston's forthcoming expansion -- a 10-year master plan for at least $750 million in new construction and renovation projects. On June 14, the University of Massachusetts Building Authority had voted to proceed under a Project Labor Agreement, meaning that only workers who pay dues to a union will be hired for one of the largest building projects now in the offing. Since roughly 80 percent of the construction workforce in Massachusetts is open-shop (non-union), the PLA amounts to naked political favoritism for organized labor -- and a raw deal for everyone else. Baker condemns PLAs as unjust, and pledges to ban them in state contracts if elected.

Governor Deval Patrick, on the other hand, openly touts his success in steering lucrative construction contracts to the politically-wired sliver of trade workers who choose to belong to a union. "Take our biggest construction project, the $300 million undertaking at Worcester State Hospital," he told the Building Trades Conference in Plymouth in March. "96 percent of the construction spending is being carried out by union workers."

Something is plainly wrong when elected officials boast of excluding the vast majority of contractors and their employees from the chance to work on public projects. If the situation were reversed -- if union members were the ones being blackballed by the administration -- voters would be outraged. Is it any less outrageous when bids are rigged in favor of unions?

There is no economic rationale for these union-only deals. They are discriminatory and anticompetitive, and thus drive up costs significantly. When Suffolk University's Beacon Hill Institute analyzed the costs of building126 Boston-area schools, it found that PLAs inflated the winning bids for construction projects by almost 14 percent, and added an extra 12 percent to the actual construction costs. When it comes to public construction, PLAs all but guarantee that taxpayers will be overcharged. As The Wall Street Journal observed wryly in April: "Boston's Big Dig, Seattle's Safeco Field, Los Angeles's Eastside Reservoir project, the San Francisco airport, Detroit's Comerica Park -- all were built under PLAs marked by embarrassing cost overruns."

Not surprisingly, taxpayers resent such extortion. Earlier this month, voters in the southern California municipalities of Oceanside and Chula Vista handily enacted ballot initiatives prohibiting PLAs on city-funded construction. A similar measure goes on the ballot in San Diego in November.

According to a statewide Suffolk University-7 News survey taken in March, Massachusetts residents have no use for PLAs either. Asked whether private contractors working on public projects should be compelled to hire exclusively through union hiring halls, 69 percent said No.

In our society, we have developed two lists of discriminatory behavior, usually defined by the way our wonderful "neutral" media report it.  You probably can fill in both lists without my help. 

On one list, the discrimination is a scandal and we should be outraged. On the other list, it is a good thing, a desirable thing, and we should look the other way, even celebrate it

Discrimination in favor of union workers, thus against the large majority of people who do not belong to unions, is clearly on the second list. 

Am I against unions?  Not only is the answer "no", but I think the union movement is owed a great debt of gratitude by this country, for "evening the playing field" between the average worker.  Unions gave - and continue to give - workers the leverage they need to deal with large, powerful corporations which otherwise would ride roughshod over them. 

But, today, the union itself is all too often the "powerful corporation that rides roughshod over others. 

Through the size of their memberships and mandatory dues collection, major unions can - and do - wield enormous political power.  They can give a candidate supporters at a rally and protesters at the opposition candidate's rally.  They can move large numbers of people in targeted areas (i.e. where their candidate is strongest) to polling locations on election day, and they can line the pockets of politicians who support them with tons of money.

Is that why a Deval Patrick, and countless other politicians, proudly discriminate against the majority of workers by funneling work to all-powerful unions while shutting out everyone else as often as possible? 

There's another one you don't need my help for.

Ken Berwitz

Candidate Barack Obama, during the 2008 presidential campaign:

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"

Excerpted from an article by Jon Ward at dailycaller.com:

A growing number of Democratic lawmakers have begun to make noise in recent days about raising taxes on the middle class and discarding President Obama’s promise not to increase the tax burden on those making $250,000 a year or less.

 

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is the most prominent. But another member of the House Democratic leadership, Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, also indicated that a middle class tax increase might be inevitable, as have three senior Democratic senators: Dianne Feinstein of California, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, and Tom Harkin of Iowa.

 

Meanwhile, the only noise from the White House on the matter is a loud silence. Asked to comment on whether the president’s pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class still stands, the White House declined.

Remember when President Bush (the first one) reneged on his "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge?  It was politically disastrous for him.  Media never stopped talking about it, and was a key reason he lost his presidency to Bill Clinton in 1992.

That was perfectly fair.  Bush 41 made the pledge and broke it.  He deserved to be nailed, and nailed he was.

Well, is Barack Obama going to add no middle class tax hikes to the list of pledges he has broken?  And, if so, will the media nail him for it the way they nailed Bush.

I have a pretty strong feeling that I know the answer to both these questions (and suspect that you do too).  But let's wait and see.  You never know.

Ken Berwitz

Why, after a year and a half of the Obama administration, is the U.S. economy so far in the tank?  Joe Biden has an anwer for you, via www.cbsnews.com (among many other sources):

Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, "there's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession."

Appearing at a fundraiser with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) in Milwaukee, the vice president remarked that by the time he and President Obama took office in 2008, the gross domestic product had shrunk and hundreds of thousands of jobs had been lost.

"We inherited a godawful mess," he said, adding there was "no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost."

The "so-called "stimulus package" was passed by a lopsidedly Democratic congress and signed by the Democratic President on February 17, 2009.  That is nearly one and a half years ago.  It was passed, literally, without almost any congresspeople actually reading it.  Why?  Because the President said it had to be on the books immediately.  In other words, as a leap of faith in Barack Obama's honesty and capability.

And what did he say would happen if we passed the "stimulus package"?  He said that unemployment, then at 8%, would cap right there.  He didn't say that there was no way to stanch the loss of jobs, he told us that if we put ourselves, our children and our grandchildren in hock to the tune of almost one trillion dollars in new debt, it would stop dead in its tracks. 

Mr. Obama also told us that the "stimulus package" would result in creating 3,500,000 - 4,000,000 jobs by the end of 2010 - a promise that quickly morphed into saving or creating that many jobs.

So now it is over 16 months later.  And unemployment neither went down nor stopped at the promised cap of 8%.  Currently, it is almost 10%. 

And those 3,500.000 - 4,000,000 jobs that were going to be saved and/or created?  We have lost double the amount of jobs instead.

In other words, President Obama got exactly the legislation he wanted, put us almost a trillion more dollars into debt, and instead of things getting better, the economy tanked spectacularly.

What to do, what to do?

The answer is simple.  Do what we did before.  Blame Bush.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  It wasn't our bad legislation, it wasn't our massive new debt, it wasn't our broken promises, all of which were made knowing full well the shape this economy was in.  Just blame Bush.

It wasn't that Mr. Obama and his administration performed incompetently.  It isn't that Mr. Obama's plan was an abject failure.  It isn't that they lied to our faces.  It is because of Bush.  Him alone.  Nothing and no one else.  Just Bush. 

Now my big question:  other than the (rapidly dwindling) population segment that is still hopelessly Obamesmerized, who will believe this?   Is there anyone that gullible still left?

I guess we'll soon find out.

Ken Berwitz

That title is not - repeat, not - a joke.  

Chris Matthews, who seems determined to be more offensive than keith olbermann, actually said it on Friday.

Excerpted from Ken Shepherd's blog at newsbusters.org:

"Being a suicide bomber is the new political role model," Chris Matthews told his Friday "Hardball" audience. "Just kill everything, destroy everything, blow it up, nothing gets done. You're dead, but who cares?" he added, referring to conservative Republicans running against Democrats in the 2010 midterms.

 

The comment came at the end of a segment featuring Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and Politico's Jim VandeHei. Matthews had complained to the latter that the congressional minority Republicans were intent not merely on tinkering around the edges of the majority Democrats' policy proposals but on "destroy[ing] the United States government every time it gets up in the morning" all to the applause of "its cheering section back home say[ing] good work, keep trying to destroy the government."

 

[MP3 audio available here; WMV video available here]

Brilliant, Chris.  Just brilliant.

And what a master stroke to say this to jim moran, the anti-Semitic scumbag who thinks that Jews, through what he fantasizes as their decisive influence on United States miltary policy, orchestrated the war in Iraq.   His exact words, spewed on March 3, 2003:

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this.  The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

Note:  When Matthews did his highly hyped and (apparently) quickly buried "documentary" on the right, he was good enough not to include Jews as puppetmasters of the previous administration.  I wonder how hard he had to fight the urge.  

What a guy Chris Matthews is!  Conservative Republicans are like suicide bombers, stated during a panel discussion with a Jew-hating, Jew-baiting idiot whom he has given a place at the table.

Watch out, olbermann.  Matthews is definitely gaining on you.

Ken Berwitz

No ruler necessary here.  I'm talking about the time it takes to have sex.

Here is a fascinating report from London's Daily Mail on the subject:

Perfect 10 minutes: Survey of men and women reveals the length of an ideal sexual experience

By Katherine Faulkner
Last updated at 8:20 AM on 25th June 2010

 

Couples who think they’re not measuring up because so many celebrities boast about sex sessions that last all night can take some comfort.

 

Contrary to popular fantasy about the need for hours of passionate activity, sex therapists say around ten minutes is perfectly satisfactory.

 

In fact, shows such as Sex And The City and Desperate Housewives have created unrealistic expectations of bedroom performance that can only lead to disappointment.

 

Perfect experience: Couples enjoy sex for anything between three and thirteen minutes, according to research. (Posed by models)

 

Real couples are satisfied with making love for between three and 13 minutes – and can find anything over ten minutes tiresome.

 

Researchers Eric Corty and Jenay Guardiani conducted a survey of 50 members of the Society for Sex Therapy and Research, which include psychologists, physicians, social workers, marriage/family therapists and nurses.

 

They have collectively seen thousands of patients over decades in the U.S. and Canada.

 

They were asked to rate a range of times for sexual intercourse that they considered adequate, desirable, too short and too long.

 

Most of them classed lovemaking that lasted three to seven minutes as ‘adequate’ and sex lasting between seven and 13 minutes as ‘desirable’.

 

However, anything longer than 13 minutes was rated ‘too long.’

 

Most agreed that sex that lasted between one and two minutes was ‘too short’ to provide satisfaction.

The researchers said they wanted the results to ‘encourage’ couples.

 

‘Today’s popular culture has reinforced stereotypes about sexual activity,’ said Mr Corty, an Associate Professor of Psychology at Penn State University.

 

‘Many men and women seem to believe the fantasy of… all-night-long intercourse.

 

‘This seems a situation ripe for disappointment and dissatisfaction.

 

‘We hope this survey will dispel fantasies and encourage men and women with realistic data.’

 

Corty and Guardiani published their findings in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

 

The survey comes as counselling services reported an increase in the number of couples complaining that they are disappointed with their sex lives.

 

Counselling organisation Relate has seen a two-fold increase in the number of couples turning to sex therapy in the past five years.

 

A separate survey published this month has shown that most married women would now rather go to sleep, read a book or watch a film than have sex.

There you have it, folks.  An explanation of your sex life.  If it's 3 - 7 minutes per, you're ok, and 7-13 is ideal.

Of course, if you're a woman, the 3 - 7 must be better because it's that much sooner to get to your book, movie or sleepy-time.

Bobby Slayton, the profoundly profane but hilariously funny "pit bull of comedy" has an interesting read on this issue.  He says "think of it as a race.  I finished first.  I win!".

His wife must be very well read.  And very well rested.

Ok, back to politics.

Ken Berwitz

Remember that poor innocent teenage boy who was shot dead by a border patrol guard earlier this month?  Remember his distraught mother telling us what a good boy he was, what a fine student, etc. etc. yada yada yada?  Remember the angry protest from Mexican officials, right up to President felipe calderon, that a border guard would dare to shoot at a group of young men?  After all, they were only illegally breaching the border and throwing rocks at the guards which could injure or kill them.

Well here is an interesting postscript to that story, excerpted from an Associated Press article  published today:

EL PASO, Texas (AP) -- A 15-year-old Mexican boy shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent was among El Paso's most wanted juvenile immigrant smugglers, according to federal arrest records reviewed by The Associated Press.

 

The records show Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereka had been arrested at least four times since 2008 and twice in the same week in February 2009 on suspicion of smuggling illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border. Hernandez was repeatedly arrested along the U.S. side of the border near downtown El Paso, not far from where he was killed, but was never charged with a crime by federal prosecutors.

 

A Border Patrol agent shot and killed Hernandez June 7 while trying to arrest illegal immigrants crossing the muddy bed of the Rio Grande. Some witnesses said a group of people on the Mexican side were throwing rocks at the agents. Agents are generally permitted to use lethal force against rock throwers.

Hmmmm.  Maybe young Mr. Hernandez wasn't quite ready for beatification after all.

But if you're waiting for some kind of explanation from the mother of this 15 year old career criminal, or an apology from President calderon, you can kiss it goodbye.  There won't be any.

The only good that has come of this is that there are a lot of U.S. border guards who understand what it's like to be an Israeli soldier.

Ken Berwitz

Did you know that a letter was circulated in the senate and the house, affirming support for Israel after the "flotilla fraud"?

Here is the senate version of this letter (Noel Sheppard of www.newsbusters.org writes that the house version is very similar):

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D.C.  20510

 
Dear Mr. President:

We write to affirm our support for our strategic partnership with Israel, and encourage you to continue to do so before international organizations such as the United Nations.  The United States has traditionally stood with Israel because it is in our national security interest and must continue to do so.

Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East and a vibrant democracy.  Israel is also a partner to the United States on military and intelligence issues in this critical region.  That is why it is our national interest to support Israel at a moment when Israel faces multiple threats from Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the current regime in Iran.  Israel’s opponents have developed clever diplomatic and tactical ploys to challenge its international standing, whether the effort to isolate Israel at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference or the recent effort to breach the naval blockade around Gaza.

We fully support Israel’s right to self-defense.  In response to thousands of rocket attacks on Israel from Hamas terrorists in Gaza, Israel took steps to prevent items which could be used to support these attacks from reaching Gaza.  Israel’s naval blockade, which is legal under international law, allows Israel to keep dangerous goods from entering Gaza by sea.  The intent of the measures is to protect Israel, while allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Late last month when Israel learned that groups operating in Turkey wanted to challenge its blockade of Gaza, Israel made every effort to ensure that the humanitarian aid reached Gaza without needlessly precipitating a confrontation.  Israeli forces were able to safely divert five of the six ships challenging the blockade.  However, video footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass. They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted. 

