Ken Berwitz

I don't know the specifics of the deal that apparently has been reached between Republicans and Democrats to end the so-called "debt ceiling crisis".  But I do know that President Obama looked none too happy during his 5 minute statement about it, after which he took no questions.

This pleases me.  Because any economic deal that displeases President Obama is probably good for the country.

We'll know more tomorrow.

Ken Berwitz

Do you want a very complete description of the Project Gunrunner/Operation Fast and Furious scandal?  One with a ton of facts in chronological order?  One that will chill your bones?

Just CLICK HERE to read Pauline Arrillaga's comprehensive analysis for the Associated Press.

My only dispute with Ms. Arrillaga - and, unfortunately, it is a major one - is that she has let the two men who may well be the root of this scandal off the hook.  Buried in the text of her piece is this:

Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General to look into what happened, and Obama has vowed to take "appropriate actions."

Just who do you think gave the orders for a project of this magnitude, Ms. Arrillaga?  Do you think neither of these two men were directly involved?  I certainly hope you know better, and wish you had said as much.

But, other than the (seemingly requisite) absolution of Mr. Obama and holder, this article is an excellent tutorial on what Project Gunrunner/Operation Fast and Furious started out as, what it became, what it caused, and how the subsequent coverup has progressed.   I urge you to read it.

Ken Berwitz

The so-called "debt ceiling crisis" is nearing an end.

Excerpted from an article at msnbc.com:

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers were "very close" on Sunday to reaching a last-minute deal that could raise the U.S. debt ceiling by up to $2.8 trillion and assure financial markets that the United States will avoid default, according to NBC News.

Prospects that a significant package was within grasp brightened after Republican and Democratic leaders reopened stalled talks with the White House, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he was confident and optimistic.

"I think we've got a chance of getting there," he said on Saturday.

"The way this deal is shaped, Congress can avoid BOTH the tax and entitlement fights until 2013," NBC News' Chuck Todd said in a tweet.

If I were betting (I'm not), there will be one more "snag", and things will look bleak for a short time (a number of hours) - then a magical resurrection of the deal and a happy ending.

With Rasmussen, Gallup and CNN's polls (among others) showing President Obama tanking during these negotiations, it's an excellent probability that this is what will happen.

Please note, I am not making a prediction, I am only expressing an expectation. 

But I'll happily take credit if it turns out to be the case.

Ken Berwitz

Prepare to be not surprised.

the Media Research Center (a conservative outfit) studied all 202 stories on the so-called "debt ceiling crisis" from July 1 to July 22.

This chart shows what they found:

Yep. 

And, in similarly surprising news, the sun rose in the east today, and people who drive hybrids get better mileage than people who drive Hummers .

Ken Berwitz

How is Libya doing these days? 

You'd barely have any idea if you relied on our wonderful "neutral" media - which were happy to report on Libya daily when President Obama looked like he was having a quick success overthrowing qaddafi, but have become quiet as church mice as qaddafi endures, and our military action has far exceeded Mr. Obama's legal authority, based on the War Powers Act.

Well, here is a glimpse into the Libyan mess, courtesy of the following except from Rania El Gamal's article at Reuters:

Libyan rebels say the gunmen who shot dead their military chief were militiamen allied in their struggle to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, raising questions about divisions and lawlessness within rebel ranks.

The assassination of Abdel Fattah Younes, apparently by his own side, has hurt the opposition just as it was winning broader international recognition and launching an offensive against Gaddafi's forces in the Western Mountains.

After 24 hours of confusion, rebel minister Ali Tarhouni said Younes had been killed by fighters who were sent to fetch him from the front and his bullet-riddled and partially burned body was found at a ranch near the rebel capital of Benghazi.

Tarhouni said late on Friday a militiaman had been arrested and confessed that his subordinates had carried out the killing.

Remember when President Obama was talking about what quick work the USA, and its NATO pals would make of Libya?  Well that didn't happen.  Now it is 4 1/2 months into this adventure and qaddafi remains in power, we still don't know who "the rebels" are or what their true goals will be, and different "rebel" factions appear to be at war with each other.

Not what President Obama had in mind - assuming he had anything in mind other than some bombing and a triumphal press conference.

Barack Obama has been President for over 2 1/2 years.  Foreign policy-wise, he ran on a program of, among other things, removing all our troops from Iraq (they're still there), closing Guantanamo (it's still open), successfully fighting the "necessary" war in Afghanistan (we've almost quadrupled our troops - and casualties - and the country is, if anything, more threatened by the taliban than before).  The Libya mess is an extra-added attraction.

In short, another series of incompetent, inept bungling.

We elected a man with no qualifications to be President.  And his lack of qualifications - and overall competence - shows, more and more, every day.

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

While the so-called "debt ceiling crisis" continues toward its resolution, let's talk about a real crisis - one that may be in its end stages.

A high ranking military officer has abandoned Syrian dictator/mass murderer bashar al-assad, taken plently of soldiers with him, and is encouraging others in the Syrian military to join him.

Excerpted from an article in Arutz Sheva (Israel National News):

A Syrian Major-General has deserted Assad's army along with a group of other officers and joined the rebels.

 

In an Arabic video clip posted on Youtube on July 29, 2011, the officer, Major-General Riad El As'ad is seen in the company of other officers, announcing the establishment of the "Free Syrian Army whose main goal will be to fight the army of oppression headed by President Bashar Assad". 

 

As'ad accused the Assad regime of crimes against the Syrian people and called on the officers and soldiers in the Syrian army not to aim their weapons at the people. He further called on them to join the Free Syrian Army.

 

In recent weeks, a large number of officers and soldiers have deserted the regular Syrian army. In one instance, there was a mutiny and at least ten of the soldiers participating were shot and killed. Assad continues to control the country, but the violent protest against him goes on and has even reached the outskirts of Damascus.

It will be a happy day for Syria when al-assad is deposed, maybe assassinated -- unless what replaces him is as bad or worse; a caveat that always must be attached to the overthrow of countries where radical Islam has a foothold.

Let's hope that day is soon, and the result is, if at all possible, a peaceful, democratic country.

Ken Berwitz

This short blog about President Obama's performance during the so-called "debt ceiling crisis", written by The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti, is too short to excerpt.  It is also blunt, mercilessly honest.....and right on target.

See if you agree:

The talks were going nowhere. It was July 13, the fifth straight day of negotiations between President Obama and congressional leaders over an agreement to increase the debt ceiling. The hour was late when House majority leader Eric Cantor repeated the Republican preference for a short-term increase. But the president wasn’t having it. “Eric, don’t call my bluff,” Obama said. “I’m going to the American people on this.”

 

Well, bluff called. Nine days later, negotiations between Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner finally broke down. On July 25, the president delivered a 15-minute address on primetime television. And the American people responded by supporting the president in droves, demanding that Republicans abandon their commitment to low taxes and accede to a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction, and the president’s approval rating began to soar, and .  .  . 

 

Sorry, got carried away. Obama did speak to the country, and the day after his speech, the Capitol Hill switchboard was busier than normal. But that’s it. Obama’s approval rating continued to fall. Congress kept working on the debt ceiling issue on its own. The president’s message had no practical effect. And no one should be surprised.

 

Barack Obama has a communications problem. His reputation for eloquence and argument is highly exaggerated​—​at best. Speech after speech, appearance after appearance, the president has failed to persuade the undecided that his views are correct, much less win over opponents. You can blame partisan polarization, the institutional limitations of the presidency, the diversity of new media, whatever. The truth is, the more Obama talks, the worse he performs.

Is Mr. Continetti right?  You tell me.

Ken Berwitz

With my customary hat-tip to the late, great Jimmy Cannon, here is the latest installment of...

Nobody asked me, but:

-Why is it that the hacking scandal seems to have largely died as a lead story, just about the same time we learned that CNN's Piers Morgan denied using hacking while he was editor of the London Daily Mirror -- and then a video surfaced from a couple of years ago in which he admitted doing so?  To our wonderful "neutral" media, this was a great story when Rupert Murdoch's neck was on the chopping block, but not so much when it turns out he wasn't the only one.  What will they do when we find out it goes a lot further than Rupert and Morgan - which they almost certainly will?

-If the right hates Barack Obama (which it does), and independents/moderates/swingometric voters are abandoning him (which they are) and the left is disgusted with him because they think he's selling out (which they are)......who likes Barack Obama?  It is increasingly clear that Mr. Obama's main asset is that he is not a Republican, so people who won't vote for Republicans will hold their nose and vote for him again.  That's not exactly a sterling mandate.

-We couldn't get to the upper west side of Manhattan, so we ordered coffee from Zabar's by mail.   The store was running a sale (which might still be on) where, if you bought 4 lbs or more, the shipping was free.  We bought two lbs of dark espresso and 2 lbs of french vanilla - both great by themselves, but transcendental when mixed together.  We could have ordered pre-mixed, but for some reason Zabar's will not grind mixed coffee the way we need it (i.e. for paper filters).  So when it came, just two days later, in four 1lb packages, I just dumped it all in a big bowl, mixed it, and put it back in the packages.  Easy enough to do.  And the coffee is fabulous. 

By mail-order, Zabar's coffee is $9.98 a lb. - $2 more a lb. than in the store.  But, because we live in New Jersey, we avoided New York's 8.75% tax.  Besides, $9.98. is about what you'd pay at the local supermarket for the "premium coffee" which sits in those long, sterile-looking plastic tubes you always spill a few beans from when you try to position the package under them.  Plus, Zabar's included a coupon which give us $1 off per lb on the next order, and they'll toss in a free Zabar's mug.  God I love that store.