We are deeply concerned about the IHH’s role in this incident and have additional questions about Turkey and any connections to Hamas.   The IHH is a member of a group of Muslim charities, the Union of Good, which was designated by the US Treasury Department as a terrorist organization.  The Union of Good was created by, and strongly supports Hamas, which has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department.  We recommend that your administration consider whether the IHH should be put on the list of foreign terrorist organizations, after an examination by the intelligence community, the State Department, and the Treasury Department.

We commend the action you took to prevent the adoption of an unfair United Nations Security Council resolution, which would have represented a rush to judgment by the international community.  We also deplore the actions of the United Nations Human Rights Council which, once again, singled out Israel.  Israel has announced its intention to promptly carry out a thorough investigation of this incident and has the right to determine how its investigation is conducted.  In the meantime, we ask you to stand firm in the future at the United Nations Security Council and to use your veto power, if necessary, to prevent any similar biased or one-sided resolutions from passing.

Finally, we believe that this incident should not derail the current proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. We hope that these talks will move quickly to direct negotiations and ultimately, to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict

If you have not seen this letter, there is a good reason.  According to Noel Sheppard's blog, other than www.thehill.com "LexisNexis and Google News searches produced only Agence France-Presse and UPI reporting this news in the states.  No newspapers, no television outlets, and no Associated Press".

Can you come up with any reasonable explanation for why news about a letter on a controversial subject, signed by most members of both parties in both houses of congress, has been buried by the media?   There's only one I can think of and, frankly, it is pretty ugly.

Now:  We know that a vast majority of both houses signed the letters.  What we don't know is which individual congresspeople did and did not sign them.  It seems that whenever something like this happens, our media - if they report the existence of the letters at all, that is - somehow fail to provide this information.

But here's something we do know:  the last time a letter of support for Israel was circulated in the house, just a few months ago, a total of 98 members would not sign it:  91 Democrats and 7 Republicans. 

I fully expect that this new letter has just about the same party relativity.

Yet a very large majority of Jews, most of whom presumably support Israel, continue to vote Democratic election after election, like mind-numbed robots.  This, despite the Democratic Party becoming more and more openly anti Israel. 

Based on my own experience among family and friends, a good many do so second-naturedly, without ever seriously considering the alternatives.  No matter what the Democratic Party says or does, they have always found a "reason", however strained, to continue voting that way. 

And, by withholding information like this, our wonderful "neutral" media maximize the prospects that they will continue to do so like clockwork.

Hey, maybe we found that explanation we were looking for.....

Ken Berwitz

Has Representative Alan Grayson, the embarrassment from Orlando, Florida, funded a group of fraudulent candidates in an effort to win re-election for himself and other Democrats?

The evidence is strong - seemingly incontrovertible - that Grayson has created sham "opponents", whose real job is to split Republican/conservative votes, thus giving him a winning plurality. 

Here is the beginning of a very long - but immensely worthwhile - exposé of this sordid mess, from clickorlando.net:

Grayson Paid Company Formed By Fla. Tea Party Candidate

Payments Boost GOP Claims That Grayson Wants To Split Conservative Votes

Tony Pipitone

POSTED: Monday, June 21, 2010

UPDATED: 11:05 am EDT June 22, 2010

ORLANDO, Fla. -- U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson's campaign has paid nearly $20,000 to a corporation created by a Florida Tea Party candidate, with help from that party's top consultant, lending support to Republicans' claims that Grayson is funneling some of his $30-plus million fortune toward a party that is running a candidate against him in the general election.

VIDEO: Tony Pipitone's Report

Grayson's motivation, Republicans say is to support a "sham" party whose candidate will siphon away conservative votes from the eventual Republican nominee in November, boosting Grayson's chances of re-election.

A Local 6 investigation has found Grayson’s campaign spent $19,898 with Public Opinion Strategies Inc., a company formed by Victoria Torres, a Florida Tea Party candidate for a state House of Representatives seat in Pinellas County. Torres has said she created the company in December 2008 with the help of the Florida Tea Party’s public relations consultant, Doug Guetzloe.

Guetzloe and his attorney, Frederic B. O’Neal, who created the Florida Tea Party last year, are being sued by Republican tea party movement activists who claim the pair created the Florida Tea Party to “hijack” the tea party movement for their own “gains (and) profits.”

The owners of Public Opinion Strategies -- the people who stand to benefit financially from the multimillionaire Grayson’s campaign money -- are not revealed in public records.

The only corporate director listed in state records is the Florida Tea Party candidate Victoria Torres, who swore in court papers in April that she has no cash, no income, no potential income, no stock and no possible asset from any corporation.

I strongly urge you to click on the link I have provided and read every word.  It is devastating.

Also, please note when this information was made public.  FOUR DAYS AGO.  The only reason I know about it is that, in reading through right wing and left wing web sites, I just saw it at www.freerepublic.com, Otherwise, I wouldn't have any inkling at all that this story existed.

Why?  Because our wonderful "neutral" media did not pick up this story and report it.  That's why.  How disgraceful.  How pathetic.

The bottom line:  If any of this is true, Alan Grayson should resign forthwith. 

But this is Alan Grayson, the guy who said that the Republican health care plan is that you just die (yes, he really said that).  So you have to know this man has absolutely no capacity for humility or shame, thus he's not going anywhere.

The only way Grayson leaves is if the voters in his district have wised up to his act -- which is why he would have done something like this in the first place.

Ken Berwitz

She has never been a judge.  She has never performed as a lawyer.  Thousands of documents relating to her opinions on matters that might come up before the Supreme Court are being withheld by the Obama administration.  The latest poll shows that more voters oppose her than support her as a Supreme Court nominee.

And now this, excerpted from an article at cns.com:

Jewish Clergy Group: Elena Kagan Isn't ‘Kosher’ to Serve on Supreme Court
Friday, June 25, 2010

By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor (CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is “not kosher” -- meaning she is not fit to serve on the court -- according to more than 850 Orthodox members of the Rabbinical Alliance of America. That's the term the rabbis used about Kagan in a press release issued Thursday, saying "Elena Kagan is not kosher. She is not fit to sit on this Court -- or any court."
 
Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the alliance, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that "a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this.” 

It is becoming increasingly apparent that there is no good reason for Elena Kagan to be handed a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Which, given the history of this administration and its lopsidedly Democratic congress, makes it virtually certain that there will be no serious demand for her to withdraw as the nominee, and almost as certain that she will be confirmed.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.

And that goes double for 2012.

Ken Berwitz

Today's hands-down winner comes to us from Democrat County Supervisor Peggy West, at a board hearing in Milwaukee to decide whether the city should boycott Arizona over its new immigration laws:

“If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this. But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border”

Hey don't blame poor Peggy.  It is a perfectly understandable mistake.  After all, we're only talking about a tiny sliver of Arizona's western border --- and the entire southern border, of, oh, about 300 or so miles.  

Obviously Ms. West is very stressed out from all that intensive map reading.  My advice would be for her to drive across the Wisconsin border to Hawaii, for some much-needed R & R.

Make sure you have a full tank, Peg.

Ken Berwitz

It's those damn right wing fanatics, they're the violent ones.  Those tea-partying, conservative-voting crazies.  Everyone knows that, we read it in the papers and see it on TV all the time, don't we?

Excerpted from an article today at bayoubuzz.com:

New Orleans--While many Americans undoubtedly agree with the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman to overturn the Obama administration’s moratorium on deep water drilling, not everyone is happy. In fact, the Judge is now receiving death threats in the aftermath of his bold ruling.

Last night, Feldman served as a celebrity judge at a cooking contest at a school gymnasium in Uptown New Orleans. Due to the threats, Feldman was accompanied by a federal marshal security team.

I just bet there will be feature stories about this on MSNBC tonight, one after the next........

Ken Berwitz

I want to add a little more to yesterday's blog about land in Arizona that is either specifically or tacitly closed because drug and human traffickers are operating freely within it.

Yes, during the Bush administration a minuscule (3,500 acre) parcel of land within the Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge, right on the Mexican border, was closed to U.S. citizens.  But, to address this problem, President Bush ok'ed construction of a 12 foot fence there, which has dramatically lessened the number of illegal crossings ever since.

That sounds like a pretty logical progression, doesn't it?  A problem is identified, addressed and largely solved.

Now, let's compare George Bush's performance with Barack Obama's. 

There is an expanse of land, vastly larger than the 3,500 acre parcel President Bush addressed, which US citizens are being warned not to travel through.  It is within the Sonora Desert National Monument area - something like 80 miles inland from the Mexican border - and apparently has become a safe haven for drug cartels and people who smuggle human beings into our country. 

The Obama administration's entire reaction so far has been the promise of an inadequate number of troops to address the situation (3,000 were asked for, only 1,200 were promised) which, Arizona was told, would arrive in two weeks.

But it is now over a month and no troops have been sent.

In other words, President Obama is doing nothing about this. Not a thing.  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.

Is Barack Obama ceding land to drug pushers and human traffickers, so that they can operate freely within our borders?  You tell me.

So the next time you read, or hear, someone telling you that Bush closed the land to U.S. citizens, you will know the real story - which is:

 a) In 2006, Bush acted decisively to resolve the problem.

b) Today, the land area in question is in a different place, well within our borders, and is vastly larger than the 3,500 acres of border land closed under Bush.

c) President Obama is not doing a thing about it.

I can't prove it, but it seems very clear that President Obama is "punishing" Arizona for its new laws, passed in an attempt to secure the border with Mexico.  If so, this is despicable and then some. 

Arizona passed those laws only because the federal government under President Obama is not doing a thing to protect the border.  Not big things, not small things.  Nothing at all.  It is leaving Arizona to deal with an estimated HALF MILLION ILLEGALS who are taking jobs, sucking social services dry and are the primary cause of Arizona's massive jump in crime - especially drug trafficking.

If the federal government is abdicating its reponsibility to protect the border, what is the state supposed to do?  Put out a welcome mat and provide a list of intersections in Phoenix and Tucson with little kiosks for them to sell the drugs?

You might, at this point, be asking where our wonderful "neutral" media are on this.  Why are they not screaming at the top of their collective lungs for the Obama administration to protect our sovereignty and protect the citizens of this country?

Is it conceivable that some - maybe quite a few - journalists are ok with the USA ignoring its own border and allowing unlimited access to illegals (including criminals and terrorists let's remember)?   Do you have a more logical explanation?  If so , tell me.  Please.

And where is congress on this?  Where are the howls of protest and the demands that this administration DO something?

Oh, sorry.  I forgot.  Both houses of congress are dominated by Democrats.  So that is not about to happen.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough,.

And that goes double for 2012.

Ken Berwitz

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), yesterday, on the floor of the house of representatives.  The bold print is mine:

“We’re giving relief to people that I deal with in my office every day now unfortunately. But because of the longevity of this recession, these are people — and they’re not minorities and they’re not defective and they’re not all the things you’d like to insinuate that these programs are about — these are average, good American people”

What if that comment were made by a Republican?  How big would the uproar be?  How loud would the calls be this morning for him to resign in disgrace?

So, keeping in mind that Paul Kanjorski is a Democrat, do you think any of that is going to happen? 

If so, I'll take your bet.  I can use the money.

Ken Berwitz

Did Barack Obama know about former Governor Rod Blagojevich's attempts to "sell" Mr. Obama's senate seat for personal gain?

Here is the testimony of  John Harris, Blagojevich's chief of staff, excerpted from an article in the Chicago Sun-Times.  You decide what it means:

A top aide to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich said he believed Barack Obama knew of Blagojevich's plot to win himself a presidential Cabinet post in exchange for appointing Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate.

John Harris, Blagojevich's former chief of staff, testified Wednesday in the former governor's corruption trial that three days after the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, the ex-governor told Harris he felt confident Obama knew he wanted to swap perks.

"The president understands that the governor would be willing to make the appointment of Valerie Jarrett as long as he gets what he's asked for. . . . The governor gets the Cabinet appointment he's asked for," Harris said, explaining a recorded call.

Harris said Blagojevich came away believing Obama knew what he wanted after having a conversation with a local union representative, who in turn spoke with labor leader Tom Balanoff, with whom Blagojevich met to discuss a Jarrett appointment. Jarrett, now a White House adviser, was seeking the appointment to Obama's Senate seat.

Defense lawyers say Harris' testimony contradicts the government's previous public statements that Obama knew nothing about deal-making involving the Senate seat appointment.

Wow.

Ok, let's take a deep breath, and wait to hear what President Obama has to say about this.  I promise it won't be long. 

Mr. Obama is no fool.  He knows that every minute this accusation remains unanswered, is a minute that he is damaged.  He must  respond immediately.

I'm all ears.

Ken Berwitz

Let me start by telling readers to disregard my last post.  A lot of the information it contains is incorrect.  The only reason I am leaving it on the web site is that a) I take responsibility when I post inaccurate information and b) I want you to see the difference between what is floating out there and what is real.

I called the Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge and spoke with a very pleasant, knowledgeable and accommodating person at the reception center, who wishes anonymity.  He/she provided a great deal of information, and then referred me to Jose Viramontes, the Public Affairs Specialist and spokesperson for the refuge.  Jose (I think we're on first name terms - in any event he can call me Ken anytime) confirmed the information I had been given and added a good deal more.

Based on the information from these two sources, here are what seem to be the real facts:

-The only Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge land closed to the public is the 3,500 acre tract which was closed in 2006, during the Bush administration. 

-There is a border fence for that stretch of land - 12 feet high I am told.  It was completely built, not partially built and stopped.  According to both sources, the fence has significantly lowered the number of illegals crossing into the USA.

-There is another land area, far from the border (roughly 80 miles north of Mexico), which the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is warning U.S. citizens to stay away from.  It has put up signs which start by saying "Danger.  Public Warning.  Travel Not Recommended  Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area".  According to Jose, this land area is within the Sonoran Desert National Monument area, which encompasses about 1,000,000 acres.

-Importantly, and incredibly, the Sonoran Desert National Monument area is nowhere near the Mexican border.  It is entirely "landlocked" within the United States.  Why it has become a hotbed of illegal activity I don't know.  But it is more than obvious that something has to be done about it.

I'm not a military man.   But it seems to me that a combination of air reconnaisance and a few thousand troops could encircle, close in and trap whoever is holed up there, and remove or destroy whatever assets they have (equipment, arms, structures, etc.) in a relatively short period of time.  I also suspect that, given the debris left along the way, it would be relatively easy to determine what route drug and human smugglers took to get from Mexico to this area, then take steps to seal it off.

So there you have it.  Based on the information from the wildlife refuge and Jose Viramontes, it seems to me that both sides made significant mistakes.

-Fox was wrong to suggest that the entire land area was within the Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge.  However, Fox's suggestion that President Obama, in effect, is conceding this land to Mexico is not wrong, because it was stated as an opinion, not a fact.  Anchor Megyn Kelly's exact words were that "critics say the administration is, in effect, giving a major strip of the southwest back to Mexico".  (You can see/hear the entire Fox segment by clicking here.)

-The sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com web site (along with many other sites reporting the same material) was wrong because it conveniently declined to tell its readers about the Sonoran Desert National Monument land.  It only talked about the 3,500 acres within Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge.  Fox got the geography wrong, but correctly stated that a vastly larger land area was in effect "off limits" to US citizens and that the Obama administration, at least so far, has done nothing about it, thus essentially ceding this land to illegals who smuggle drugs and humans.  Sensen-no-sen did not see fit to tell that part to its readers.

Bottom line:  Both sides were partially right and partially wrong.  You can decide for yourself whose mistakes were more egregious (the answer is pretty clear to me).

Let me end with a few questions:

-When does President Obama DO something about this? 

-When does he send in troops to secure sovereign U.S. land in Arizona? 

-Why hasn't he done it yet? 

-What is he waiting for?

Whose side is he on?

Ken Berwitz

NOTE:  I HAVE FOUND OUT THAT THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF MISINFORMATION IN THIS POST.  PLEASE READ THE NEXT POST TO GET THE ACTUAL STORY!!

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

Time out from the serious issues of the day to debunk one of the, oh, 37,423 different attacks on former president Bush since President Obama took office.

I was reading www.crooksandliars.com to see what the hard left is up in arms about today, and I came across a listing in one of the site's regular features, "Mike's Blog Round Up", which linked me to a web site called www.sensen-no-sen.blogspot.com. **

Sensen-no-sen.com apparently has a blockbuster story about Arizona's Buenos Aires wildlife refuge; specifically the area within it that has been closed to citizens because it is infested with Mexican drug cartel activity and people who smuggle illegal aliens into the country.  It reports that (gasp!) the closing took place under President Bush in 2006, not under President Obama.  And it excoriates Fox (a network it hates with a passion) for telling viewers that President Obama, not Bush, was the culprit.

That's pretty strong stuff.  So I decided to check by going onto the link they provided as "proof" of this "fact".

Here is the statement I found on that site, complete with a map showing the land in question (which you can see by clicking here):

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has closed a portion of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

south of the Garcia Road to public use, under authority found in 8 RM 13.5 and 50 CFR 25.21(e)

effective October 3, 2006. Garcia Road runs east/west parallel to the international boundary about

one mile north of the line. This area is about 3500 acres in size. Our concern for public safety is

paramount.

 

The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent.

The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge has been adversely affectedby border-related activities. The

international border with Mexico has also become increasingly violent. Assaults on law enforcement

officers and violence against migrants have escalated. Violence on the Refuge associated with smugglers

and border bandits has been welldocumented. Many of these activities are concentrated at, or near, the

border. The concentration of illegal activity, surveillance and law enforcement interdictions make

these zones dangerous.

 

Closure is in effect until further notice.

 

Mitch Ellis

Buenos Aires NWR

Refuge Manager

As you can see, the closure sensen-no-sen is referencing involves almost no land at all - 3,500 acres right on the border.  But the closure Fox described is hugely larger:  it goes up to 80 miles north of the Mexican border, and cuts into three different counties.

Further, President Bush addressed this situation by ordering that a border fence be built.  But the project was shut down by President Obama.

So, to summarize,  the Bush "closure" was a tiny sliver of land right on the border.  It has exactly nothing to do with the vastly larger land area Fox has been talking about.  And, in any event, Bush addressed the closure by ordering a border fence, which Obama stopped from being constructed.

Game.  Set.  Match.

Another Bush-Bash debunking for your reading pleasure.  But don't worry, I guarantee there will be more.

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

** Apropos of nothing:   when I was growing up, there was a product called Sen-Sen which was supposed to freshen your breath.  Most of us kids thought it made our breath worse instead of better, but that's for a different blog entry).  I wonder if that product has anything to do with the web site's name.

Ken Berwitz

Is there a media double standard when a politician is accused of sexual wrongdoing?  More specifically, will media sit on the story if it is a Democrat and blast it into high gear if the alleged miscreant is a Republican?

While you're thinking that over and coming to your conclusion (which should take about 2 seconds, maybe less), let me fill in a few blanks by showing you this excerpt from John Hinderaker's blog today at powerlineblog.com:

In 2007 or 2008, then-Portland Tribune reporter Nick Budnick made a public records request and obtained the Portland police report, but the newspaper did not run a story.

Mark Garber, the Tribune's editor-in-chief, said the woman was not willing to talk on the record or press charges and the paper considered the time lapse between the incident and when the paper received the police report. "In the end, we decided not to proceed with a story that we could not document," Garber said.

In general, I'd be OK with a newspaper policy of skepticism with regard to such stories if it were applied consistently. But of course it isn't. There seems to be a pattern here: Newsweek wouldn't publish the Monica Lewinski story; no mainstream outlet was willing to blow the whistle on John Edwards; now this Portland paper sits on the Al Gore story even though it has a police report--a public record--in its possession. It's notable, I think, that not only did the Portland newspaper not publish a story based on the police report alone, it also doesn't appear to have investigated the story beyond perhaps asking the masseuse to "talk on the record." Did it even go so far as to try to verify whether Gore was at the hotel identified by the complainant on the evening in question? One wonders what other stories about prominent Democrats the liberal media are sitting on.

I know the "imagine if it were a Republican" theme gets tedious, but still: is it conceivable that if there were a police report accusing Dick Cheney of a sexual assault, it would not be the occasion for the biggest media frenzy of recent years? No, it isn't. It is hard to resist the speculation that Al Gore has been protected not only because he is a Democrat, but because he is the leading symbol of the global warming movement, which our journalist class enthusiastically supports.

Oh, by the way:  Not one of the network morning shows so much as mentioned this news today.  Zero, zippo, gornischt, nada.

Do you think they'd have done the same for a Republican?   For a leading skeptic of global warming?

If so, give me a puff of what you're smoking.  It must be the good stuff.

Ken Berwitz

The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll was released yesterday.  Its findings are genuinely dismal for President Obama.

In the key measure of job performance, Mr. Obama's approval rating is at 45%, with 48% disapproving - the first negative result he has ever gotten in this poll.  But other numbers are down as well, and by plenty.

Here is some (not all) of the bad news, excerpted from an article by Mark Murray at msnbc.com:

In the poll, Obama’s job-approval rating stands at 45 percent, which is down five points from early last month and down three points from late May.

 

Forty-eight percent in the current survey say they disapprove of his job performance.

What’s more, Obama’s favorable/unfavorable rating is now at 47 percent to 40 percent, down from 49 percent to 38 percent in early May and 52 percent to 35 percent in January.

His scores on other ascpects of the presidency also have declined. In April 2009, 54 percent gave the president high marks for being able to handle a crisis; now it’s 40 percent.

In July 2009, 57 percent gave him high marks for being decisive and for his decision-making; now it’s 44 percent.

And also in July 2009, 61 percent gave him high marks for having strong leadership qualities; now it’s 49 percent.

A silver lining for Obama is that his personal scores are still strong: 64 percent give him high marks for being easygoing and likeable, and 51 percent give him high marks for being compassionate enough to understand average people.

Yet those percentages, too, are down from last year.

I watched part of MSNBC's "Hardball" last night, and was very pleasantly surprised that Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd were so candid about this poll, both in the presentation of the data and their assessment of what it means for President Obama and the Democratic Party.  That is what cable news shows should do, and Hardball would be a lot better if this became the show's standard, instead of an unexpected event.

But The Today Show?  Unbelievable as it may sound, these data - which come from  NBC's own poll - were not featured at all this morning.

The numbers were bad for President Obama, so Today just eliminated them.  In the world of Matt, Meredith and Al, they don't exist.  Viewers who count on Today for news have no idea the poll was even taken.

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

Ken Berwitz

If you like your hypocrisy blatant, this one is for you.

Excerpted from an article at abcnews.com:

ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:  Back in September 2007, when moveon.org attacked General David Petraeus as “General Betray Us,” the Senate passed a resolution to express “full support” for Petraeus and to “strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.”

The resolution passed 72 to 25.

The list of “NO” votes reads like a who’s who of Democratic power players:  Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, the entire Democratic leadership of the Senate (Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray) and the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (Levin).

Also interesting are those who did not vote:  Senators Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

And although Senator Obama skipped this vote, he was in Washington and did vote on the other two measures that came up for a vote that day (one before the Petraeus vote, one after).

Barack Obama, in characteristic fashion when he was a legislator, made a point of not voting one way or the other - even though he was in the chamber that day and voted on issues both before and after the Petraeus resolution.  

Here is the complete list of nays and non-votes.  Don't bother trying to count how many Democrats and Republicans there are, because the list is 100% Democrats.  But please note which Democrats are on the list.  I've bold-printed a few to help you out:

NAYs ---25
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3
Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) Obama (D-IL)

Hypocrites?  To the max.

Ken Berwitz

Here's a huge story the mainstream media, at least so far, have decided not to notice:

The National Enquirer, which won nods as a 2010 Pulitzer Prize finalist for uncovering John Edward's secret love child, now reports that former Vice President Al Gore was accused of sexual assault during a visit to promote climate change in Portland in 2006.

Gore was never charged with a crime, but the Enquirer reports that a 54-year-old masseuse claims the attack happened at a local upscale hotel:

No criminal charges were brought against Gore, but the Portland police prepared a document marked "Confidential Special Report" - which records the explosive allegations of "unwanted sexual contact" by Al Gore "at a local upscale hotel."

The ENQUIRER is withholding the name of the 54-year-old woman making the stunning accusations because she is potentially a sex-crime victim.

Portland police spokeswoman Detective Mary Wheat said this morning she's receiving inquires "from all over the world" regarding the matter, and said police supervisors are about to meet this morning to discuss what material, if any, is available.

Whatever that might be, it will probably be released something later today, Wheat says.

Is the National Enquirer a bottom feeding rag?  If you're asking me, the answer is yes.   But one thing it definitely knows is sex scandals.  The Enquirer has been right about them time after time after time.

Maybe this is why Mr. Gore's marriage broke up.  I certainly don't know one way or the other any more than I know for sure that this is a real story. 

But one thing I'm reasonably sure of:  If this were George Bush instead of Al Gore, the story would be fighting General McChrystal for top billing today.

Ken Berwitz

Say you're President Obama.  What do you do with a cabinet Secretary who lies to our faces?

Well, if he lies in a way that promotes your point of view, the answer apparently is nothing at all.

Let me explain, via an excerpt from Michelle Malkin's fire-breathing column about Salazar's lies.  Please pay special attention to the last paragraph, which I have put in bold print.:

Ken Salazar gets an a**-kicking
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

For all his John Wayne rhetoric on the BP oil spill, President Obama has failed to administer a swift kick to the ample, deserving rump of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. No matter. Federal judge Martin Feldman has now done the job the White House won’t do.

In a scathing ruling issued Tuesday afternoon, New Orleans-based Feldman overturned the administration’s radical six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling – and he singled out Salazar’s central role in jerry-rigging a federal panel’s scientific report to bolster flagrantly politicized conclusions. In a sane world, Salazar’s head would roll. In Obama world, he gets immunity.

The suit challenging Obama’s desperately political ban was filed by Covington, La., rig company, Hornbeck Offshore Services, which spoke on behalf of all the “small people” in the industry whose economic survival is at stake. As the plaintiffs’ lawyer argued in court, the overbroad ban promised to be more devastating to Gulf workers than the spill itself. “This is an unprecedented industry-wide shutdown. Never before has the government done this,” attorney Carl Rosenblum said.

Scientists who served on the committee expressed outrage upon discovering earlier this month that Salazar had — unilaterally and without warning — inserted a blanket drilling ban recommendation into their report. In fact,seven panelists explicitly opposed a blanket ban as “punishing the innocent.” As Feldman recounted in his ruling:

In the Executive Summary to the Report, [Salazar] recommends “a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs.” He also recommends “an immediate halt to drilling operations on the 33 permitted wells, not including relief wells currently being drilled by BP, that are currently being drilled using floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness, the Summary also states that “the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.” As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading. The experts charge it was a “misrepresentation.” It was factually incorrect.

Allow me to be more injudicious: Salazar lied. Salazar committed fraud. Salazar sullied the reputations of the experts involved and abused his authority.

Ken Salazar should summarily be fired.  He has directly, blatantly lied to us.  There is no way to sugar-coat this.

But will our wonderful "neutral" media, or our Democratic-dominated congress, go into high gear and petition for it to happen? 

Wait a minute:  I'm asking if they would petition for the firing of an Obama appointee who lied in an attempt to lessen the production of domestic oil. 

Am I kidding?  I might as well hope for Mexico to demand a border fence.  It ain't gonna happen.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.  And that goes double for 2012.

Too bad we can't elect mainstream media too.

Ken Berwitz

It is now 1:35PM.  NBC (and, I would assume, others) is now reporting that General Stanley McChrystal will be replaced in Afghanistan by General David Petraeus.

But www.moveon.org, one of Barack Obama's biggest supporters - maybe the single biggest - absolutely hates him. (Remember those "Betray us" ads?).

If this is true it is going to be politically nuclear.  

Let's wait and see if it is true.  Not much longer now....

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

UPDATE:  Yes, it is true.  President Obama has accepted General Stanley McChrystal's resignation (I wonder how hard it was for him not to try socking McChrystal in the puss), and has replaced him with General David Petraeus.

In typical Obamian fashion, he praised McChrystal to the skies....and then dumped on him to make sure that, standard-issue BS notwithstanding, we all knew what the President was really thinking.

NBC's people - Brian Williams, Jim Miklaszewski and Chuck Todd, are all telling viewers that they are in love with this move.  Not one word about the fact that Petraeus is despised by the hard left which, at least until recently, has been so supportive of Mr. Obama.  And not one word about the political problems a schism between Obama and the moveon crowd might cause this November.

One other thing.  President Obama made a specific point of saying that he and General McChrystal were in total agreement on the current strategy in Afghanistan.  So when you, inevitably, read that this will signal some kind of new beginning (i.e. the failure in Afghanistan was McChrystal's, not Obama's), do yourself a favor and don't believe it.