-Regarding the so-called "debt ceiling crisis":  the more childish and uber-political Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin are, the more the editorial writers at the New York Times seem to love what they are doing.  There's a lesson in there somewhere.

-Did you read about that woman in Monaco, who was driving a Bentley Azure ($383,000) and had a little traffic accident?  Not much of a story -- except this was Monaco, so the accident consisted of crashing into a Mercedes ($95,000), a Ferrari ($270,000), a Porsche 911 ($95,000) and, for good measure, an Astin Martin Rapide ($220,000).  

 

Almost 60 years ago, Your Show of Shows star Sid Caesar did a classic skit with the late, great Imogene Coca, in which he came home laughing at the idiot of a woman who crashed her car into a local store - and then found out the idiot was Coca.  Looking at this, I couldn't help wondering what this woman's husband (if she has one) had to say about her little Monaco mishap.

 

-Larry Flynt, that paradigm of taste, class and decorum, has offered casey anthony $500, 000 to pose nude in his elegant journal, "Hustler".  And it is being reported that the offer is seriously being considered.  Comparatively speaking, Flynt makes Jabba the Hutt look like Cary Grant.

 

-Speaking of excrement on legs, Lifetime has gone ahead with its show about roseanne barr in Hawaii.  The show is called "Roseanne's Nuts".  But if anyone is nuts it is Nancy Dubuc, Lifetime's President and General Manager, who has given a supposed comedy show to this unhinged, hate-filled, anti-Israel/anti-Semitic sack of manure (yes, I know she was born Jewish). 

 

In yiddish, a match between a man and a woman is called a "shitach"***.  (The second syllable is pronounced like the ach in "ach du lieber".  I'm sure you know how to pronounce the first syllable already).  It seems to me that, given their similar level of taste, a shitach between larry flynt and nancy dubuc would not be out of the question.  At the very least, maybe he can get her to pose in Hustler.  Or she can get him to show his nuts to roseanne.  Or something.

 

-Our two favorite beaches "down the shore" in New Jersey are Avon By The Sea, and Spring Lake Heights.  But now that the beach at Long Branch, right by the very enjoyable Pier Village shopping area, lets children under 9 and seniors over (I think) 62 in free, we can take our granchildren there for nothing.  Given the $8-9 per-person charge at Avon and Spring Lake, that's a pretty good reason to reconsider.

 

-Speaker of the House John Boehner often comes across as stuffy and patrician.  But he wasn't born with any silver spoon in his mouth - in reality he grew up under extremely modest circumstances (12 children and his parents stuffed into a two bedroom home, or so he says).  But as the political insanity of this so-called "debt ceiling crisis" has continued and exacerbated, he seems to be reverting back to more of what I would imagine he was during his early years.  His voice is louder and his words are more monosyllabic and saltier. To this I say good, and good.  It is refreshing to see that patina drop and to get a taste of the real man - warts and all.  

 

-Wegman's has really good tuna fish. 

 

-Nancy Pelosi may be the single least sincere person I have ever seen in politics. And that is a huge "accomplishment" - though not one I would be proud of.

 

-With baseball's trading deadline looming this weekend, I am hoping against hope that the Yankees will get rid of A.J. Burnett - even if they have to eat most of his contract.  I know they won't do it, but I just can't take this guy anymore.  He has the talent to be a 20 game winner.  But, no matter how many runs the Yankees get him, he always seems to give up at least that many to the opposing team.  Add in the non-stop tattoos and that impossibly obnoxious "pie in the face" thing he does when one of his teammates gets a walk-off rbi (which manager Joe Girardi is 100% remiss to allow) and I'll settle for lesser value just to see him in a different uniform.

 

-I spoke to my mother yesterday and, since then, for some reason have had memory flashes of products she used to buy when we were growing up, but my wife and I have never used in our own home.  Among them:  Sauce Arturo, Swee-Touch-Nee tea, muenster cheese, and Chef Boy-Ar-Dee products (though, one time, I bought a can of, I think, their cheese ravioli, and found it so artificial tasting that it was virtually inedible). 

 

My favorite cheese product growing up was Kraft's Velveeta, which is still sold - and apparently still very popular - today.  My mother never bought it - either because it was too expensive relative to other cheese products or non-kosher; I don't recall which.  My grandmother, however, always had it in her refrigerator, and it was a treat to go there and have some (being with grandma and grandpa wasn't half bad either).

 

-Are they ever going to finish the road construction on Union Hill Road in Marlboro/Manalapan, NJ?

 

-Speaking of that area, I noticed recently that a Wendy's on Route 9, right near the new CostCo, had closed.   I wonder if CostCo had anything to do with it, or this Wendy's just wasn't doing enough business to cut it.  I never saw a Wendy's close before.

 

-The negotiations were successful, so the NFL season is on.  That's nice, but I can't say it is very important to me.  And the fact that the NBA season is still in jeopardy?  Even less important to me.

 

-I was told that strawberries will not go bad as quickly if you take them out of that plastic shell they come in and put them on a sheet of absorbent paper (Brawny, Scott's, Viva, that stuff).  I'm going to try it.

 

-The battery on a Droid 2 runs out faster than any for any other cell phone I have ever used.  But I just got a new battery and, so far, it seems to be lasting a good deal longer than the previous one.  Hallelujah, and may it keep up the good work.

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

 

***My sister advises me that it is "shiddach", not "shitach".  I assume she's right, but shitach is more fun, so it stays.

Ken Berwitz

This week, the hard-left web site, crooksandliars.com,  featured a blog by regular contributor "Heather" attacking Wisconsin's Governor Walker's closing of 10 DMV offices.

Within this blog, there was also the astonishing claim that, in any event, voter IDs are irrelevant, because there is virtually no voter fraud. 

The basis for this claim?  An analysis of voting in Ohio from 2002 to 2004, By the "Brennan Institute for Justice", which says there were - so help me this is not a typo - 44 one millionths of one percent of voter fraud (4 fraudulent votes out of over 9 million cast).

In the spirit of good will and the value of knowing what the @^#$ they are talking about, I am posting the following excerpt from Matthew Vadum's blog at the Daily Caller, as a public service for the Crooks & Liars crowd.  Maybe it will give them a different perspective on voter fraud:

In a story ignored by the national media, in April a Tunica County, Miss., jury convicted NAACP official Lessadolla Sowers on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots. Sowers is identified on an NAACP website as a member of the Tunica County NAACP Executive Committee.

 

Sowers received a five-year prison term for each of the 10 counts, but Circuit Court Judge Charles Webster permitted Sowers to serve those terms concurrently, according to the Tunica Times, the only media outlet to cover the sentencing.

 

Sowers was found guilty of voting in the names of Carrie Collins, Walter Howard, Sheena Shelton, Alberta Pickett, Draper Cotton and Eddie Davis. She was also convicted of voting in the names of four dead persons: James L. Young, Dora Price, Dorothy Harris, and David Ross.

 

In the trial, forensic scientist Bo Scales testified that Sowers’s DNA was found on the inner seals of five envelopes containing absentee ballots.

Maybe "Heather" could advise the Brennan Institute of this conviction.  And both of them might reflect on how many such situations have not been, and never will be, uncovered.

Or she, and they, can remain in their hard left dream world.  Either way, I won't be seeing them there.

Ken Berwitz

It still may play out another day or two, but if there were any doubt that a deal on the so-called "debt ceiling crisis" is imminent, this should put it to rest.

According to the latest Gallup poll, President Obama has fallen sharply over the past week.  He is now at his lowest approval level - 40% - since becoming President. 

And, to make matters even worse, his approval rating among the coveted independent voters - the ones most likely to switch from one party to another - is at a godawful 34%.

Just 6 days ago Gallup showed his approval rating at 46%.  Does anyone, other than the yellowest of yellow dog Democrats, think it is a coincidence that this has happened as Mr. Obama's artificially created August 2nd debt ceiling deadline approaches? 

Barack Obama may be a lot of things.  But insensitive to polling data is not one of them.  Now he will make a deal.

Ken Berwitz

While the "debt ceiling" dog and pony show wends its way towards agreement (do you really think the USA is defaulting on August 2nd?  I hope you're more savvy than that), and we continue to reel from the non-recovery recovery, let's not forget that our economy is not the only disaster being visited on us by Obama & Co.

Let's not forget about Egypt.

Here is the beginning of an Associated Press article by Ben Hubbard:

CAIRO – Ultraconservative Muslims turned out in force Friday as tens of thousands filled Cairo's central Tahrir Square in a rally marked by a growing rift in the protest movement.

South of the capital, gunmen fired on a car carrying Christians, killing two. While the motive was unknown, similar events have sparked religious violence in the past.

In one of the largest crowds to fill the square since the popular uprising that ousted President Hosni Mubarak in February, Salafis chanted for the implementation of strict Islamic law — spurring accusations that they violated an agreement to keep the rally free from divisive issues.     

But....but....President Obama succeeded in getting rid of Hosni Mubarak, didn't he?  That was supposed to herald the beginning of the "Arab Spring", wasn't it?  All those nice, friendly, educated, westernized, English-speaking liberal folks in Tahrir Square were going to see to it that Egypt became a free, western-style democracy, weren't they?

Well, actually, no.