Ken Berwitz

We may not have known her by name.  But we certainly know her by this picture, taken in Times Square by Life Magazine photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt on August 14, 1945 - also known as V-J (Victory over Japan) Day.

Edith Shain, then a nurse at Doctor's Hospital in New York City, died this week at the age of 89.  Despite the enthusiasm of her kiss, she never knew who the lucky sailor was (though several sailors came forth over the years to claim the honor).

Thank you, Ms. Shain, for being one half of this classic, enduring photograph.  May you find the sailor you were with (assuming he has passed away too), kiss him again for us, and then rest in peace.

Ken Berwitz

You have to hand it to Captain McLachlan.  He is a master of understatement.

Excerpted from an Associated Press article:

WEST VALLEY CITY, Utah —

A woman was undergoing a mental evaluation Tuesday after police say she stole two vehicles, including a police cruiser, and led officers on a chase through two Salt Lake City suburbs - all while naked.

Police Capt. Tom McLachlan said doctors do not believe drugs or alcohol led to the woman's erratic behavior, which also included running through sagebrush.

The chase finally ended when she was subdued with a stun gun after climbing a chain-link fence.

"It appears there may be mental issues involved," McLachlan said.

"It appears there may be mental issues involved"? 

D'ya think?

Ken Berwitz

Suppose President Bush assembled a team of experts and then ignored their majority recommendation?  Would our media attack him as a hopeless cowboy?

Based on countless examples over the eight years of Mr. Bush's presidency, the answer is a resounding "yes".

That being the case, can someone explain the following excerpt from Scott Whitlock's blog at newsbusters.org?

All three network news shows on Tuesday skipped a report that eight of 15 experts consulted by the Obama administration opposed the government's plan to halt deepwater oil drilling for six months. Only Special Report With Bret Baier covered the story.

FNC reporter James Rosen noted a federal judge's decision to overturn the plan: "The judge also rebuked the Obama administration for filing a quote 'misleading misrepresentation' in the case by suggesting an expert panel supported the moratorium when a majority of its members do not."

ABC's World News, CBS's Evening News and NBC's Nightly News (as well as Good Morning America, Early Show and Today) all highlighted the ruling, but none of them mentioned the opposition from a majority of the panel

Are there any explanations for this other than media bias?  If so, let me know about them, because I can't come up with even one.

Thanks.  I'll wait.

Ken Berwitz

Here is what Former Florida GovernorJeb Bush has to say about President Obama's habit of blaming his brother George for just about everything that has gone wrong in the current administration.  It comes to us from the New York Times:

“It’s kind of like a kid coming to school saying, ‘The dog ate my homework.  It’s childish. This is what children do until they mature. They don’t accept responsibility.”

Well said.

Ken Berwitz

Is this administration capable of doing anything right in the Gulf of Mexico?  Anything at all?

From WDSU TV - New Orleans (the bold print is mine):

NEW ORLEANS –

The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.

The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.

Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, who was one of the most vocal advocates of the dredging plan, has sent a letter to President Barack Obama, pleading for the work to continue.

Nungesser said the government has asked crews to move the dredging site two more miles farther off the coastline.

"Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," Nungesser wrote to Obama. "Furthermore, with the threat of hurricanes or tropical storms, we are being put at an increased risk for devastation to our area from the intrusion of oil.

Nungesser has asked for the dredging to continue for the next seven days, the amount of time it would take to move the dredging operations two miles and out resume work.

Work is scheduled to halt at midnight Wednesday.

The California dredge located off the Chandelier Islands has pumped more than 50,000 cubic yards of material daily to create a sand berm, according to Plaquemines Parish officials.

 Nungesser's letter includes an emotional plea to the president.

"Please don't let them shut this dredge down," he wrote. "This requires your immediate attention!"

The department of fish and wildlife has concerns?  About what?  A cousin of the effing snail darter?  THIS IS OUR SHORELINE, THE LIVELIHOODS OF COUNTLESS PEOPLE AND A WAY OF LIFE AT STAKE.

In a previous blog I asked who is in charge of this operation:  Moe, Larry or Curly. 

I'm starting to think I overestimated the administration's capabilities.

Ken Berwitz

Did General Stanley McChrystal use Rolling Stone magazine to resign as Commanding General in Afghanistan?

Did General McChrystal make those comments so that he would be fired for saying exactly what he wanted to communicate to the public, by doing it the only way he could without being court-martialed?

Was this General McChrystal’s way of getting revenge for the danger President Obama left the troops in last year and, on a personal level, the humiliating treatment he was afforded by the Commander-In-Chief?

Here is a blog I wrote October 31, 2009, while General McChrystal's request for more troops, and warnings of how dangerous it would be to our military and the overall war effort if they were not sent, was being ignored by Mr. Obama:

MCCHRYSTAL:  WHEN WILL HE RESIGN?

Ken Berwitz

Just a quick thought:

-Suppose you were appointed the commanding General of a war by the administration.

-Suppose you told the President you needed 40,000 more troops, without them the troops already there were in greater danger, and without them the war could be lost.

-Suppose the President ignored your request for two months.

-Suppose, after those two months, the President sought out the recommendations of other generals, not in command of your troops, for the purpose of finding a course of action that you do not think is adequate.

Would you resign your command?

I wonder when General McChrystal will do so.  Any day he packs it in will not surprise me.

Is it fair to at least wonder whether the General saw his opportunity when Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings showed up?  Did he decide to make the comments "in private", knowing full-well that they would be recorded by Hastings and written into the article?  Did he (correctly) assume that the comments would achieve lead-story news status when the article was published, and force Mr. Obama's hand? 

If President Obama relieves General McChrystal of his command today, which he almost has to do, McChrystal will forever be known as the General who, along with his staff, characterized the Obama administration as a bunch of amateurs and losers who didn't know what they were doing and, in Obama's case, didn't even seem to care.

Which clearly is how McChrystal views them.

What a way to go.  Not that it is difficult to outwit this administration, mind you  - third world dictators seem to delight in it.  But what a way to go anyway.

Ken Berwitz

U. S. District Judge Martin Feldman has lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling, which was imposed by President Obama after the oil rig disaster.

Here is his reasoning:

“The court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium.   The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”

Does Judge Feldman have a point?  You bet he does.

Maybe it would be a good idea for President Obama to spend a little less time finger-pointing and a little more time insisting that experts in the field come up with regulations that allow necessary oil exploration under much safer circumstances. 

And maybe it would be a good idea for Mr. Obama to have those same experts devise some kind of plan if another emergency of this nature were to arise since, clearly, his administation had no such plan when the oil rig disaster occurred.

Not to impede the President's lifestyle, but could he take time off from his busy schedule of golfing, attending baseball games, hosting music nights and shooting hoops to get some of this done?  I realize it is only our energy needs and our shoreline, but still.......

Ken Berwitz

No need for me to write this one.  The press release from CARB (Citizens Against Religious Bigotry) says it all:

Unanimous: Comedy Central's "JC" Has No Advertiser Support

June 22, 2010 16:23 ET

 

Alexandria, VA – Citizens Against Religious Bigotry (CARB) today announced victory in convincing advertisers not to sponsor the anti-Christian “JC” comedy that Comedy Central announced was in development.

Members of the coalition wrote to more than 300 corporations that had sponsored Comedy Central programming in the past.  The letters explained the nature of the program and stated how offensive the “JC” project would be, not only to the 83 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Christians, but also to many non-Christians including those who signed the petition. Coalition members then followed up with phone calls to the advertisers, speaking directly with representatives from most of the corporations that received the original letter.

Not one single sponsor indicated their intention to buy advertising time on the “JC” program if the program ever made it to Comedy Central’s air.

Due to the success, the outreach effort has been suspended effective the close of business this past Friday, June 18th.

“After an intense period of writing and then calling hundreds of sponsors, the results are clear.  In fact the verdict is unanimous:  There is no advertiser support for anti-Christian bigotry such as that embraced in Comedy Central’s ‘JC’ project.  The sponsors understand what the programming department at Comedy Central does not: Religious bigotry is bad business,” said L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center and the founder of CARB.

“With literally zero advertiser support for this program, the only reason Comedy Central would put it on their broadcast schedule is in an effort to offend Christianity and Christians.  There is no valid business reason for airing ‘JC.’ 

“In light of this demonstration of overwhelming success, the Coalition’s advertiser outreach will stand down.  In the event that any advertiser changes its mind, that advertiser and its executives will be publicly called to account for supporting anti-Christian bigotry,” concluded Bozell.

Tim Winter, president of the Parents Television Council, offered this comment: 

“We are pleased by the magnitude of favorable responses from the advertising community regarding the ‘JC’ project.  Advertisers have become more aware of the inseparable connection between their corporate brand and the entertainment content they make possible by virtue of their sponsorship dollars.  This demonstrates an exciting trend, and with fruit like this we look forward to increasing the PTC’s investment in its advertiser accountability program.”

Citizens Against Religious Bigotry (CARB) is a new coalition created in response to “JC,” the animated television series in development by Viacom’s Comedy Central that is being created as a situation comedy about God and his son, Jesus Christ. More than 20 member organizations and individuals comprise the coalition and include top Jewish, Christian and non-religious leaders such as the Family Research Council, Michael Medved, Catholic League, American Alliance of Jews and Christians, Parents Television Council and Media Research Center.

Two points to be made here:

1) It would not surprise me at all if Comedy Central found some way of airing "JC" anyway.....

2) .....but Comedy Central would not put on a similar show about Allah if it got enough advertising to make everyone there rich.  This kind of programming is only reserved for religions whose adherents don't scare the pants off of them.

In other words, they are both cowardly and bigoted.  Helluva combination.

Ken Berwitz

Less than a week ago, after years of blogging at www.dailykos.com, keith olbermann left in a huff (not a huffington post, just a huff).  Why?  Because a couple of people beat up on him for critiquing Barack Obama's speech. 

It seems olbermann's wiwoo sensibiwities were damaged.

Now there's a man of principle! 

Except for one thing:  he's already back.

He's back.  Already.

Here is the first part of what olbermann wrote at dailykos today (you can read it all by clicking here):

So, uh, this looks like a nice site

by Keith Olbermann

Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 09:31:51 AM PDT

OK, I'm back.

I've always liked to invent backstories behind cliches and one of my oldest ones is the idea that the first guy who said "You can't see the forest for the trees" was actually running through a forest when he ran head first into a tree and didn't enjoy the experience. You do tend to swear at the trees, and, if you hit your head hard enough, you might even swear off that particular forest for awhile.

Needless to say, the overwhelming number of comments to my last diary divided into agreement with support, disagreement with support, or anger/frustration/namecalling - still with support. I did not write what I wrote to provoke a reaction but if I had, that would have been the spectrum I would have hoped for.

It occurs to me, in the full flower of the pomposity that always strikes me at midday, that this might be somewhat metaphorical for progressives and other centrists, particularly relative to criticism of the Administration. I was reminded of this last night when somebody asked me why I wasn't pounding the President more on Afghanistan, and I linked him the Comment I did last year saying Obama should declare victory and go home.

"Sure," the guy replied, "you've been critical of that, once, but you seem to go lightly on them." And I said, you're right...other than this stuff about the BP disaster, and the Public Option, and the political strategy on Health Care Reform, and Afghanistan, and not prosecuting torture, and the Kagan nomination, and maybe six dozen complaints about process or tone.

I mention this because the last diary was misinterpreted by 99% of the old media and 99.5% of the new media. I didn't 'quit Daily Kos because I got criticized for criticizing POTUS.' I wrote what I wrote because there was a body of us here which assumed any criticism of this administration had to originate in a nefarious and wholly nugatory plan to destroy it. There certainly are such nefarious and wholly nugatory plans, active, this very minute: The most prominent is called the Republican Party (GOBP).

I stopped at the point where olbermann gave us his standard routine of sneering out that it wasn't him, it was the rest of the world - and then going into his standard-issue denunciation Republicans, whom he appears to think are responsible for everything that is wrong with country today, yesterday and back to the revolutionary war,-- along with the bubonic plague and the placement of apple trees in the garden of eden.  But if you want to read the rest, take a few Tums and click here.

Six days.  Six days!  Less than one week and he folds like a cheap umbrella in a windstorm.

Now that's principle for you.   Or something that uses a few of its letters.

Ken Berwitz

Was General Stanley McChrstal insubordinate?  Is his position hoplelessly compromised?   Should he be relieved of his command?

Read this excerpt of an article by Gordon Lubold at politico.com and decide for yourself:

The top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been summoned to the White House to explain biting and unflattering remarks he made to a freelance writer about President Barack Obama and others in the Obama administration.

 

The face-to-face comes as pundits are already calling for McChrystal to resign for insubordination.

 

McChrystal has been instructed to fly from Kabul to Washington today to attend Obama’s regular monthly security team meeting tomorrow at the White House.

 

An administration official says McChrystal was asked to attend in person rather than by secure video teleconference, “where he will have to explain to the Pentagon and the commander in chief his quotes about his colleagues in the piece.”

 

Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have spoken with McChrystal. Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for Mullen, said “the chairman spoke to General McChrystal last night and expressed his deep disappointment with the article and with the comments expressed therein.”

 

McChrystal and his top aides appeared to let their guard down during a series of interviews and visits with Michael Hastings, a freelance writer for the magazine Rolling Stone.

 

The article, titled “The Runaway General,” appears in the magazine later this week. It contains a number of jabs by McChrystal and his staff aimed not only at the President but at Vice President Biden, special envoy Richard Holbrooke, Karl Eikenberry, the ambassador to Afghanistan, and others.

 

McChrystal described his first meeting with Obama as disappointing and said that Obama was unprepared for the meeting.

 

National Security Advisor Jim Jones is described by a McChrystal aide as a “clown” stuck in 1985.

 

Others aides joked about Biden’s last name as sounding like “Bite me” since Biden opposed the surge.

 

McChrystal issued an immediate apology for the profile, advance copies of which were sent to news organizations last night.

 

“It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened,” McChrystal said. “Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”

Regretfully, if these quotes are accurate, the answer, in my opinion, is yes to all three questions.  You cannot have a military general openly second-guessing his commander in chief that way. 

I respect General McChrystal greatly.  But his continuation as Commanding General in Afghanistan is untenable.  He has to be relieved.

But, having said that, let me point out that there is one other question which must be asked - for the sake of our country and, especially, its military personnel in Afghanistan.

Was General McChrystal right?

I hope against hope that our wonderful "neutral" media will make this question a part of the story.  A big part.

Ken Berwitz

As you know (or can see by scrolling down just a bit)  I provide an equal number of links to left wing and right wing web sites.  That is because I assume we all have access to supposedly middle-of-the road news venues so, by adding in the left-and-right links,  readers have access to all sides of the story.  

But not everyone is as happy with this kind of all-sides-are welcome approach as I am.

To illustrate, take one of my left wing links:   Democratic Underground.  Some of its readers have decided that Barack Obama is so incompetent (usually because he isn't far enough left for them) that he deserves to be spanked in the "comments" section.  You'd think that would be fine, wouldn't you?  It says "comments", not "tributes".  I know that, for this site, I don't care which side a reader is on when he/she comments, I've never censored even one of them.

But DU has a bit of a different view about people who criticize Mr. Obama.  In that connection, it has issued a tiny little list of do's and don'ts, which I thought you might be interested in seeing.  So here they are, straight from the DU site:

LIST OF RULE VIOLATIONS

{ } Personal Attack - When discussing individual DU members, the following are considered personal attacks:
        - Personal attacks, name-calling, or other insults.
        - Telling someone to "shut up," "screw you," "go away," "fuck off," or the like.
        - Calling someone a liar, or calling a post a lie.
        - Calling someone a conservative, disruptor, or similar.
        - Calling someone a bigot.
        - Belittling someone for being new or having a low post count.
        - Negatively "calling out" someone who is not participating in the discussion.

{ } Broad-brush or Extreme Group Attack - When discussing groups of DU members, the following are considered broad-brush group attacks:
        - Broad-brush attack - intended to paint all people belonging to a particular group in a negative light. (The word "all" can be explicitly stated or implied.)
        - Name-calling - Referring to any group of DU members by names intended to paint them in a negative light.
        - Suggesting that any group of DU members are conservatives, disruptors, or similar.
        - Belittling people who are new or have a low post count.
        - Suggesting that any group of DU members are not Democrats, liberals, or progressives.
        - Suggesting that a particular point of view is required in order to be a Democrat, liberal, or progressive.
        - Note: As a general guideline, if it is possible to identify specific individuals who are being attacked, then it is against the rules. But if the attack is against a vaguely defined group of "some but not all" people, then it might be permitted.

{ } Insensitive - Includes bigotry, hate, ridicule, stereotyping, or insensitivity based on:
        - Race or ethnicity.
        - Gender (women or men).
        - Sexual Orientation.
        - Religion or lack of religion (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.).
        - Geographic region or place of origin.
        - Disability (mental or physical).
        - Weight or other physical characteristics.
        - Use of insensitive terminology ("cocksucker," "cunt," "bitch," "whore," "retard," etc.).

{ } Inflammatory, inappropriate, or over-the-top
        - Any post which is, in the consensus of the moderators, too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory.
        - Advocating violent overthrow of the government, or harm toward high-ranking officials.
        - Broad-brush smears toward law enforcement or military service members.
        - Advocating the defeat of the US military, attack against the US, or other overtly anti-American sentiment.
        - Sexually explicit content.
        - Graphic violence, gore, pain, or human suffering (except with a legitimate political purpose, and with a clear warning in the subject line).
        - Asking for medical advice.
        - "Gravedancing" or "gravemourning" when someone is banned.
        - Signature line/avatar image violates DU rules, is controversial, or is likely to cause discussions to go off-topic.

{ } Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
        - Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "Fuck Obama."
        - Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name.
        - Repeating Republican partisan attacks against Democrats.
        - Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)
        - Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.
        - Advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates.
        - Broad-brush smears against Democrats generally. Broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally.

{ } Harassment or threats
        - Any type of threat against another member of this community, either explicit or implied.
        - Any action intended to harm another person -- physically, mentally, emotionally, or otherwise.
        - A sustained or organized effort to demean, belittle, bully, or ostracize another person.
        - Digging up or posting personal information about any private individual, on DU or elsewhere.
        - Stalking someone across discussion threads or forums.

{ } Rule enforcement issues
        - Publicly complaining about rule enforcement.
        - Publicly accusing the moderators/administrators of bias.
        - Publicly "calling-out" the moderators/administrators over specific enforcement action.
        - Continuing an argument from a locked thread or from a thread you have been blocked out of.

{ } Spamming
        - Posting the same message repeatedly.
        - Personal fundraising, for-profit advertising, or selling products or services (except in the DU Marketplace forum, or if given explicit permission from the DU administrators).
        - Posting entirely in capital letters.

{ } Off-topic/Wrong forum
        - Any discussion thread or post that is off-topic for the forum or group in which it is posted.
        - Non-news items posted in the Latest Breaking News forum.
        - Highly speculative "conspiracy theory" topics outside the September 11 forum.
        - Discussion of the Arab/Israeli conflict outside the Israel/Palestine forum.
        - Discussion of purely religious topics outside the Religion/Theology forum.
        - "Rallying the troops" in a forum or group to disrupt elsewhere on the website.

{ } Inappropriate source
        - Websites with a focus on disrupting Democratic Underground and/or smearing DU members.
        - Websites with bigoted content (Holocaust skepticism, Jewish conspiracies, and the like).
        - Note: Linking to right-wing websites is usually permitted, provided the intent is to expose their agenda rather than agree with it.

{ } Copyright violations
        - Excerpt exceeds 4 paragraphs, or does not have a link to the source.

{ } Other (Please explain)

I don't know about you, but about half way through I started to get the feeling that anything other than "I love Barack Obama, he is my God" would be a problem. 

Therefore, despite the innate brilliance of this tiny little list, and after due consideration, I have decided not to follow suit.   You have my assurance that, within the bounds of legality, I continue to believe a comments section is for comments, whether or not I agree with them. 

Say whatever you want.

Ken Berwitz

What a strange title.  It looks like the Obama administration is going to "protect" the "rights" of people who have absolutely, positively no right to be here in the first place.

That can't be, can it? 

But wait:  this is the Obama administration.  So......

Here is the text of a video-taped statement by Hilda Soles, our Labor Secretary, guaranteed to warm the cockles of any illegal's heart:

“You work hard.  And you have the right to be paid fairly. 

I’m U.S. Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis.  And it is a serious problem when workers in this country are not being paid every cent they earn.

Remember, every worker in this country has a right to be paid fairly.  Whether documented or not.

So call us.  It is free and confidential.  At 1 866 487 9243.  We can help.

What the hell is this?  Did we become a sanctuary country?

No wonder President Obama wants to sue Arizona for trying to stop illegals.  His administration is specifically giving them rights that they do not have.

Understand this clearly:  The Secretary of Labor is telling illegals that if they make their illegal status known to the federal government - which is in charge of enforcing immigration laws - not only won't they be deported, but the federal government is prepared to advocate on their behalf so that they can get the full benefits of citizenship they do not have any right to.

Please, please, move up the 2012 elections.  I’m begging.

Ken Berwitz

The "stimulus package" that was supposed to cap unemployment at 8% and create 3.5 - 4 million more jobs by the end of 2010 has instead resulted unemployment rise to about 10% and 4 million jobs lost.

The cash for clunkers fiasco cost more per car (about $24,000 each) than it would have cost to just give the participants new cars free.

A majority of the country already wants national health care repealed - and as they find out that they were lied to regarding the ability to keep existing coverage, that number will almost certainly go higher. 

The troop surges in  Afghanistan have been an abysmal failure (thank you mainstream media for barely reporting this news.  Did you hesitate for one second when it was Iraq and President Bush?)

And now this, excerpted from an Associated Press article:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration's flagship effort to help people in danger of losing their homes is falling flat.

More than a third of the 1.24 million borrowers who have enrolled in the $75 billion mortgage modification program have dropped out. That's more than the 27 percent who have managed to have their loan payments reduced to help them keep their homes.

Last month alone, 150,000 borrowers left the program -- bringing the total to 436,000 who have exited since it began in March 2009.

Administration officials say borrowers will get help in other ways. But analysts fear the majority will still wind up in foreclosure.

A major reason so many have fallen out of the program is the Obama administration initially pressured banks to sign up borrowers without insisting first on proof of their income. When banks later moved to collect the information, many troubled homeowners were disqualified or dropped out.

The only things this administration seems to be succeeding at are putting us hopelessly in debt and making sure the border crossings are open for illegal aliens.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.

And that goes double for 2012.

Ken Berwitz

Here's a stupid tax trick for you:  How do you lower tax revenues by raising taxes? 

The answer is:  You raise them so high that it induces people to seek out other ways of getting their cigarettes.

Cigarettes can be bought in conventional retail establishments all over New York State.  They can also be bought by Indian tribes which do not require taxes, and they can be bought illegally via smuggled-in cigarettes from states with far lower cigarette tax.

Common sense would tell just about anyone that, by raising taxes, thus creating a larger difference between the price at a conventional retail establishment versus Indian tribes or the black market, a greater number of people will seek out one of the latter two alternatives.

So what does David Paterson, the disgraced-and-should-have-resigned-months-ago Governor of New York State do?  He proposes a $1.60 raise in New York's already astronomical cigarette tax.  This is supposed to raise revenues, not lower them. 

Yikes. 

Illustratively, if the Paterson tax is passed a pack of cigarettes in New York City would cost $5.85 in taxes alone.  That is before the cost of the cigarettes and any profit on the part of the retailer, which raises the total cost over $10,00 a pack!!!

I just googled "discount cigarettes, and the first couple of places I saw had Marlboro's at under $50 a carton, thus under $5.00 a pack.  I assume other major brands come in at about the same cost.

Does anyone in his/her right mind think that, other than a "nicotine emergency", consumers will be happy to pay more than double for their Marlboros, or Winstons, or Kools, or whatever, at the corner store? 

So, bottom-line, New York will lose tax money by raising taxes.  The higher they are, the more people will easily find other alternatives - all of which cut New York out of 100% of its hoped-for tax money.  Instead of getting some, they will get none.

Hey, I have an idea:  Instead of creating a misbegotten, counterproductive tax like this, why doesn't Governor Paterson come up with a way of taxing the cigarettes sold by Indian tribes? 

Raise those taxes by $1.60, so that they're still legally purchased cigarettes at less than conventional retail establishments, and New York might incease its tax revenues.  Which, of course, is precisely why it is not happening.

They never learn, do they?

Ken Berwitz

It's pretty clear that President Obama is not what you'd call taken with the United Kingdom.  He insults and belittles the UK every chance he gets, whether it is unceremoniously dumping the Winston Churchill statue, or the amazingly lame gifts he gave to Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minister Brown, or the viciousness with which he has attacked the BP, the UK's biggest company and mainstay of British pensioners.

So the question becomes why.  Why does he seem to hate the UK so completely?

Well, here is a possible answer.  It comes to us from London's Daily Mail, via Phil Boehmke of www.americanthinker.com:

June 20, 2010

Obama's Grudge Against the British

Phil Boehmke

One of Barack Obama's first actions upon taking office was the unceremonious rejection of the Winston Churchill bust which had been loaned to our nation as a symbol of friendship and trust after the 9/11 terrorist attack on America. Subsequent actions by Mr. Obama have revealed a deep seated hostility towards our old and valued ally culminating in his un-presidential response to the BP oil spill.

In an exclusive interview with the UK Daily Mail Sarah Onyango, the woman Barack Obama calls ‘Granny Sarah' gave some insight into her grandson's anti-British bias.

...Sitting under a mango tree in the garden of her modest home in Kogelo village, Kenya, surrounded by the family's chickens, cows and goat, she recalls telling Barack Obama his family history on his first visit to Kenya in 1988.

 

‘I narrated the whole story to Barack one evening to help him understand our family's past. He wasn't amused at all. He expressed quite a lot of concern about why the British had to punish his grandfather "on his own soil."

 

‘He said the whole act sounded barbaric. He wondered why the British never respected African culture. The arrest he said was outrageous.' Shockingly she adds: ‘Generally, my grandson never believed the British do anything for a common good, rather than their selfish interests.'

 

Hussein Obama was a member of the Muslim Luo tribe and was involved in the bloody Mau Mau rebellion. As the cook for a British Officer, Hussein was a vaulable informant in the secret "oathing" movement which required an oath to murder white settlers as a condition of membership. Although records from the era have not survived, Hussein Obama is said to have been convicted for sedition and membership in an illegal terrorist organization and incarcerated in Kamiti prison.

 

‘Granny Sarah' told her grandson how his grandfather was beaten and tortured by the British to obtain information about the "oathing" movement and how they continued the daily beatings until he promised "never to rejoin any groups opposed to the white man's rule." Sarah also told Barack about how his grandfather's fellow prisoners were beaten to death with clubs.

 

Clearly Mr. Obama's anti-British feelings can be traced to the family stories related to him by his ‘Granny Sarah.' It would appear as though Obama is using the office of President of the United States as means of exacting revenge against the British people for alleged actions committed 60 years ago by persons long since forgotten.

Remember what Democrats, and their media sycophants said about President Bush's action in Iraq?  Remember that it was supposed to be because saddam hussein tried to assassinate Bush's father - also a President of the United States?

Well, here is the counterpart possibility for Barack Obama blowing off one of the USA's most important allies.  Where are those media now?

Probably still busy trying to find out whether Sarah Palin had a boob job.  Heck, you have to keep things in their proper perspective, don't you?

Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from yesterday's Associated Press article:

WASHINGTON – The panel appointed by President Barack Obama to investigate the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is short on technical expertise but long on talking publicly about "America's addiction to oil." One member has blogged about it regularly.

Only one of the seven commissioners, the dean of Harvard's engineering and applied sciences school, has a prominent engineering background — but it's in optics and physics. Another is an environmental scientist with expertise in coastal areas and the after-effects of oil spills. Both are praised by other scientists.

The five other commissioners are experts in policy and management.

Why are President Obama's numbers down the tubes?  I'd like to think that things like this have something to do with it.

Ken Berwitz

Now that Hillary Clinton, with characteristic ineptitude, has spilled the beans and told us the Obama administration will mount a legal challenge to Arizona's anti-illegal (not anti-immigration) laws, let's take a look at how the people of the country feel.

Here is an excerpt from an article at rasmussenreports.com, detailing the results of a recent poll on this subject:

56% Oppose Justice Department Challenge of Arizona Immigration Law

 

Friday, June 18, 2010

 

The Obama administration has reportedly decided to challenge Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court, but a recent Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of U.S. voters oppose such a challenge.

 

Just 26% believe the Justice Department should challenge the legality of Arizona’s law in court. Eighteen percent (18%) are undecided in the survey conducted May 26 and 27.