Egypt is not a country of educated, westernized, English-speaking liberals.  It is vastly more populated by uneducated, destitute people whose only frame of reference is the Koran, as interpreted by whichever "cleric" happens to be in their general vicinity. 

If given a choice of freedom and democracy as we know it, or shari'a law, the population of Egypt is absolutely guaranteed to pick shari'a law.  So you can forget about that bunch in Tahrir square. 

Once the Muslim brotherhood - and/or their similar-thinking pals - take over, the twitter-and-facebook contingent will be lucky if they can walk down the street in western clothes, let alone run the country.  And this is before we start talking about what great, peaceful relations with Israel are sure to follow.

So thank you, President Obama.  Great move, pushing out Mubarak.  Things are much better now.  Honest.

Can we move up the 2012 elections?  Please?

Ken Berwitz

Caroline Baum of bloomberg.com has written an excellent column on the "debt ceiling crisis".  I urge you to use the link I've provided and read every word.

But since I especially appreciate what she has written about President Obama's involvement - and complicity - in this situation, I have excerpted it below:

For Washington’s part, the short-term focus on raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit by the Treasury’s Aug. 2 deadline has become a diversion from the nation’s long-term fiscal problems. The federal government has to rein in the growth of its debt so that it becomes manageable in relation to the size of the economy.

You wouldn’t know it from listening to the lecturer in chief Monday night. In his address to the nation, President Barack Obama resorted to many of his favorite divide-and-conquer techniques, more suited to warfare than politics, in an attempt to demonstrate he is rising above the fray.

He blamed George W. Bush, this time for squandering the budget surplus the former president inherited. He played the class-warfare card, setting up a choice between corporate-jet owners and senior citizens, between hedge fund managers and their secretaries. He compared himself to Ronald Reagan, a comparison that challenges even the wildest imagination. And he scared the public and investors with the threat of default, even as he insisted on a debt-limit extension through the 2012 election to spare the economy further damage.

All this while invoking the spirit of compromise and the need to “come together as one nation.”

And whose fault is it that we have Barack Obama in the oval office?  Ours, that's who.

We have no one to blame but ourselves.  We elected a Chicago machine politician,with no qualifications for the presidency.  And, because we did, instead of an effective President we have an incompetent, with nothing in his bag but whining complaints about everyone else.  And we're stuck with him through next year. 

But there is a silver lining:  we can do something about this on election day, 2012. 

Let's.

Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from Reuters:

CME Group calls tax situation 'untenable;' says it may exit state

CME Group Inc. is evaluating whether to move some operations to other states from Chicago to reduce its taxes, but it has not decided on an exact timeline, CEO Craig Donohue said Thursday.

"Our tax situation is untenable," Donohue told Reuters, noting that CME is taxed more heavily than any of its global competitors. The company is talking with at least three states -- Texas, Florida and Tennessee -- about relocating some of its business to take advantage of lower tax rates there, Donohue said.

Chicago Board of Trade

CME has been based in Chicago since the founding of its oldest market, the Chicago Board of Trade, in 1848.

CME has no specific time frame for moving, Donohue said, and does not plan to shut its Chicago-based trading floor. But he said the possibility of moving other operations is real.

"I don't think CME group is different from other companies" that relocate to more "hospitable" business environments, he said.

Note to the politicians who continually spend more money than there is, and then demand that "the rich" be taxed  more heavily because they should "pay their fair share" (two of the stalest clichés in existence):

If you do it enough times, they will leave.  They will go to places that don't tax them as heavily, and treat them as valuable assets instead of the enemy.

-Do it at the state level, and they move their operations to another state.

-Do it at the federal level and they move their operations to another country.

And then all you're left with is the opportunity to whine out that they are "unpatriotic" - another stale cliché - instead of facing the truth, which is that you drove them out.

We have seen this happen so many times, especially at the national level, that you'd think it would be an easy lesson to understand.  But evidently that is not so for some politicians - the ones who create these conditions and then act as though it is some kind of surprise when the people they are soaking decide to do something about it.

The solution is clear.  Stop spending us into oblivion, and stop treating entrepreneurs and the corporations they create like dog manure.  Got it?

Ken Berwitz

Is AGW - Anthropomorphic (a fancy word for man-made) Global Warming a hoax?

Read this, and decide for yourself.

Excerpted from James Taylor's article at Forbes Magazine (among many other sources):

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

 

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

 

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

 

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

Are you surprised by this hole - chasm is more like it - in the Global Warming scare?  I hope not. 

Are you surprised that Global Warming continues to look like nothing other than a way of extracting tons of money from the USA in scientific grants to the people perpetrating this hoax - not to mention the untold billions wasted in enforcement of regulations which evidently exist for no good reason?  Again, I hope not.

If I were Al Gore, I would immediately retreat into one of those energy-guzzling homes he has, or onto his energy-guzzling plane, or energy-guzzling multi-million dollar yacht (really, does anyone waste more energy than Al Gore?) and hide until this blows over.  I suggest he consider coming out again in, say, late August, 2097.

Ken Berwitz

What do you call an economic recovery in which the economy does not recover?  A non-recovery, I suppose.

And that is what we have.

Excerpted from an Associated Press article:

Weak consumer spending, dismal hiring and cuts in government spending likely held back growth in the April-June quarter. The government will report on second-quarter growth on Friday. 

 

Economists forecast the economy expanded at an annual rate of 1.7 percent, according to a FactSet survey. That follows a 1.9 percent growth rate in the first three months of the year. Those are the slowest back-to-back quarters since the economy began recovering from the recession two years ago. 

 

Even if the economy picks up later this year, growth in 2011 will likely be slower than the 2.9 percent expansion last year. Economists at RBC Capital Markets, for example, forecast growth of 2.3 percent this year.

And if that isn't bad enough news for you, unemployment remains over 9%.  By way of comparison, the unemployment rate this long after the last three recessions, averaged 6.8%.

In other words, more than halfway through President Obama's first term of office, and almost 2 1/2 years since passage of his so-called "stimulus package" - which, he and his fellow Democrats assured us would turn everything around - we are still straight down the economic crapper. 

No recovery.  Not even close.

Let me end with a little advice for Mr. Obama:  blaming George Bush stopped working a long time ago, and isn't going to work now.  You own this economy.  And you will have to defend it in 2012 with more than "I inherited a mess".  

Maybe you'll be able to pull it off.  But, frankly, I doubt it.

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

UPDATE:  Apparently, I should have waited a few more minutes before posting this blog entry. 

The Commerce Department just announced the actual GDP numbers (subject to subsequent revision).  And the are even worse than the anemic 1.7% forecast in the Associated Press article referenced above.  Second quarter 2011 GDP rose just 1.3%. 

But that's not all:

-First quarter 2011 was revised hugely downward - from 1.9% to 0.4% - which means almost 80% of what little growth we thought we had did not exist, and

-Fourth quarter 2010 also was revised hugely downward, from 3.1% to 2.3%.

These numbers absolutely horrible.  And they seriously call into question the competence of whomever was estimating them in the first place. 

But the person whose competence they most call into question is President Barack Obama. 

And if this is going to be another "well, don't blame me, Bush did it" moment, get two barf bags.  One for me and one for you.  We'll both need them.

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

Congratulations to the Obama administration!!

For the first time in 15 weeks, new unemployment claims are below 400,000.  They have plummeted all the way down to...........

398,000!!!!!!!!!

Let's forget that on average, they tend to be revised upward by about 4,000 each week so, in reality, this may be the 15th week of 400,000 plus claims.  Let's revel in this great news!!!!  Only 398,000 new people filing jobless claims.  Heck we're this must be a boom period.

Who said the "stimulus package" wasn't working?

Ken Berwitz

No analysis necessary on this.  I'm pretty confident you'll get the point.

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I sarcastically congratulated Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) for acting to calm the rhetoric down by saying:

“Aren’t we at the point where the closer we get to chaos, the more concern that there should be about coming to the table and compromising with Democrats  This is not leadership. This is almost like dictatorship. I know they want to force the outcome that … their extremists would like to impose. But they are getting ready to spark panic and chaos, and they seem to be OK with that. And it’s just really disappointing, and potentially devastating.”

Today I apologize to her.

Why?  Because I just read the following stories, all featured at drudgereport.com......

PELOSI: 'We're Trying to Save Life on this Planet as We Know it Today'...

CARNEY: House GOP 'incredibly juvenile'...

 

CLYBURN:  Compares Debt Limit Increase to Emancipation Proclamation...

WH: GOP Spoiling Christmas

......and, compared to these ravings, Ms. Wasserman Schultz may well be a calming influence.

So I apologize.  I'm sorry, Debbie.  Next to Pelosi, Carney, Clyburn and Obama, you don't even make the cut. 

Ken Berwitz

There are two kinds of lies: 

-There are lies of commission - when someone says something that is overtly untrue. 

-And there are lies of omission - when someone says something that, by itself, is true, but intentionally leaves out parts that would draw you to a different conclusion.

Chris Matthews, the long-time MSNBC host and formerly useful political analyst, who is now a mindlessly left wing shill, has given us a perfect example of lying by omission.

To see his work in all its glory, I will reference Larry Elder's latest excellent column (when is an Elder column not excellent).  Read this excerpt and marvel at just how untruthful Matthews has become:

MSNBC's Chris Matthews quoted part of a 1987 Reagan address: "Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default. ... This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations."

Nice try.