 

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters, in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state.

 

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.

 

Arizona voters support the state's new immigration law more than ever, with 71% in favor of it.

What's that you say?  The poll is several weeks old and things could have changed?

Ok, fair enough.  This one is from the ABC News/Washington Post poll, completed June 10:

"A new law in Arizona would give police the power to ask people they've stopped to verify their residency status. Supporters say this will help crack down on illegal immigration. Opponents say it could violate civil rights and lead to racial profiling. On balance, do you support or oppose this law?"
		Support	Oppose	Unsure
		%	%	%
	6/3-6/10	58	41	2

Game, set, match.

The key issue now, is how many Democrats who fear voter reaction to the misbegotten, ridiculous position of supporting a federal government which a) clearly has no intention of securing our borders and b) is going to court to prevent the states from doing so, will spend the election season running from Barack Obama like Dracula from a wooden stake and a cross.

Ken Berwitz

Matt Lauer's teaser, just now, for The Today Show (paraphrased, not exactly verbatim):

"More on the oil spill disaster, and Tony Hayward's controversial decision to spend the weekend at a yacht race"

Not one word about President Obama spending his weekend at a baseball game and playing golf.

And you wonder why I rail about The Today Show?  Don't wonder.

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

UPDATE:  I just reviewed the entire segment on this subject.  It was 2:37 long, and had angry words from politicians of both parties (edited, so we don't know the full statements) and a citizen whose reaction appeared to have come after being told about Hayward by the interviewer. 

But absolutely not one word on President Obama spending his weekend watching baseball and playing golf.

In other words, The Today Show, via omission of half the story, gave a reason for its viewers to be infuriated at BP and Tony Hayward, while 100% shielding President Obama from any such reaction.

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

Ken Berwitz

Oliver Stone, ever vigilant to find new ways of demonstrating his love of far-left USA-hating dictators, has put together a documentary called "South of the Border" - one which gives considerable time and praise to, among others, hugo chavez.

Mr. Stone had it shown throughout Venezuela, no doubt expecting a booming success.  After all, everyone there loves hugo chavez, don't they?

Well, here, excerpted from an article in Variety, is how things have turned out:

Despite a PR and marketing blitz that had Oliver Stone on a whirlwind tour of Latin America, his latest documentary "South of the Border" has sunk like a rock at the Venezuelan box office.

 

Local observers in Venezuela have reported empty cinemas, indicating a stunning indifference to Stone's pic, a documentary about South American leaders that devotes a hefty amount of screen time to the country's President Hugo Chavez. In the 12 days after its June 4 debut, it grossed only $18,601 on 20 screens, according to Global Rentrak. Showings on mobile screens in rural areas (where Chavez has more popular support) have attracted crowds, but these screenings are free.

 

The doc's Venezuelan distrib, Raul Chamorro's 9 1/2 Communications, reports that some 1,300 people came to the mobile cinema screenings in the towns of Vargas and Guarico.

 

In the pic's defense, Chamorro says documentaries don't tend to do well in Venezuela. "We were hoping that Chavez would call for people to see it, but he hasn't," says Chamorro. "It has been a disappointment." 

Don't you just love that last part?   "We were hoping that chavez would call for people to see it....".  In other words, their idea of "success" was a dictator demanding that his citizens see the film.

Between this, and his last movie about George Bush which also was a dud-bomb, Oliver Stone is on quite a losing streak.

Try to imagine how little this bothers me.........

Ken Berwitz

Regular readers may recall that, in March,  I blogged about Detroit's semi-literate School Board President, Otis Mathis.  I put up examples of his writing that would have failed a 6th grade composition test.  At that time I thought it couldn't get any worse.

But I was wrong.

From Doug Powers, writing at www.michellemalkin.com:

Just When You Thought You Couldn’t Be Prouder of Detroit…

By Doug Powers  •  June 19, 2010 09:06 AM

**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers

 

You might remember Detroit School Board President Otis Mathis as the one with a severe problem with literacy (see: Detroyt Skool Bored Prezzident cant reed, rite or spel goode), but it never occurred to me to think that the reason Mathis’ emails were misspelled so badly might have been because he was typing with one hand:

 

DPS police were investigating allegations by schools Superintendent Teresa Gueyser that during a meeting at about 5 p.m. Wednesday, Mathis touched himself for 20 minutes, then unzipped his pants.

 

Gueyser, in a memorandum to the board, said she ended the meeting.

 

“I told him that there was no reason for us to continue the meeting with that behavior,” she said.

 

Gueyser said the incident was the culmination of a long history of inappropriate behavior.

 

“This situation is now untenable and intolerable,” she said.

 

Mathis resigned following the incident, effective immediately. In his resignation letter, he cited health issues as the reason for his resignation. However, he is seeking to rescind his resignation.

 

 

Naturally, the “medical issues” fallback is in play:

 

He said medical issues may have contributed to the incident. “I need to pursue treatment … I want to make sure what happened doesn’t ever happen again.”

 

So if Mathis gets treatment and is allowed to have his job back, it’s entirely possible he’ll have a “cone of shame” on his pants to prevent him from doing that again. Say nothing, act casual.

 

On the upside, a glance at Mathis’ resignation letter (PDF) is evidence that he was at least smart enough this time to get somebody to proofread for him.

Between a thoroughly corrupt mayor (who was tossed in jail)**, a thoroughly racist city council and a School Board President who not only is semi-literate, but sexually perverted - oh, excuse me, he has "health issues" - Detroit seems hell-bent on firmly establishing itself as a backward, third world-style nation within our borders. 

At least the city is succeeding at something..

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

**Please note that this reference is to the previous Mayor, kwame kilpatrick, and not to the current Mayor, former NBA basketball star and now successful businessperson-turned-politician Dave Bing.  I hope against hope that Mr. Bing can turn things around.

Ken Berwitz

Rudy Giuliani's take on President Obama's performance during the oil rig disaster:

"If Bush were the President, and handled [the Gulf Coast oil spill] this way, there'd be like a movement to throw him out of office and replace him with somebody."

Yep.

Ken Berwitz

Want to see an article about two men at their leisure?

You may look at the headline below and assume that it is about only one man.  I don't blame you.  But if you just keep reading long enough.....

Excerpted from an Associated Press Article - the bold print is mine:

Gulf residents outraged by BP CEO's yacht outing
Jun 19, 4:09 PM (ET)

By RAPHAEL SATTER and HOLBROOK MOHR

 

EMPIRE, La. (AP) -- It could have been a turnaround week in BP's campaign to convince the public that it's doing everything possible to contain the damage from the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

 

The company pledged to set aside $20 billion to help spill victims, and the containment system at the site of the crippled well was capturing or burning increasing amounts of oil.

 

Instead, the company faced renewed anger Saturday after reports that chief executive Tony Hayward had jetted back to England to attend an exclusive yachting competition.

 

Hayward took Saturday off to see his 52-foot yacht "Bob" compete in a race around the Isle of Wight off southern England. It was a good day for sailing - breezy and about 68 degrees - but anger simmered on the steamy Gulf Coast, where crude oil is still gushing from a blown-out well.

 

"Man, that ain't right. None of us can even go out fishing, and he's at the yacht races," said Bobby Pitre, 33, who runs a tattoo shop in Larose, La. "I wish we could get a day off from the oil, too."

 

BP spokespeople rushed to defend Hayward, who has drawn biting criticism as the public face of BP PLC's halting efforts to stop the spill.

 

Company spokesman Robert Wine said the break is the first for Hayward since the Deepwater Horizon rig that BP was leasing exploded April 20, killing 11 workers and setting off the undersea gusher.

 

"He's spending a few hours with his family at a weekend. I'm sure that everyone would understand that," Wine said.

 

He noted Hayward is a well known as a fan of the J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race, one of the world's largest, which attracts more than 1,700 boats and 16,000 sailors as famous yachtsmen compete with wealthy amateurs in a 50-nautical mile course.

 

"Bob" finished fourth in its group. It was not clear whether Hayward took part in the race or attended as a spectator. The boat, made 10 years ago by the Annapolis, Md.-based boatbuilder Farr Yacht Design, lists for nearly $700,000.

 

Hayward had already angered many in the U.S. when he was quoted in the Times of London as suggesting that Americans were particularly likely to file bogus claims for compensation from the spill. He later shocked Louisiana residents by telling them that no one wanted to resolve the crisis as badly as he did because "I'd like my life back."

 

Ronnie Kennier, a 49-year-old oysterman from Empire, La., said Hayward's day among the sailboats showed once again just how out of touch BP executives are with the suffering along the Gulf.

 

"He wanted to get his life back," Kennier said. "I guess he got it."

 

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden enjoyed a round of golf Saturday near Washington, something they've done on other weekends since the spill and a fact not lost on users of social networking sites.

 

Twitter feeds compared Obama and Biden's golfing to Hayward's yachting, lumping them together as diversions of privileged people who should be paying more attention to the spill.

 

"Our government, the executives at BP, it looks like they decide to worry about it later," said Capt. Dwayne Price, a charter fisherman in Grand Isle, La.

 

White House officials have struggled to counter criticism of Obama's handling of the disaster. An Associated Press-GfK poll released Tuesday showed 52 percent now disapprove of Obama's handling of the spill, up significantly from last month.

Let's review: 

-Although the article mentions both Mr. Hayward and Mr. Obama, the headline only mentions Hayward. 

-The first reference to Mr. Obama's weekend of leisure?  You'll find that buried in the 14th paragraph. 

-And there is no mention at all that the President took in a Nationals-White Sox game the night before.

Frankly, if a news venue wanted to cover itself journalistically by reporting both men's activities, but also wanted to make one of them a lightning rod for the people's anger while shielding the other as best it could, it would write an article exactly this way. 

Keep it in mind if anyone rails at you about what an insensitive SOB Tony Hayward was for attending the yacht race. 

Tell that person about President Obama's weekend of baseball and golf.  And if the reaction (assuming you are even believed) is anger, see if it is dierected against President Obama, or against you for mentioning what he did. 

That's how you can tell if the other person is still hopelessly Obamesmerized.

Ken Berwitz

Does President Obama really want this fight?

Excerpted from Kyle Peterson's blog at dailycaller.com:

State officials say immigration law is backed by legal precedent

 

By Kyle Peterson - The Daily Caller | Published: 06/19/10 at 12:16 AM | Updated: 06/19/10 at 12:59 PM

 

After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accidentally let it slip during an interview that the Department of Justice would bring a lawsuit against Arizona challenging its recently passed immigration law, state leaders say they are confident that SB 1070 will be upheld.

 

“We will prevail,” said Russell Pearce, the state senator who sponsored the legislation. “I vetted this bill very, very carefully, anticipating a lawsuit, and making sure we wrote it right.”

Every poll I have seen tells me that the USA supports Arizona's illegal immigration laws and wants our borders to be secure.  Can President Obama possibly be serious about fighting to remove those laws?

And what about congressonal Democrats, who are going into an election season that already looks like a disaster?  Can they possibly want to jump off the cliff with him?

Ironically, Mr. Obama does have an avenue for negating Arizona's laws:  he can enforce the federal laws he is sworn to uphold.  That would render SB 1070 moot, wouldn't it? 

But that is exactly what he is not doing.  Why?

Let me put it this way:  if illegal aliens had a wish list, what would it be? 

-An administration that does not enforce border security. 

-An administration that halfheartedly promises to send only the most nominal number troops - 1,200 for a 360 mile border -  then doesn't even come across with the 1,200. 

-An administration that stopped the building a border security fence. 

-An administration that will literally has ceded sovereign U.S. territory to drug dealers and human traffickers. 

-An administration that will fight tooth and nail against individual states which try to overcome its uselessness and stanch the tidal wave of illegals via state laws.

Incredibly, President Obama's administration has given them the total package.

In an earlier blog I asked which side Barack Obama is on.  I'm asking it again here.

Ken Berwitz

Hey, one good lament deserves another.

Since I just posted John Hinderaker's lament regarding the Obama presidency, I thought I'd give you Newsweek editor/publisher Mort Zuckerman's as well.

Here, from Mr. Zuckerman's article, is the key excerpt:

The reviews of Obama's performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America's role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world's leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America's foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one's own tribe while in the lands of others.

Even in Britain, for decades our closest ally, the talk in the press—supported by polls—is about the end of the "special relationship" with America. French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama's speech on nuclear weapons. When the French president is seen as tougher than the American president, you have to know that something is awry. Vladimir Putin of Russia has publicly scorned a number of Obama's visions. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president's poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents.

Obama's policy on Afghanistan—supporting a surge in troops, but setting a date next year when they will begin to withdraw—not only gave a mixed signal, but provided an incentive for the Taliban just to wait us out. The withdrawal part of the policy was meant to satisfy a domestic constituency, but succeeded in upsetting all of our allies in the region. Further anxiety was provoked by Obama's severe public criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his coterie of family and friends for their lackluster leadership, followed by a reversal of sorts regarding the same leaders.

Politically, John Hinderaker and Mort Zuckerman do not have a lot in common.  But, as you can see, they share a great deal of common ground when it comes to President Obama.

Is Mr. Zuckerman right?  I'll ask what I asked about Mr. Hinderaker's piece:  You tell me.

Ken Berwitz

John Hinderaker, at www.powerlineblog.com, has put up what I would call a lament about President Obama's "leadership" and how it has diminished both him and the USA in the eyes of the world

I try to excerpt commentaries, but this one goes up word for word:

More Profligate than the Europeans

June 19, 2010 Posted by John at 9:00 AM

 

It was bad enough when France's President Sarkozy lectured Barack Obama on how to conduct a strong foreign policy. Then, it was: the Obama administration--weaker than the French! Now, it is: the Obama administration--more profligate than the Europeans! Germany's Angela Merkel rejects Obama's call for more government debt, world-wide:

 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday spending cutbacks are needed following the spate of throwing money at the global economic crisis, in a direct counter to US President Barack Obama.

 

Referring to the G20 summit in Canada next weekend, Merkel said in a videotaped message that "we are going to discuss when to quit the phase of short-term measures and go on to lasting budget consolidation." Such a move was "urgently necessary, in the view of the Europeans and particularly of Germany," she said.

 

Obama urged the world's leading economies Friday to avoid scaling back government spending too quickly or risk derailing the global recovery. ...

 

The warning -- a clear shot at European governments reining in budget deficits -- comes after months of worry about the health of the eurozone, fueled by huge public debts in Greece and Spain.

 

Germany, Europe's biggest economy, is working on a multibillion-euro package of spending cuts designed to bolster government finances and recoup market confidence.

 

It's bad enough that Obama wants to destroy our children's futures, now he's trying to bankrupt Europe, too. Honestly, I never thought I would be this embarrassed by an American President.

Is John right?  You tell me.

Ken Berwitz

I don't know how this eluded me.  I apologize for not posting it until now.

Excerpted from an article in the May 5th Washington Post:

U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study

By Juliet Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 5, 2010

 

The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.

 

The decision by the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009 -- and BP's lobbying efforts just 11 days before the explosion to expand those exemptions -- show that neither federal regulators nor the company anticipated an accident of the scale of the one unfolding in the gulf.

A pop quiz for you:

-Which administration was in office on April 6, 2009?

-Which administration has been in office ever since then?

-Which administration, therefore, was in charge when BP was handed an exemption from a detailed environmental impact analysis?

-Which administration, therefore, gave the ok and go-ahead for the Deepwater horizon lease, where the oil rig disaster took place?

Still think it's all BP's fault? 

Just one more quiz question:

-What do you call a mainstream media which knew about this (it was in the Washington Post, wasn't it?) but then proceeded to bury it, thus creating the illusion that the Obama Administration was not at all responsible for the oil rig disaster?

I have a feeling we both have the same answer to that one.

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

Ken Berwitz

The United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in a June 8 interview with an Equadorian TV station, said this:

"President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act."  

Ken Berwitz

That is a question you have to ask.  Because the Today Show has degenerated into full Obama-protection mode.

Here is one of numerous examples (a good many of which I have already blogged about over the past weeks and months).  It is a verbatim excerpt from this morning, in which host Matt Lauer discusses the oil rig disaster with NBC's chief White House correspondent David Gregory (you can watch the whole sorry mess by clicking here):

GREGORY:  Yes, the administration applied a lot of pressure, I don’t think anybody believes it was a shakedown.

LAUER:  David, the latest poll numbers we have show that about 52% of the American people disapprove of the way the President is handling this oil spill crisis.  That’s up from 33% about a month ago. 

But I want to point out that this polling was done before the President’s latest trip to the Gulf, which was a two day trip; before his oval office address to the nation; before that $20 billion dollar fund was set up.  Take me inside the White House.  Do they think they had a good week?

A few points to be made:

-First we have the astonishing claim by David Gregory that he doesn't think anybody believes the $20 billion dollar handout was a shakedown.  Huh?  

Not only did Joe Barton say it was a shakedown in so many words (his apology was obviously politically inspired and made under duress), but commentators on talk shows and all over the internet are agreeing with him - me very much included. 

No Republican will say it publicly because of the PR firestorm Barton generated, but does Gregory seriously believe that out of about 220 Republican congresspeople, some more conservative than Mr. Barton, nobody at all thinks of it this way? 

David Gregory either has a brain cloud, has decided that Republicans are ghosts and don't count as people, or he is lying on behalf of Obama and Democrats.  I'm betting on a combo of the second and third option;

-Next we have Matt Lauer.  He reported the latest poll, which shows that disapproval of President Obama's performance on the oil rig disaster has jumped from 33% in the network's previous poll to 52%  now.  That is a huge 58% increase in about one month's time.

But does Lauer simply report these data?  Nope.  Before Gregory can get in one word, Lauer jumps in to rationalize the bad numbers, by coming up with not one, not two, but three different reasons to ignore them. 

And what are the reasons?  Lauer says that, after the poll was taken...:

 ... President Obama went down to the Gulf for two days this week.  So what? The poll was taken after he'd already been down there several times.  Why would continuing trips mean a thing to poll respondents, if oil is still belching into the Gulf of Mexico?  If anything, his continued visits without any action taking place might lower those poll numbers...

...President Obama made his oval office speech.  Again, so what?  It was panned by just about everyone on the right, by most commentators in the middle and a lot of them on the left, including reliable leftists at his own network's sister station MSNBC (olbermann and Matthews, to name two).  How, then, could that dud of a speech possibly have improved Mr. Obama's poll numbers?  As in the "he visited the Gulf" rationale, if anything, the speech might have pushed his approval numbers even lower...

...President Obama got a commitment of $20 billion dollars from BP to be distributed by an administration appointee.  Ok, this  might - might - have improved his numbers because there are $20 billion dollars more in the till.  But it is highly doubtful, since a) that money doesn't stop a drop of oil from spewing into the Gulf and b) BP had already promised to pay as much as was needed - which, for the record, might exceed the $20 billion dollars. What's more, that promise was made on The Today show in front of Lauer's own viewers.  Are we supposed to believe that Lauer forgot this happened?

Bottom line:  The Today Show used to stop at just being biased in favor of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.  But now it has foregone any vestige of neutrality and is shamelessly committed to propping them up regardless of facts or logic.  It is no more or less than a propaganda arm of The Obama administration. 

You have to consider the possibility that Today may have moved so far in this direction that it is beyond redemption.

How pathetic.  What a disgrace to the journalistic profession.  What a disservice to the show's viewers.

Ken Berwitz

You may or may not like Ann Coulter.  But you have to admit she knows how to turn a phrase.

Here is a short excerpt from her acerbic, sarcastic and riotously funny analysis of Alvin Greene's Senate primary win in South Carolina:

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Greene was not a "legitimate" candidate and called his victory "a mysterious deal." (Yes, how could a young African-American man with strange origins, suspicious funding, shady associations, no experience, no qualifications, and no demonstrable work history come out of nowhere and win an election?)

They're hopping mad, these liberals, but it's not clear what their theory of the crime is. Before accusing Republicans of committing a dirty trick, apparently no one asked the question: "OK, but what was the trick?"

The key to Greene's victory, you see, is that he got more votes. How do liberals imagine Republicans pulled that off? Mesmerize the Democrats into voting for an idiot? If they could do that, John McCain would be president. 

(NOTE:  Coulter goes on to explain why Greene's win could not have been the result of Republican crossover voting.)

I laughed when I read this segment and I'm still laughing now.  Take a look at the entire piece (by clicking here) and you'll get a lot more just like it.

Ken Berwitz

How much money has the United States lost since Barack Obama and his administration decided to conceal their breathtaking ineptitude during the oil rig disaster by relentlessly attacking BP?  Less than the $20 billion dollar shakedown?  As much?  More?   

Your first impulse might be to say "What are you talking about?  BP is paying us 20 billion dollars.  End of story"

Well, don't be so sure.  Here is an excerpt from John Hinderaker's blog at powerlineblog.com that will quickly disabuse you of any such assumption.  It came to John in the form of a facebook entry (if I knew the name of the person who posted it I would thank him/her profusely).  Please pay special attention to the part I have put in bold print:

In response to the notion (not necessarily yours, I understand) that Obama's generated $20B for US taxpayers, I'd like to to offer some admittedly sloppy calculations.

First, you said yesterday US citizens own 40% of BP. Looking at my Schwab account right now (I own BP stock myself), I see their market capitalization presently stands at $99B.

If their stock price has fallen by 40%, that means the market cap was (before all this ass-kicking started) around $165B -- so the value of the stock has fallen by $66B. 40% of that loss, or around $26 billion of it, was sustained by Americans if we hold 40% of the stock.

So the net cost of this drama to the taxpayers is $6B and counting. And that is assuming that $20B is distributed fairly. Perhaps they can put ACORN in charge of it.

Every time I see another angle of how this administration is "handling" (if you can use the word) the oil rig disaster, it comes out looking worse.

Ken Berwitz

Rep. Joe Barton did a terrible thing yesterday. 

He told the truth in a way that gave his political enemies a treasure trove of propaganda material.

Barton, who apologized to BP and said he was ashamed that the company was being subjected to a "shakedown", should have known that, politically, what he said was hugely beneficial to President Obama and Democrats.  Even his Republicans colleagues bashed him for it until, hours later and after the political damage was done, he apologized for his apology.

But there is a bit of a problem.  Rep. Barton was 100% correct.

If, say a District Attorney called the CEO of a company into his office during an investigation of that company, and demanded money for any reason while the investigation was in progress, what would you call it?  The CEO's choice would be either to hand over the money or refuse the person heading the investigation.  That is coerced money, known in more colloquial terms as a shakedown.

Now, suppose the President and Attorney General of the United States called the CEO of a company into the oval office during an investigation of that company, and demanded money while the investigation was in progress?  What would you call that?

Let me say it again.  Joe Barton was 100% correct.

David Limbaugh has written a very insightful explanation of this shakedown, how it bespeaks a technique Mr. Obama has already used, and what his bullying and posturing means to the USA.  Here is the key excerpt:

To be sure, the oil spill has been terrible, and BP doubtlessly bears much blame. But do any of us know all the facts? Should the president be unilaterally declaring BP's strict liability as if he were the final judge, jury and executioner -- without even affording the company any opportunity to defend itself?

Alinsky-starved radicals might find it gratifying for a dictatorial president to beat up on such an evil agent of capitalism, but some of us find his approach unseemly and disturbing. Besides denying the company any semblance of due process and fairness, how about his habitual expenditure of negative energy -- pointing fingers -- instead of employing a constructive approach?

No matter how culpable BP is ultimately determined to be, Obama's bullying should not deflect our attention from another culprit here: environmental extremists.

Just as Obama blamed Wall Street and exempted government (liberal policies) and quasi government entities (Freddie and Fannie) for their complicity in the financial meltdown and just as he blamed doctors, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies for soaring health care costs caused mostly by socialistic governmental policies, he is summarily blaming BP and exempting unreasonable liberal environmental policies for shutting down more conventional and safer drilling methods -- and venues. As usual, he and his ilk greatly contribute to problems and then use those problems as catalysts to justify even greater doses of their destructive socialistic prescriptions. It's maddening.

Just as Obama browbeat and bought off the American Medical Association and big pharma to go along with Obamacare, he summoned BP executives to his office. Flanked by Attorney General Eric Holder, who has threatened criminal action against BP, he shook down BP into forking over a $20 billion installment to defer the government's further wrath. BP is but another prop Obama has chosen to advance another plank of his statist agenda -- this time his plan to shut down our conventional energy industry in favor of new, quixotic alternative energy methods that will succeed only in propelling this nation even faster toward Third World status.

Can we move the 2010 and 2012 elections up?  Please?

Ken Berwitz

How useless, even counterproductive, was President Obama's oval office speech this past Tuesday?

Here is Charles' Krauthammer's take, excerpted from his latest Washington Post column:

Barack Obama doesn't do the mundane. He was sent to us to do larger things. You could see that plainly in his Oval Office address on the gulf oil spill. He could barely get himself through the pedestrian first half: a bit of BP-bashing, a bit of faux-Clintonian "I feel your pain," a bit of recovery and economic mitigation accounting. It wasn't until the end of the speech -- the let-no-crisis-go-to-waste part that tried to leverage the Gulf Coast devastation to advance his cap-and-trade climate-change agenda -- that Obama warmed to his task.

Pedestrian is beneath Obama. Mr. Fix-It he is not. He is world-historical, the visionary, come to make the oceans recede and the planet heal.

How? By creating a glorious, new, clean green economy. And how exactly to do that? From Washington, by presidential command and with tens of billions of dollars thrown around. With the liberal (and professorial) conceit that scientific breakthroughs can be legislated into existence, Obama proposes to give us a new industrial economy.

But is this not what we've been trying to do for decades with ethanol, which remains a monumental boondoggle, economically unviable and environmentally damaging to boot? As with yesterday's panacea, synfuels, into which Jimmy Carter poured billions.

Notice that Obama no longer talks about Spain, which until recently he repeatedly cited for its visionary subsidies of a blossoming new clean energy industry. That's because Spain, now on the verge of bankruptcy, is pledged to reverse its disastrously bloated public spending, including radical cuts in subsidies to its uneconomical photovoltaic industry.

There's a reason petroleum is such a durable fuel. It's not, as Obama fatuously suggested, because of oil company lobbying but because it is very portable, energy-dense and easy to use.

But this doesn't stop Obama from thinking that he can mandate into being a superior substitute. His argument: Well, if we can put a man on the moon, why not this?

Aside from the irony that this most tiresome of cliches comes from a president who is canceling our program to return to the moon, it is utterly meaningless.

I urge you to use the link I've provided and read Mr. Krauthammer's entire analysis. It is every bit as intelligent, insightful and informational as the segment you just read. 

Remember; as I've said many times before, we have no one to blame but ourselves for this awful, incompetent, train wreck of a presidency.  We elected a Chicago machine politician with no qualifications for the office, and gave him a huge partisan majority in both houses to second everything he is doing.

If the major polls are correct, a great many people who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 have, albeit belatedly, come to this conclusion.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough. 

And that goes double for 2012.

Ken Berwitz

I've written a great deal about how Barack Obama's actions as President have hurt and endangered Israel;  how his despicable treatment of Benjamin Netanyahu compared to the royal treatment afforded "Palestinian" President mahmoud abbas, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

But James Lewis has done such an excellent job of summing up the damaged wreaked by Mr. Obama that I want to put up at least the first part of his article at americanthinker.com - which you can read in its entirety by clicking here:

June 18, 2010

Obama and the Rising Mob Against Israel

By James Lewis

 

The Middle East is now teetering on the brink of war because a vast international mob has been loosed, with the tacit approval of Barack Hussein Obama. That is the real meaning of the Gaza martyrdom stunt of May 31, 2010. That purposeful provocation is not past. The Gaza suicide operation is still being used all over the Middle East and Europe to whip up hatred and violence.

 

As Mark Steyn just reported from a dingy cafe in Algeria,

I can just about make out the plasma TV up in the corner on which Jimmy Carter, dubbed into Arabic, is denouncing Israel. Al Jazeera doesn't so much cover the Zionist Entity as feast on it, hour after hour, without end. So here, at the western frontier of the Muslim world ... the only news that matters is from a tiny strip of land barely wider at its narrowest point than a rural Canadian township way down the other end of the Mediterranean. ... (there is) saturation coverage of the "Massacre In The Med" (as the front page headline in Britain's Daily Mirror put it)."

 

Iran, Lebanon, and Islamist Turkey have just announced new flotillas to break the Gaza blockade. If they succeed, it will not stop with Gaza. The conquest of Jerusalem and rest of Israel is the target. That is why Ahmadinejad has trained all his life in the "Al-Quds" (Jerusalem) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the shock suicide brigade for reconquering Jerusalem. That is why the Hamas flag shows a green Islamic Jerusalem. It is why Kofi Annan at the U.N. proudly posed in front of a map of the Middle East with Israel erased.