Reagan's address did not end there. Here's the part the Matthews skipped over: "For those who say more taxes will solve our deficit problem, they are wrong. Every time Congress increases taxes, the deficit does not decrease, spending increases. It's time for a clear and consistent policy to reduce the federal budget deficit. ... You don't need more taxes to balance the budget. Congress needs the discipline to stop spending more, and that can be done with the passage of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. ... But I ... will not permit Congress to dismantle our national defense, to jeopardize arms reduction or to increase your taxes. I am determined that will not happen."

As you can see, the first part of President Reagan's statement is great for Matthews.  Heck, if Mr. Conservative, Ronald Reagan, supports the Obama position, how can these mean-spirited, small-minded Republicans of today possibly vote against it. 

But the rest of the statement makes the Republican position fully consonant with Mr. Reagan's philosophy, and therefore, repudiates the Obama position.  So Matthews, ever-faithful to the love of his life, Barack Obama, left it out.

It is sad to see how far Chris Matthews has fallen.  You'd never know it by his "standards" of today, but Matthews actually used to be worth paying attention to.

Not anymore, though.  Now he is just a lying acolyte for Barack Obama and Democrats. 

Or, put another way, a perfectly appropriate host for MSNBC.

Ken Berwitz

Each party is blaming the other for our current deficit crisis. 

Frankly, both have a lot to answer for.  But is one party more responsible than the other?

Take a look at the following chart, created by The Heritage Foundation, and decide for yourself.  Remember,:

-The House of Representatives writes the budgets,

-Republicans held the house from 1995-2007, and

-Democrats held it from 2007 to 2011 (Republicans regained it this year).

As you can see, when Democrats gained control of the house, the deficit was under 10 trillion dollars. 

But in the four years Democrats held the house, the deficity rose by 4.5 trillion dollars - over 45% again what it was in the entire history of the country. 

In just one year - with President Obama in office along with Democrat majorities in both houses - it rose 1.9 million.

Any questions?

Ken Berwitz

Democrats - wrongly, in my view, but that's just my view - obviously think they have a winner in the default scare. 

That certainly would explain this letter, signed by all 53 senate Democrats, to house speaker John Boehner.  But is what senate Democrats are saying true?  Relevant? 

Here is the entire letter, in rust, with my comments in blue.  You decide who is making more sense:

Dear Speaker Boehner,

With five days until our nation faces an unprecedented financial crisis, we need to work together to ensure that our nation does not default on our obligations for the first time in our history. A lie.  No default is in the offing.  The treasury has money to pay all debts on August 2^nd, and in any event, as I detailed earlier this week, President Obama has quietly contacted major banks to tell them there will be no default.  We heard that in your caucus you said the Senate will support your bill. We are writing to tell you that we will not support it, and give you the reasons why.

A short-term extension like the one in your bill would put America at risk, along with every family and business in it. Whoa!  Extending for 6 months so that a deal could be worked out doesn’t avert the default you’re threatening, it puts us at risk?  What kind of double-talk is that?  Your approach would force us once again to face the threat of default in five or six short months. As opposed to August 2^nd, if you’re telling the truth (which you’re not)?  Six months from now is worse than a few days from now?  Every day, another expert warns us that your short-term approach could be nearly as disastrous as a default and would lead to a downgrade in our credit rating. Every day another expert?  Meaningless blather.  If our credit is downgraded, it would cost us billions of dollars more in interest payments on our existing debt and drive up our deficit. Even more worrisome, a downgrade would spike interest rates, making everything from mortgages, car loans and credit cards more expensive for families and businesses nationwide.  Finally some truth.  If there were an actual default these things would probably happen.  But since there isn’t going to be a default, it is irrelevant.  What else have you got?

In addition to risking a downgrade and catastrophic default, we are concerned that in five or six months, the House will once again hold the economy captive and refuse to avoid another default unless we accept unbalanced, deep cuts to programs like Medicare and Social Security, without asking anything of the wealthiest Americans.  Now we’re back to pure politics.  If anyone is holding anyone “captive” it is Democrats who refuse to stop spending money we don’t have.  One look at the deficit’s enormous climb over the four years when Democrats controlled the house (the last two years of Bush’s term and first two of Obama’s term) will prove it – and I’m putting that up in the next blog.

We now have only five days left to act. The entire world is watching Congress. We need to do the right thing to solve this problem. We must work together to avoid a default the responsible way – not in a way that will do America more harm than good.  I agree 100%.  So stop the political BS and start doing something about the deficit.  

Ken Berwitz

Here is how President Obama's press secretary, Jay Carney, answered former CNN correspondent, now with Fox, Ed Henry, when Henry asked why the President has not put forth a debt ceiling plan.

The video is 4:43 long.  Watch it and decide for yourself whether Mr. Carney answered the questions and acted professionally:

There it is.  Your call.

Ken Berwitz

Just 6 days before the artificial - in reality, nonexistent - "default" date, and we have finally heard from DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz

DWS took time out from pissing off Rep. Alan West to step forward and gently calm the waters. 

Her exact words?

“Aren’t we at the point where the closer we get to chaos, the more concern that there should be about coming to the table and compromising with Democrats  This is not leadership. This is almost like dictatorship. I know they want to force the outcome that … their extremists would like to impose. But they are getting ready to spark panic and chaos, and they seem to be OK with that. And it’s just really disappointing, and potentially devastating.”

Thanks Debbie.  President Obama has already done his level best to scare the bejeezus out of seniors with threats that they won't get social security or medicare - both absolutely bogus.  But you have taken it to another level.  A lower one, but another level nevertheless.

Not for nothing do I call her Dim Bulb Debbie.

Ken Berwitz

You had to know this was coming.  Sick as it gets, but inevitable.

Excerpted from Dylan Stableford's article at yahoo.com:

Casey Anthony walked out of a Florida jail and made a carefully orchestrated escape from the media mob that had followed her throughout her daughter's murder case.

Now Anthony wants the attention back. According to several rumors now floating around, including one from Nancy Grace, Anthony and her team of lawyers are seeking at least $1.5 million from television networks interesting in landing her first post-penitentiary interview.

Would networks, and/or print venues, lower themselves to pay this disgusting excuse for a human being seven figures so that she can exploit her dead daughter's corpse - the daughter she almost certainly killed, but, at the very least, was missing for a month before she bothered to tell police about it?

You're damn right they would.

We'll see who the lucky "winner" is.  But don't expect me to help out by watching/reading it.  I would rather swim in nuclear waste.

Ken Berwitz

This installment of left wing "civility" comes to us from New York Times superstar Tom Friedman.  Here, from Friedman's latest column, is his description of the "Tea Party":

It is so lacking in any aspiration for American greatness, so dominated by the narrowest visions for our country and so ignorant of the fact that it was not tax cuts that made America great but our unique public-private partnerships across the generations. If sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst, the Tea Party will take the G.O.P. on a suicide mission. No American politician was more allergic to debt or taxes than Thomas Jefferson, but he also appreciated the need to have the resources to make the Louisiana Purchase and insisted that on his tombstone it be written that he founded the University of Virginia.

What a lovely, civil analysis.  Republicans who hold with Tea Party views are not sane, and the Tea Party is equivalent to a group of murdering terrorists - not to mention virulent anti-Semites.

As for that "suicide mission" the Tea Party is taking the Republican Party on, I would suggest Mr. Friedman reference the 2010 elections. 

Yes, there were several high-profile losses by Tea Party favorites which might have been wins with more moderate candidates.  Now, what about the 63 seat gain in the House, which gave Republicans theirs largest house contingent since 1946, and the 6 seat gain in the Senate? 

That's some helluva suicide.  I'll bet the Republican Party is praying for another suicide just like it in 2012.

Civility.  What an interesting concept.  Funny how its meaning varies depending on who is engaging in it.

Ken Berwitz

In his latest column for townhall.com, Brent Bozell complains that President Obama has a cadre of media personalities who will support just about everything he does, and attack just about everyone who opposes him. 

Mr. Bozell is right, of course.  But, then again, every President has media sycophants.  To me, the issue is one of degree:  i.e. Mr. Obama has far more than any Republican is ever likely to get.  

That said, I have to admit finding great amusement in some of the examples Bozell has selected, and his comments about them.

 You can read the entire column by clicking here.  But, in the meanwhile, here are a few examples of what amused me:

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help. 

Good stuff.  Worth reading.  And worth remembering when you catch any of this bunch on-air; especially Chris Matthews, who self-describes himself as “absolutely non-partisan”. 

 Chris Matthews is to nonpartisan what a cash bar is to a WCTU convention.

Ken Berwitz

A guy goes to the doctor for a physical.  The doctor gives him 6 months to live.  The guy says "I can't pay your fee".  So the doctor gives him another 6 months:  HENNY YOUNGMAN

A congress goes to the President for a fiscal.  The President gives it until August 2nd to default.  The congress says "We can't pass legislation by August 2nd."  So the President gives it until August 10th:  BARACK OBAMA

Think that's just a joke?  Read this excerpt from Binyamin Applebaum's article in today's New York Times, and find out that it isn't:

WASHINGTON — It turns out the federal government is sitting on some extra cash.

 

Thanks to an inflow of tax payments and maneuvering by the Treasury Department, the government can probably continue to pay all of its bills for several days after Aug. 2, providing potentially critical breathing room for Congress to raise the debt ceiling, according to estimates by several Wall Street banks and a Washington research organization.