 

Mob psychology has now been loosed upon the world again -- in the European media, the U.N., and the Middle East, all of them against the common scapegoat of Israel.

 

Lynch mobs have a psychology. They need agitators to whip up popular rage against their victims -- like the "community organizers" in Chicago, who once upon a time used to proudly call themselves communist "agitators." But agitators need followers, who do the actual work of running riot, killing, raping, and burning their helpless scapegoats in their homes and businesses. Think ACORN and the Black Panthers.

 

Finally, mobs need enablers, the authority figures -- the cops, military, and politicos who give the signal that it's now okay to run riot and kill the helpless victims of the moment. Political authorities usually try to control incipient mobs, because their power depends on keeping order. But in Russia and the Dixiecrat South, politicians and cops commonly withdrew their protection at critical moments and signaled the mobs when it was okay to run riot against victim groups like the Jews or the blacks. It happens all over the world, and the race, ethnicity, religion, or wealth of the victims makes no difference. A group label is enough.

 

Barack Hussein Obama is now playing the biggest role in the mob psychology of the Middle East. Why? Because he is the authority figure who has given the signal that it's okay to attack Israel. That is why Islamist Turkey, Lebanon, and Iran just announced that they are sending new flotillas to challenge Israel's small coastal navy. Intentionally or not, Obama has given the green light for Israel-haters to attack. In fact, this appears to be his strategy to put pressure on Israel to appease the Arabs, Iranians, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Fatah, the unappeasable mobs that want only to kill Israel.

 

That is how Obama's Cairo speech was interpreted by the agitators and mobs of the Middle East. It is how his middle name was interpreted, and how his reported remark to the Egyptian Foreign Minister that "I am a Muslim" is perceived. If Obama really is a Muslim, then he must follow the Quran. Turkish PM Erdogan has openly said that "a Muslim cannot commit genocide" -- because the Quran explicitly demands genocide against infidels who do not surrender to Islam. That is why the Turkish suiciders on the cruise ship Mavi Marmara screamed "Khaibar! Khaibar!" while attacking Jewish commandos rappelling down one by one with paintball guns. Khaibar is the name of a Quranic genocide committed by Mohammed against the Jews. It's like Neo-Nazis screaming "Auschwitz! Auschwitz!"

There it is.  Laid out so clearly that even the most ardent Obama apologist cannot help but see it. 

If the reader cares at all about Israel he/she should be sickened by what Barack Obama is doing.  If the reader is anti-Israel, however, he/she should be thrilled.

Your call.

Ken Berwitz

This is for anyone who wonders whether President Obama and his people are aggressively trying to remediate the oil disaster.

Excerpted from an article at abcnews.com:

BP Oil Spill: Against Gov. Jindal's Wishes, Crude-Sucking Barges Stopped by Coast Guard

 

59 Days Into Oil Crisis, Gulf Coast Governors Say Feds Are Failing Them

 

By DAVID MUIR and BRADLEY BLACKBURN

June 17, 2010

 

Eight days ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor's wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore.

"It's the most frustrating thing," the Republican governor said today in Buras, La. "Literally, yesterday morning we found out that they were halting all of these barges."

Watch "World News" for David Muir's report from Louisiana tonight.

Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday. Workers in hazmat suits and gas masks pumped the oil out of the Louisiana waters and into steel tanks. It was a homegrown idea that seemed to be effective at collecting the thick gunk.

"These barges work. You've seen them work. You've seen them suck oil out of the water," said Jindal.

Coast Guard Orders Barges to Stop

So why stop now?

"The Coast Guard came and shut them down," Jindal said. "You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, 'Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'"

A Coast Guard representative told ABC News today that it shares the same goal as the governor.

"We are all in this together. The enemy is the oil," said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Dan Lauer.

But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

Louisiana Governor Couldn't Overrule Coast Guard

The governor said he didn't have the authority to overrule the Coast Guard's decision, though he said he tried to reach the White House to raise his concerns.

"They promised us they were going to get it done as quickly as possible," he said. But "every time you talk to someone different at the Coast Guard, you get a different answer."

After Jindal strenuously made his case, the barges finally got the go-ahead today to return to the Gulf and get back to work, after more than 24 hours of sitting idle.

Are they kidding?  Is this some kind of a sick joke?

Oil is relentlessly belching into the Gulf of Mexico, and destroying our shoreline.  And they stop barges that can do something about it on an effing technicality??????????????

Who is running this show?  Moe, Larry or Curly?

Where is our President?  Isn't there a fundraiser or golf came that he can take a break from to DO something about this?

What a disgrace.  And the buck doesn't stop at Dan Lauer's desk - thoroughly ridiculous and incompetent though he seems to be.  It stops at the oval office.

Ken Berwitz

No one knows for sure how Alvin Greene won the Democratic nomination for senate in South Carolina.  But this little swatch I pulled from an article at msnbc.com provides a couple of theories from SC voters themselves:

Asked by a reporter whether they voted for Greene, nearly three dozen people say no, absolutely not. Some react as if they have just been asked to swallow castor oil. But if many won't admit to it, lest they appear to have been duped, Ronnie Morris, 62, black and the co-owner of a courier service, is willing to own up.

"Here's how it happened, I'll be honest," he begins, eyeing his hamburger at the restaurant in a Piggly Wiggly grocery. "In between work and lunch, I went to vote. His name was at the top of the ballot. And I just voted for him. Didn't find out anything about him until I saw him on the news for that sex investigation and I said: 'Lord have mercy. I voted for this dude!' "

Morris is sitting with his brothers, Calvin, 64, and Bernard, 65. Like him, they are military veterans and Columbia natives.

"Ronnie," Calvin says, upending his glass of sweet tea, "you can't accept the fact that the Republicans have been up to dirty tricks. When you smell mud, there's dirt. Somebody has just got to dig it up."

"But this is a die-hard Republican state," Ronnie says. "Why would the Republicans have to plant someone? They know they'll win. It boils down to this: People went out and pulled the first name on the ballot. I did a little survey. Six friends of mine. Five said they did exactly what I did. Just voted for the dude. And these five people didn't fall off no garbage truck, either. These are educated people."

Thank you Ronnie Morris, for being honest enough to explain your vote and tell us about other people you know who voted as you did.  It's not a good way to pick a candidate, but at least you are telling the truth. 

And thank you Calvin Morris for your suspicions that Republicans are involved in some way.  I doubt that you're right -- but who knows for sure?

Ken Berwitz

What happens when you combine a corrupt US Senator no longer worried about re-election, a greedy casino ownership and a "stimulus package" that operates as a blank check?

Here's your answer, via ABC News:

With the support of Sen. Chris Dodd, D.-Conn., the federal government has awarded $54 million to Connecticut's politically well-connected Mohegan Indian tribe, which operates one of the highest grossing casinos in the U.S.

The tribe runs the sprawling Mohegan Sun casino, halfway between New York City and Boston, which earned more than $1.3 billion in gross revenues in 2009. Each tribe member receives a cut of the profits, a number a tribal official said was "less than $30,000" per capita per year. The stimulus money is a loan from a U.S. Department of Agriculture rural development program that is meant to help communities of less than 20,000 people that have been "unable to obtain other credit at reasonable rates and terms and are unable to finance the proposed project from their own resources."

If you aren't outraged by this, you have no capacity for outrage.

Ken Berwitz

The daily kos is having an apoplexy over Rep. Joe Barton (R- Texas) because he apologized to BP for what he calls "a shakedown" of 20 billion dollars and says he is ashamed it happened.

Since experience tells me that there is a good likelihood the networks will follow dailykos.com's lead and attempt to make something of this, I thought you might want to know what Mr. Barton actually said, in full context.  So here is the video:

Hmmm. 

Yes, Barton did apologize and say he was ashamed.  But not of any legitimate action against BP.  He supports AG eric holder going after BP, he says that they acted improperly and agrees that they have to pay.  His apology, and shame, was only over the way this money was procured by President Obama, which Rep. Barton feels is illegal (and he has a point).

To remind you of what you just watched, here is a sampling of Barton's actual wording:

…the Attorney General of the United States who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people…..

 

There is no question that British Petroleum owns this lease, there is no question that BP made decisions that objective people think compromised safety.  There is no question that BP is liable for the damages.

 

But we have a due process system…..

You now have the facts.  When you hear about Mr. Barton's "apology", you will know what it was for, and was not for. 

I suspect that this will give you a great advantage over people who get their information filtered through the network news shows.  I hope I'm wrong about this, butI doubt it.

In any case, I know it gves you an advantage over anyone who reads the dailykos.com blogs without looking at the video.

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

UPDATE:  Rep. Barton must have gotten some kind of reaming from his party leadership.  Because he has now apologized for his apology and retracted it.  His new position:

“I apologize for using the term ’shakedown’ with regard to yesterday’s actions at the White House in my opening statement this morning, and I retract my apology to BP,” Barton said in a statement. “As I told my colleagues yesterday and said again this morning, BP should bear the full financial responsibility for the accident on their lease in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

“I regret the impact that my statement this morning implied that BP should not pay for the consequences of their decisions and actions in this incident.”

Obviously raw politics came into play here.  Too bad.  Because, at least to me, other than repeating the apology several times which made him sound too obsequious, there was nothing wrong with what Barton said..

Ken Berwitz

Democrats love to call Republicans "the party of 'no'".  They are likely to use it as one of their key campaign themes this year.

Keep that in mind as you read the following squib from the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senate Democrats overcame an attempt by Republicans to replace a wide-ranging tax and benefits bill with a more targeted version that wouldn't add to the federal budget deficit.

 

In a 57-41 vote, all but one Senate Democrat voted against the Republican plan. Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) joined with the minority party to support the leaner proposal.

As you can see (and I doubt that you are surprised) both parties say "no" at times.  The trick is to notice what each party is saying "no" to.  In this case, Democrats are saying "no" to a bill variation that would not add to our already-impossibly-bloated federal deficit.

Store this in your memory bank, please.  November is not that far away. 

Ken Berwitz

I admit that I didn't watch a lot of Chris Matthews' highly touted "documentary" on the rise of the new right.  I was reading something and there was a Yankee game on. 

But at one point I did channel-surf there.  As luck would have it, I tuned in as Matthews was comparing Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to the notorious anti-Semite of the 1930's, Father Coughlin. 

Though I am not a fan of either Beck or Limbaugh, I have never heard either of them mouth even one word that I would construe as anti-Semitic.  So I chalked it up to Matthews acting like a bigoted, uninformed barroom loudmouth (which is pretty common for him these days) and switched back to the Yankees.

Today, however, there is a very interesting analysis of Matthews' "documentary" by Lauri Ziganto, writing for newsrealblog.com.  You can read it by clicking here.  It is very complete, very angry (justifiably) and, in her own way, Ms. Ziganto is every bit as opinionated as Matthews'.

I think of Chris Matthews about the same way I think of Joe Klein at Time Magazine.  Two very intelligent, witty, articulate guys who have, for whatever the reasons, gone completely over the left end of the pool.

Too bad for them and too bad for us. 

Ken Berwitz

Today's lesson is from actress and deep-thinker Cameron Diaz:

"If I'm going to be with a woman sexually, it doesn't mean I'm a lesbian"

FYI (as if you needed this) the definition of "lesbian", from Merriam-Webster, is "of or relating to homosexuality between females"

In fairness, it's not like we haven't heard this kind of stuff from Ms. Diaz before.  During the 2004 presidential election she was a guest on the Oprah Winfrey show and, while advocating for John Kerry over President Bush, provided this gem:

"We have a voice now, and we’re not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies…if you think that rape should be legal, then don’t vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote…"

If the Nobel committee could give its peace prize to President Obama, 9 days after he took office and aware that he supported the war in Afghanistan - enough so that he ordered two troop surges afterwards - there has to be some kind of philosophy prize waiting there for Cameron Diaz.....

Ken Berwitz

Here, excerpted from a report by nbcdfw.com, is a "you can't make this stuff up" classic:

Southwest Finds Shipment of Heads on a Plane

Southwest Airlines employee finds human heads on their way to Fort Worth

By SCOTT GORDON

Updated 9:10 AM CDT, Thu, Jun 17, 2010

A Southwest Airlines employee called police after finding 40 to 60 human heads in a package set to be transported to a Fort Worth medical research company, the airline said.

 

"It wasn't labeled or packaged properly," said Ashley Rogers, a Southwest spokeswoman. "They called the local authorities."

 

The incident happened in Little Rock, Ark., last Wednesday, she said.

 

Little Rock police turned the heads over to the county coroner, who questions where they came from and if they were properly obtained.

 

"We've come to the conclusion that there is a black market out there for human body parts for research or for whatever reason," said Pulaski County coroner Garland Camper. "We just want to make sure these specimens here aren't a part of that black market and underground trade."

 

The heads were being transported to the Fort Worth office of Medtronic, a leading medical research and technology company based in Minnesota.

 

Medtronic spokesman Brian Henry said it is common to ship body parts for medical education and research, but he said it is rare for a shipment to be seized.

Wow.  If you add in Gene Wilder and Marty Feldman, you'll have an out-take from Young Frankenstein.

Maybe the folks at Medtronic can put their heads together and come up with a solution to this problem.

Ok, there's two.  If you think you can come up with better joke lines about this than I can, please feel free to try. 

But if you can't, don't lose your head over it.  We've got enough of those already.

Ken Berwitz

PPF.  That's my new acronym. 

It stands for Partisan Political Feminism, which is defined as feminism that only exists if the women are from one of the two major parties, not the other.

I bet you can guess which party is which.  But in the unlikely event you're not sure, and also because it is so well written, I am posting L. Brent Bozell's latest column, in which he talks about how differently media react when the women are Republican rather than Democrat:

Smearing Republican Women

 

Liberals in the media don't root for more women in government. They only root for more liberal women in government. Republican women are merely targets.

 

By: L. Brent Bozell

June 15, 2010 18:48 ET

 

In 1992, the feminists in the media rejoiced at what they called “The Year of the Woman,” when ten Democratic women (and one Republican) were running for the Senate in the aftermath of Anita Hill’s unproven sexual-harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas. Just two years before, seven Republican women (and two Democrats) ran. But the media yawned.

In 1992, the evening newscasts aired 29 stories exclusively devoted to women Senate candidates. In 1990, there was one...on election night. In 1992, the morning shows interviewed women Senate candidates on 26 occasions. In 1990, there were zero interviews.

This was all about the party affiliation. When the liberals Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein both won primary elections from the U.S. Senate in