 

The consensus is that the government will not run short of money until Aug. 10, when it would be unable to cut millions of Social Security checks without borrowing more money.

 

President Obama has described Aug. 2 as a “hard deadline” for Congress to increase the maximum amount that the government is allowed to borrow.

 

“We have to do it by next Tuesday, Aug. 2, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills,” Mr. Obama told the nation in his speech on Monday night.

We voted to elect a President.  We got a Henny Youngman joke.

Incidentally, why should there be any problem cutting social security checks without borrowing?  Haven't we been told over and over again that there is enough money in the Social Security trust fund for years and years to come? 

Maybe, instead of lying about a default which is not coming, Mr. Obama should instead explain the lie about social security being solvent.

Ken Berwitz

The 9th circuit court has been overturned by the Supreme Court more than any other.  So it's not like these folks are any strangers to making poor decisions.

But this one takes the cake.

Excerpted from an article at Fox News:

A California man's call to "shoot" President Obama was ruled as legal and protected speech this week, as a federal court overturned his conviction in connection with the 2008 threats. 

 

Under U.S. law, it is illegal to threaten harm against a major presidential candidate. But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Walter Bagdasarian's threats did not cross the legal line because he didn't appear to have the "intent" to carry them out. 

 

The comments were posted on a Yahoo! Finance message board in October 2008, when it looked increasingly likely Obama was poised to win the presidential election. Shortly after midnight, Bagdasarian joined the discussion. He called Obama a "n-----" and said "he will have a 50 cal in the head soon." He posted another comment 20 minutes later that said "shoot the n--." 

 

The three-judge panel reviewing Bagdasarian's conviction from a lower court was not unanimous in overturning the verdict. Judge Kim Wardlaw, who dissented in part from the majority ruling, argued that Bagdasarian's access to weapons showed he "could implement the threat." Wardlaw wrote that given the facts, he showed a "specific intent" to threaten Obama. 

 

However, the majority wrote that his possession of firearms did not speak to his intent. 

 

The defendant also wrote on the message board, and later said at trial, that he had been drinking a lot and was intoxicated when he made the offending comments.

Are these judges nuts? 

I don't care what your politics are.  Walter Bagdasarian was a vile nut job, who made overt threats - with a large dose of racial hatred - on a public web site that millions of people look at (which means he didn't care who knew), against a Presidential candidate.  And they've decided he didn't really mean it?

Wonderful.  What next.  Maybe they'd like to go back in time and clear Al Capone of running liquor into Chicago too.

Whoever appointed the geniuses who ruled this way should issue a formal apology.  And beg them to resign.

One other thing:  This scumbucket shares the same last name as David Seville (real name:  Ross Bagdasarian), creater of "The Chipmunks".  Not that it matters in any meaningful way - Seville/Bagdasarian died almost 40 years ago - but, somehow, I'd feel better if the two were not related.

Ken Berwitz

My pal Bob sent this to me.  It is a lot longer than the two paragraphs I am showing below.  I don't even know if the numbers make sense.  But it's such a great rant about social security, that I thought you might like to see it:

Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only 30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working (me) you'd have $892,919.98. If you took out only
3% per year, you receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years, and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever had.


Entitlement my ass, I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they stole the money, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!! Congressional benefits, aka. free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my retirement entitlements !!!!!!.....

Ken Berwitz

Jay Carney, President Obama's embattled Press Secretary, engaged in a genuinely contentious daily briefing today. 

He was snide.  He was insulting.  And he was unable to answer the questions asked by a usually friendly press corps which may finally have had it with Mr. Obama's political games on the "debt ceiling".

The following is excerpted from  Guy Benson's account at townhall.com -- which I urge you to read in its entirety to get a better taste of just how bad the press conference went:

Since his unmitigated failure of a budget was unanimously defeated in the Senate, this president has refused to offer a specific plan of his own on virtually anything at all.  Instead, he talks about "visions" and "contours" and "frameworks" -- and tries to blame his opponents when his poor leadership is exposed.  Over the last five days, the president has (a) undermined a bargain with John Boehner by introducing an unacceptable eleventh-hour condition, (b) rejected "out of hand" a bipartisan compromise that he found to be politically unpalatable, and (c) delivered a speech that painted his opponents as the intractable extremists.  In light of this behavior, it's entirely reasonable for Americans to wonder what, precisely, Barack Obama's proposed solution might be.  Today, the White House dismissively waived off that question as a GOP talking point and condescendingly inquired if the journalist who dared to ask it was capable of taking notes.

I'll close with an unsolicited word of advice, and a friendly reminder from the CBO director.  The advice: When you're already plumbing new depths of unpopularity, dialing up your arrogance isn't a winning strategy.  Even David Brooks finds it unseemly. 

Can it be that, finally, Obama & Co. are catching heat from the press for this ridiculous, thoroughly dishonest, exercise in class warfare? 

Watch those poll numbers.  If they go down, it's an excellent bet that Mr. Obama - kicking and screaming at the last moment, because he's going to pretend he was shanghaied into it - will cave.

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

UPDATE:  In answer to commenter "free", the Today Show aired a tiny swatch of the press conference in which Jay Carney calmly told the reporters how serious the situation was.  Not one second of the contentiousness detailed above.  Please do not tell me you are surprised.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest on the Project Gunrunner/Operation Fast and Furious scandal.

Excerpted from an article by Stephen Dinan and Chuck Neubauer of the Washington Times:

The Obama administration sought to intimidate witnesses into not testifying to Congress on Tuesday about whether ATF knowingly allowed weapons, including assault rifles, to be “walked” into Mexico, the chairman of a House committee investigating the program said in an interview Monday.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, said at least two scheduled witnesses expected to be asked about a controversial weapons investigation known as “Fast and Furious”received warning letters from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to limit their testimony.

Among other questions, the agents are likely to be asked about a large volume of guns showing up in Mexico that were traced back to the Fast and Furious program; whether ATF officials in that country expressed concerns about the weapons to agency officials in the U.S., only to be brushed aside; and whether ATF officials in Arizona denied ATF personnel in Mexico access to information about the operation.

Mr. Issa also said he is certain the Fast and Furious operation was known by most top officials at the Justice Department and that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. either knew and misled Congress, or was so out of the loop that he’s guilty of mismanagement.

“How is it that the No. 2, 3, 4 at Justice all knew about this program, but the No. 1 didn’t?,” Mr. Issa said. “Is it because he said ‘don’t tell me’? Is it because they knew what they were doing is wrong, and they were protecting their boss? Or is it that Eric Holder is just so disconnected … ?

“Whichever it is — he knew and he’s lied to Congress, or he didn’t know, and he’s so detached that he wasn’t doing his job — that really probably is for the administration to make a decision on, sooner not later,” Mr. Issa said.

...after receiving subpoenas, at least two of the agents got letters from ATF Associate Chief Counsel Barry S. Orlow warning them to keep certain areas off-limits, including those still under investigation. Neither of the targeted agents was identified.

Mr. Issa said at least one witness wanted to back out of testifying to his committee after receiving the letter, but the chairman declined that request. Instead he fired a letter back to William J. Hoover, deputy director of ATF, saying the “timing and content of this letter strongly suggest that ATF is obstructing and interfering with the congressional investigation.”

How likely is it that the Attorney General of the United States was kept out of the loop on a program in which thousands of assault rifles were intentionally sold to Mexican drug cartels?  About as likely as Sean Hannity leaving Fox News Channel to become a regional director for moveon.org.

And is it reasonable to suspect - strongly - that the President of the United States knew about it as well?

How bad does this stink?  It stinks like an outhouse after an onion and bean dinner.

And when will the stench of this ugly scandal get so bad that mainstream media can no longer ignore it?  That remains to be seen.

Soon, I hope.  Very, very soon.

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

UPDATE:  Excerpted from Jeremy Pelofsky's article at Reuters:

At least 122 firearms from a botched U.S. undercover operation have been found at crime scenes in Mexico or intercepted en route to drug cartels there, according to a Republican congressional report being issued on Tuesday.

 

Mexican authorities found AK-47 assault rifles, powerful .50 caliber rifles and other weapons in late 2009 that were later linked to the U.S. sting operation to trace weapons going across the border to Mexico, the report said.

 

Guns from the program, dubbed "Operation Fast and Furious," also were found at the scene of the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in the border state Arizona last December. It is not clear if they were the weapons responsible for his death.

 

The sting has become an embarrassment for the Obama administration and its Justice Department, rather than a victory in cracking down on the illegal flow of drugs and weapons to and from Mexico.

 

It has also hurt ties with Mexico, which has been battling the violent cartels in a war in which thousands have died.

 

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and federal prosecutors had hoped the sting would help them track gun buyers reselling weapons to cartels. But U.S. agents did not follow the guns after the initial purchaser re-sold them. 

The stench gets more intense......

Ken Berwitz

Well, well, well.  That didn't take long, did it?

Here, excerpted from an article in New York Magazine (among many other sources) is some news that, unless you are so consumed with hatred for Murdoch you're not thinking straight, is about as surprising as the fact that chickens occasionally lay eggs:

James Hipwell, a former business reporter at the Daily Mirror, today said he is prepared to testify before a parliamentary public inquiry that phone hacking at the paper was "endemic," according to The Independent. This just the latest development in the ever-expanding phone hacking scandal which, since News of the World closed down and Rupert Murdoch's bid for British broadcaster BSkyB collapsed, has been implicating more and more of News International's competitors. Foremost among them the Daily Mirror and its former editor, Piers Morgan, who took over Larry King's slot at CNN earlier this year.

Hipwell, who worked at the paper under Piers Morgan, claims phone hacking was particularly widespread in the Mirror's showbiz unit, which was located near where he and the other business reporters sat. Speaking to The Independent:

They would call a celebrity with one phone and when it was answered they would then hang up. By that stage the other phone would be into their [the celebrity's] voicemail and they would key in the code, 9999 or 0000. I saw that a lot. After they'd hacked into someone's mobile, they'd delete the message so another paper couldn't get the story.

So it wasn't just Murdoch and his News of the World.  It was also the Daily Mirror -- along with who knows how many other papers? 

And who was editing the Daily Mirror at that time?  Why Piers Morgan.  Doesn't he currently work for CNN?  And didn't CNN happily go after Murdoch and his News Corporation over the hacking scandal that Morgan stands accused of being neck deep in as well?

Morgan, for his part, denies any involvement.  You can believe him if you care to.

Me?  I think we're still at the tip-of-the-iceberg stage.  And Mr. Murdoch's last laugh isn't going to stop with just the Daily Mirror. 

Stay tuned.

Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from Charlie Gasparino's article at foxbusiness.com:

While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn't raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.

 

In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn't raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn't raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down.

If this is true - and I don't doubt for a moment that it is - Barack Obama's speech on the debt ceiling crisis last night was a 15 minute lie-fest.  To go with the countless other lies he has told voters over the 2 1/2 years of his presidency.

If mainstream media collectively grow a pair of gonads and report this, even the focus group-tested catch words, like "balanced approach", won't save him.  And shouldn't.

Ken Berwitz

In the previous blog, I noted that President Obama was clearly using yesterday's purported speech on the deficit ceiling as a campaign tool.  I also speculated that poll numbers would determine whether or not he would cave in afterwards.

Now we have this, excerpted from Andrew Malcolm's article in today's Los Angeles Times (which, so help me, I read after posting the earlier blog):

Using political forensics, notice any clues, perhaps telltale code words that reveal to whom he was really addressing his Monday message? Clearly, it wasn't congressional Republicans -- or Democrats, for that matter.

The nation's top talker uttered 4,526 words in those remarks. He said "balanced approach" seven times, three times in a single paragraph.

That's the giveaway. Obviously, David Plouffe and the incumbent's strategists have been polling phrases for use in this ongoing debt duel, which is more about 2012 now than 2011.

Despite those hundreds of billions of blown stimulus dollars and almost as many upturn promises from Joe Biden, 82% of Americans still say their job market is struggling. Ninety percent rate the economy negatively, including half who give it the worst rating of "poor."

Are You Better Off Today Than Jan. 20, 2009?

A slim 15% claim to be "getting ahead financially," half what it was in 2006. Fully 27% say they're falling behind financially. That's up 6 points since February.

A significant majority (54%) says they've been forced to change their lifestyle significantly as a result of the economic times -- and 60% of them are angry, up from 14%.  

To be sure, 30 months after he returned to home cooking, George W. Bush still gets majority blame for the economy.

But here's the breaking news for wishful Democrats: George W. Bush isn't running for anything but exercise.

"More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply eroding among  his base," the Post reports.

Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama's jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president's measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half.

Obama's overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one.

I rest my case.

Ken Berwitz

President Obama last night: 

-We must have a balanced budget (according to Charles Krauthammer, the word was tested by Obama's research people and found appealing to independents);

-The problems were primarily caused by George Bush (after over 2 1/2 years in office, virtually all of it with his "stimulus package" in place, it is still somehow not his responsibility);

-We have to increase the taxes on rich people yada yada, corporate jets yada yada fair share yada yada (if every "rich person" was taxed as much as Mr. Obama could realistically expect to hit them with, it would barely put a dent in the deficit - but might get a number of them to move their enterprises, maybe their permanent residence, outside the country - which would mean losing all their taxes);

-We risk default (there is money to avert default);

-Seniors should be worried about their social security (the same President Obama has told us social security is solvent for years and years to come);

-And I won't accept a 6 month solution (which would give congress plenty of time to work out something both sides could live with).

This is LEADERSHIP?  This is a crock of BS, straight from the backroom of a Chicago ward.

Here's a simple equation for you:  If Mr. Obama's poll numbers bounce upward after this cynical assault on the intelligence of voters, he will hold firm.  If they barely move or move downward, he will cave in, accept what he can get, and whine that anything bad which happens afterwards is congress's fault - most specifically, the Republican house.  Not his. 

Nothing is ever Barack Obama's fault.

Oh, by the way, the New York Times loved what he said and thinks the problem begins and ends at those dastardly Republicans.  Read today's editorial and see. 

I especially like the part where the Times says "They have largely succeeded in their campaign to ransom America’s economy for the biggest spending cuts in a generation."  Funny, I thought that spending cuts - as a means of averting absolutely unsustainable deficits - was a way to save the economy.  But not in the Times' ivory tower....

Ken Berwitz

I don't have to supply much analysis here.  Read the two excerpts and you will understand perfectly.

The first is from Catherine Shoichet's article at cnn.com:

"The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions," Obama told the National Council of La Raza.

 

Speaking at the organization's annual conference in Washington, Obama said passing immigration reform measures will require support from both sides of the aisle in Congress.

 

"Let's be honest, I need a dance partner here, and the floor is empty," he said.

Audience members greeted Obama with a standing ovation, and responded to his discussion of immigration reform by chanting, "Yes you can, yes you can."

And who is President Obama speaking to?  What is La Raza all about? 

Read the second excerpt, which comes from an article written in 2006 by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), and is every bit as true today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is who President Obama is apologizing to, for his inability - tempting though it is - to circumvent the constitution and just give them what they want.

Can we move up the 2012 elections?  Please?

Ken Berwitz

Have you noticed that since President Obama got what he wanted, and Hosni Mubarak was deposed as Egypt's head of state, there have barely been any news reports about what is going on there?

That must mean everything is just fine, right?  After all, this is the Arab Spring, with freedom and democracy springing up everywhere, especially in Egypt.  Isn't that what we have been led to believe?

Well, read the following excerpts from Katherine Veik's piece, at catholicnewsagency.com, and you may want to reconsider:

The U.S. Helsinki Commission gathered on July 22 to discuss the increase in violence against Coptic Orthodox Christians in Egypt, specifically young women.

 

Reports of kidnapping and forced marriage and conversion began cropping up in 2007, but remained “unsubstantiated,” said Michele Clark, an adjunct professor of international affairs at George Washington University.

 

“I am here to confirm these allegations,” Clark said. “These are not isolated incidences.”

 

Clark and other witnesses testified July 22 before the independent U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The commission is also known as the Helsinki Commission because it is tasked with monitoring compliance with the Helsinki Accords, a 1976 agreement between 56 countries that involves cooperation on issues related to human rights, democracy, economics and security.

 

Jean Maher, president of the France-based Egyptian Union for Human Rights Organization, said that nearly 800 Coptic Christian women have been kidnapped, raped and forced to convert to Islam since 2009. 

 

That number has only increased since the revolution in February, Maher said.

 

He said that before the revolution, Muslim kidnappers would have to “seduce” their victims. Now, they “just put them in a taxi and go away with them.”

 

Maher said most families of victims are already reluctant to come forward because taking away a woman's virginity also strips the family of its honor. He said families of victims can also be accused of neglecting their daughters.

In light of this, Clark urged the international community to tie financial aid to Egypt's upholding and protecting the fundamental human rights listed in its constitution.

 

“Unconditional financial aid would be an error,” she said.

Ah, yes.  The Arab Spring.  Or, if you happen to be Christian, the cesspool of hatred, intolerance and fear.

And who is going to stop this?  Mubarak's successor?  Don't kid yourself.

I have blogged many times over the months about what kind of governance Egypt - a country of 75 - 80 million people, vastly destitute, 34% illiterate (UNESCO 2007 data), with little in their lives other than the koran and how the local "cleric" interprets it, are likely to vote for in a free election. 

Believe me, it won't be the "Tolerance For All" ticket -- no matter how many well-fed, well-bred, well-educated, English-speaking, facebook-loving, twitter-tweeting protestors the news networks interview in Tahrir Square.  Tahrir Square does not represent the real Egypt.  Not even remotely close.

But look at the bright side.  President Obama was instrumental in removing Hosni Mubarak from office, wasn't he?  

How happy we all should be at his foreign policy triumph.

Ken Berwitz

If you want to understand what is happening with the debt ceiling crisis, you need go no further than the excellent editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, which is excerpted below:

Barack Obama was in full-scold mode Friday night, summoning Congressional leaders to the White House to "explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default." It's a terrific question, albeit one the President refuses to answer. He remains far more interested in maneuvering to blame a default or credit downgrade on Republicans than in making himself part of any plausible solution to a crisis he insists is imminent.

 

Now House Republicans and Senate Democrats are each working to craft their own plans, and it says something that the country has a better shot of getting something out of a divided Congress than it does out of the Oval Office.

 

Then again, it has long been clear that Mr. Obama isn't interested in spending reform. In February he proposed a budget that spent more than any in U.S. history. In April he demanded that Congress pass a "clean" debt ceiling hike that included no spending cuts whatsoever. Only after House Republicans unveiled their own sweeping budgetary reforms did the White House rush to also claim it wanted deficit reduction as part of the debt-ceiling debate.

 

In June, the President dispatched Joe Biden to negotiate spending cuts, only to have the White House insist at the last minute that modest trims be accompanied by significant new taxes. Mr. Boehner and the Senate's bipartisan Gang of Six produced plans that would have acceded to that White House demand in exchange for substantive tax reform that would have lowered individual and corporate rates. Yet last week the White House backtracked on its agreement for the lower tax rates and demanded another $400 billion in tax revenues above the $800 billion the Speaker had already conceded.

 

Behind the scenes the White House has only ever agreed to token reform and cuts. Here's a number for the debt history books: Mr. Obama's final offer in the Biden talks was a $2 billion cut in 2012 nondefense discretionary spending. The federal government spends more than $10 billion a day.

 

Now we're days from the August 2 default deadline set by the Treasury Department, and the President's only response has been to blame everybody else for deficient seriousness.

The WSJ has it dead-on right.  The "debt ceiling crisis" is an orchestrated event, designed to demonize Republicans and demonstrate that Barack Hussein Quixote can come riding in at the last moment to scheme the impossible scheme, and melt the problem away. 

The question is whether voters are gullible enough to buy his BS. 

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, however, recent poll data suggest the answer is "no". 

Illustratively, look at how Rasmussen Research's data have moved, as the "debt ceiling crisis" has burgeoned over the past two months:

   May 25          July 25

 

Approve             50%             48%              

Disapprove         48%             55%  

Over this period, Mr. Obama's approval rating has gone from +2% to -7%, a negative swing of 9%.

And just in case you think it would be different if the polling were done by a more Democrat-friendly source, look at these similarly-timed data from the CNN/ORC poll:

May 24-26     July 18-20     

 

Approve           54%             45%             

Disapprove       45%             54%            

As you can see, the data are even worse than Rasmussen's, going from a +9% approval rating to -9%:  a negative swing of 18%.

The bottom line?  If there is suddenly a cave-in by the administration and a quick deal, you can bet that it will be because Mr. Obama has seen the same data, and concluded that his stand, such as it is, a political liability. 

With this President, no other reason seems to count.

Ken Berwitz

I was very impressed with Rick Perry as a potential Republican nominee....

...until this, which comes straight from his "The Response" web site:

Fellow Americans,

 

Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.

 

Some problems are beyond our power to solve, and according to the Book of Joel, Chapter 2, this historic hour demands a historic response. Therefore, on August 6, thousands will gather to pray for a historic breakthrough for our country and a renewed sense of moral purpose.

 

I sincerely hope you’ll join me in Houston on August 6th and take your place in Reliant Stadium with praying people asking God’s forgiveness, wisdom and provision for our state and nation. There is hope for America. It lies in heaven, and we will find it on our knees.

 

 

Sincerely,

Rick Perry

Governor

Maybe, by Rick Perry's reckoning, the United States is a religious, Jesus-driven enterprise.  And maybe, by Mr. Perry's reckoning, non-Christians - like me, for example - are not welcome and do not have to be included.

Well, here's my reckoning.

Bye-bye Rick.

Ken Berwitz

It looks like President Obama is continuing his game of chicken with congress over the debt ceiling crisis which, if you believe him, is going to occur next Tuesday.

From Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post:

A Republican aide e-mails me: “The Speaker, Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell all agreed on the general framework of a two-part plan. A short-term increase (with cuts greater than the increase), combined with a committee to find long-term savings before the rest of the increase would be considered. Sen. Reid took the bipartisan plan to the White House and the President said no.”

If this is accurate the president is playing with fire. By halting a bipartisan deal he imperils the country’s finances and can rightly be accused of putting partisanship above all else. The ONLY reason to reject a short-term, two-step deal embraced by both the House and Senate is to avoid another approval-killing face-off for President Obama before the election. Next to pulling troops out of Afghanistan to fit the election calendar, this is the most irresponsible and shameful move of his presidency.

I hope this doesn't surprise you.  And I also hope (though with far less optimism) that our wonderful "neutral" media will demand answers about it at today's press briefing. 

Does this man ever do anything for any reason other than political gain?  Does this man ever say anything anyone can believe?.

Ken Berwitz

Cornel West is a rock star of the left.  He is a Black militant "educator", so valued that Ivy League schools have competed against one another for the privilege of having him on their faculties.

Why? 

Let's read his words and see if we can find the answer.  Here is the "condensed version" of an interview New York Times writer Andrew Goldman conducted with West, which was published last Thursday.  I'm not excerpting it because a) it isn't that long and b) the Times already has excerpted it:

What’s with the black suit, white shirt, black tie outfit you always wear? Do you have anything else in your closet?

I’ve got four black suits that I circulate, and they are my cemetery clothes — my uniform that keeps me ready for battle.

 

Your cemetery clothes?
It’s ready to die, brother. If I drop dead, I am coffin-ready. I got my tie, my white shirt, everything. Just fix my Afro nice in the coffin.

So let me ask you: in 2007, you introduced Barack Obama as your “brother, companion and comrade.” But in May, you referred to him as “the black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs” and the “head of the American killing machine.” What in the world happened?
It was a cry from the heart. What happened was that greed at the top has squeezed so much of the juices of the body politic. Poor people and working people have not been a fundamental focus of the Obama administration. That for me is not just a disappointment but a kind of betrayal.

But you have also acknowledged that this is more than just political — you’ve said that after campaigning for him at 65 events, you were miffed that he didn’t return your phone calls or say thank you.
I think he had to keep me at a distance. There’s no doubt that he didn’t want to be identified with a black leftist. But we’re talking about one phone call, man. That’s all. One private phone call.

He was running a successful candidacy for president. He might have been busy.
So many of the pundits assume that it’s just egoism: “Who does Cornel West think he is? The president is busy.” But there’s such a thing as decency in human relations.

O.K., but did you also have to say that Obama “feels most comfortable with upper-middle-class white and Jewish men who consider themselves very smart”?
It’s in no way an attempt to devalue white or Jewish brothers. It’s an objective fact. In his administration, he’s got a significant number of very smart white brothers and very smart Jewish brothers. You think that’s unimportant?

When Larry Summers was president of Harvard, he told you your rap album was an “embarrassment” to the university, and you quit soon after. He was one of Obama’s first appointments. Did that strike a particular feeling in your heart?
I couldn’t help it. I’m a human being, indeed. Given the disrespect he showed me? Oh, my God. Again, it’s political much more than it’s personal. Summers was in captivity to Wall Street interests. But it’s personal too.

You have 30 seconds of private time with the president — what do you say to him?
I would say: “Look at that bust of Martin Luther King Jr. in the Oval Office and recognize that tears are flowing when you let Geithner and others shape your economic policy, when you refuse to focus on poor and working people or when you drop the drone bombs that kill innocent civilians. Tim Geithner does not represent the legacy of Martin King.”

How can Obama be the president you want him to be when he’s facing this Republican Congress?
I’ll put it this way, brother: You’ve got to be a thermostat rather than a thermometer. A thermostat shapes the climate of opinion; a thermometer just reflects it. If you’re just going to reflect it and run by the polls, then you’re not going to be a transformative president. Lincoln was a thermostat. Johnson and F.D.R., too.

You lament in your book “Race Matters” that there’s a lack of black leadership. You’re smart, very charismatic — why did you never become what we would consider a black leader in the mold of Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?
Well, one, it’s because we live in an age where there are no movements. But second, and most important, I have to be true to my calling. Martin King’s calling was to be a Christian preacher. Mine is much more linked to the life of the mind and being able to move back and forth. This weekend I was with Bootsy Collins at B.B. King’s. We wrote two songs together on his new album — that’s just one context where I try to play a very important role outside the academy. But my calling is still one of being an intellectual warrior and spiritual soldier.  

I have to admit, I read this scratched my head, and said again (as I have previously when reading/listening to West) "Is that it?  Is that what is supposed to impress me? 

Should I applaud this ongoing racial diatribe, sprinkled with street language?  Should I be enlightened by pearls of wisdom like "we live in an age where there are no movements", as radical Islam, country by country, tries to create a worldwide.  Should I swoon at West's egomaniacal self-description as "an intellectual warrior and spiritual soldier"?

I don't know about you, but after reading this interview, I'm still asking "Why?". 

If you have an answer, I'm all ears.

Ken Berwitz

After premeditatedly deliberately, killing over 90 people in cold blood, you probably think that the penalty under Norwegian law is (a Q and A for you)................

Q: Death?  A: Nope.

Q: Life imprisonment without any possibility of parole?  A: Nope again.

Q. Ok, life imprisonment with a possibility, however remote, of parole?  A: Nope #3.

Q: Wait a minute.  You're kidding right?  Oh, you aren't?  Then maybe 90 prison terms that run concurrently so, technically, it isn't life imprisonment but in reality, he'll never get out?  A: Nope once more.

Q: Holy crap.  Then what is  he going to get?  A: Twenty one years.  Maybe less.

Q: WHAT??????????????????????????????????????????????

Think I'm kidding?  Read this excerpt from Jamie Weinstein's piece at dailycaller.com:

The alleged mass murderer who killed nearly 100 people in Norway on Friday may be facing just 21 years in prison if convicted. Norway does not have the death penalty.

 

Oslo police chief of staff Roger Andresen told the San Francisco Chronicle that the maximum prison term suspected killer Anders Behring Breivik could face is 21 years under Norwegian law.

 

Two law professors at the University of Oslo confirmed Andresen’s assessment.

 

“21 years in prison is the maximum,” Professor Per Ole Johansen told The Daily Caller.

 

“The max punishment may — theoretically — be increased, but not for crimes which are already committed,” he said, when asked whether it was possible for the punishment to be increased considering the scale of this specific mass crime.

 

“[I]f the prisoner behaves, he or she will probably be released several years earlier,” Professor Nils Christie told TheDC while also confirming that 21 years is the maximum penalty in Norway.

 

Christie, however, said it is theoretically possible for the perpetrator to be held in prison longer than 21 years, though it almost never happens.

In case you're wondering, 92 dead (so far), divided by 21 years comes to about 2 3/4 months penalty per murder.  That's about 82 days each -- assuming he doesn't get out earlier.

That, folks, is from the enlightened culture of Norway.  Are you impressed? 

I wonder how the victims' families feel about it.

Ken Berwitz

As the old saying goes, "Lead, follow or get out of the way".

Well, after a singularly nonproductive series of attempts at leadership, President Obama has apparently been relegated to one of the last two statuses.

Excerpted from Manu Raju's article at politico.com:

First came the Biden talks. When those blew up, the Obama-Boehner talks took center stage. And when that failed, the McConnell-Reid talks looked promising. And after they faltered, the Obama-Boehner talks tried to find a new life.

 

Now it’s all come down to the Boehner-Reid-Pelosi-McConnell talks to solve the debt crisis. Notably absent? The president.

 

In a frantic bid to avoid causing a worldwide economic disruption, debt negotiations have shifted wholly to Capitol Hill, as a frustrated President Barack Obama has taken a step back and allowed House and Senate leaders to try to find a way out of the debt-ceiling debacle. After congressional leaders told Obama at the White House Saturday morning they would attempt to stave off the crisis before Asian markets open Sunday evening, leadership aides raced to put together a framework that both parties could support.

 

With the president staying out of the picture, congressional leaders struggled to make progress on a temporary two-step solution that raises the debt limit with some offsetting cuts.

 

For Republicans, taking the talks out of the White House has at least something to do with optics — very few Republicans want to vote for a deal with Obama’s name attached to it.

 

House conservatives have grown deeply distrustful of Obama’s motivations and were skeptical of the “grand bargain” Boehner was negotiating with the president. He didn’t share the details of his negotiations with the House Republican Conference and many of them were privately concerned about any agreement between Obama and the speaker, particularly on the thorny issue of tax increases.

With President Obama on the sidelines, can four partisan congresspeople hack out a mutually acceptable (if not especially agreeable) solution?  And if they do, will President Obama - who would be thoroughly humiliated if it got done only after he was out of the negotiations - then come back into the picture by vetoing it? 

How far is Mr. Obama prepared to go?  How much longer is he willing to play chicken?  Does he want us to default because he thinks there is political hay to be made out of it (if so, he better read that Rasmussen poll I alluded to earlier today)?

Stay tuned.  Just one more week, at most, before we find out.

Ken Berwitz

This one, coming on the heels of the Anthony Weiner blowup, is for anyone who still thinks that political sex scandals are more the province of one party than another.

Excerpted from an article at oregonlive.com:

A distraught young woman called U.S. Rep. David Wu's Portland office this spring, accusing him of an unwanted sexual encounter, according to multiple sources.

When confronted, the Oregon Democrat acknowledged a sexual encounter to his senior aides but insisted it was consensual, the sources said.

The woman is the daughter of a longtime friend and campaign donor. She apparently did not contact police at the time.

One person who heard the voice mail described the woman as upset, breathing heavily and "distraught."

In the voice mail, the young woman accused Wu of aggressive and unwanted sexual behavior, according to sources with direct knowledge of the message and its contents.

Reporters could not verify the young woman's age. Notes on Facebook over the past 18 months indicate she graduated from high school in 2010. California records show she registered to vote in August.

Wu, 56,  did not respond to repeated questions from The Oregonian over the past four days.

Late Friday, Wu issued a one-sentence response: "This is very serious, and I have absolutely no desire to bring unwanted publicity, attention, or stress to a young woman and her family."

Nor is this the ony time David Wu has acted in a troubling way.  Excerpted from the same article:

The alleged incident raises new questions about Wu's behavior during the 1st District congressman's re-election campaign last year. According to staff at the time and emails from the period, he behaved so erratically that staff avoided scheduling him for public appearances and ran a campaign that relied heavily on advertising. Shortly before the Nov. 2 election, senior staff quietly shut down the campaign office and sent other campaign workers home.

In February, following unexpectedly large staff turnover, Wu acknowledged extreme stress last year, which he attributed to the campaign and problems in his marriage. He and his wife are in the process of getting a divorce. He said he sought counseling and has taken medication for an unspecified mental condition.

Please keep in mind that this is not in any way an indictment of Democrats as a group.  It is, however, an answer to people who indict Republicans as a group for their improprieties.

The point?  Bizarre behavior by members of congress, sexual or otherwise, is an entirely bipartisan activity.

Ken Berwitz

In Charles Schulz's classic comic strip, Peanuts, at the beginning of every football season Lucy Van Pelt (not Brown, as commenter "free" has correctly pointed out - thanks, free) promised to hold the football down so Charlie Brown could kick it.  And, every time, he fell for her promise, ran forward to kick the ball, she pulled it away at the last minute, and he wound up flat on his back.

So far, the debt ceiling negotiations, if you can cal them that, have been a lot like Lucy Brown holding the football for Charlie Brown.  Republicans present a budget plan, President Obama seems willing to negotiate in good faith, but then, at the last minute, he changes what he will agree to, makes demands he knows Republicans will not go far, and there is no deal.

Politically, this worked for a while.  But now I'm not so sure it is working anymore.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll (conducted July 20 and 21st), while most voters are not happy with either party's handling of the debt ceiling crisis:

-58% disapprove of President Obama's/fellow Democrats' handling of the debt ceiling, compared to 53% for Republicans.  

-36% of the sample approve of how President Obama and his fellow Democrats are handling the debt ceiling issue, compared to 40% for Republicans.  

Just a short time ago, poll data were showing President Obama and Democrats to be well ahead of Republicans on who is to blame for the debt ceiling impasse. 

But if these data are accurate - or, at any rate, if Democrats' internal data show a similar movement - you can bet that a deal will be struck in very short order.  Nothing gets President Obama's attention faster than sinking poll numbers. 

Heck, it might even get him to hold the debt ceiling football long enough for John Boehner to finally kick it through the goal posts.

Ken Berwitz

Earlier today I blogged about a glitch in ObamaCare that could result in middle class families being left without health care.

But this is far from the only problem with ObamaCare.  Let's talk unemployment.

Why is it so persistent a problem?  Why is it above 9%  What is destroying the economy?

Well, we already know that the so-called "stimulus package" was a monumental failure at job creation.  It is hard to argue otherwise, given that the day it was enacted unemployment was at 8.1%, it immediately jumped over 10% and has never come back anywhere near the 8.1%

But is there more?

Yep.  There is ObamaCare.  According to Investors Business Daily's persuasive editorial, the specter of government run health care is wreaking havoc on job creation.

What is IBD's basis for saying this?  Read the following excerpt, which includes analysis from the Heritage Foundation, and see if you agree:

The economy has been in recovery since the recession ended in June 2009, five months after President Obama took office. Yet the jobless rate is 9.2%, up from 7.6% on the day of his inauguration. Private-sector jobs have fallen by 2 million. Last year's "Recovery Summer" has turned into the year of the mass layoff.

 

Bottom line: Job creation outside of government has been abysmal.

 

It hasn't always been that way. In the early postrecession months job creation moved along at the normal rate. But the job market stumbled and fell in May 2010, a little more than month after Obama signed his health care legislation into law.

 

From January 2009, the month of Obama's inauguration, to April 2010, an average of 67,600 private-sector jobs were created on a monthly basis. That April, the private sector added 229,000 net jobs. But the following month, it added only 48,000 jobs. Since then, the average number of private-sector jobs added each month is an anemic 6,500.

 

Coincidence?

 

Not according to a new report from the Heritage Foundation. The jobs collapse "suggests that businesses are not exaggerating when they tell pollsters that the new health care law is holding back hiring," writes James Sherk in the Heritage Web Memo "Economic Recovery Stalled After ObamaCare Passed."

 

Sherk says the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act discourages hiring in a number of ways:

 

• Its provisions give businesses that have fewer than 50 workers "a strong incentive to maintain this size." Doing so "allows them to avoid the mandate to provide government-approved health coverage or face a penalty."

 

• Employers with more than 50 workers are facing rising health care costs because they have to buy more costly government-approved insurance or pay a penalty. Adding to their work force becomes more expensive than it would have been otherwise.

 

• Businesses are up against significant uncertainty about what is considered "qualifying health coverage" and what that coverage will cost.

 

"They also do not know what the health care market or their health care costs will look like in four years," writes Sherk. "This makes planning for the future difficult."

Translation:  President Obama's two most significant legislative "triumphs" have been the stimulus package and ObamaCare.  But, although both were touted as job creators, unemployment has gone up, not down - at a cost, let's not forget, of going over a trillion dollars a year deeper into debt every year of his administation.

Can we move up the 2012 election?  Please?

Ken Berwitz

The monster who killed at least 84 people, mostly teenagers, at a youth camp on Utoya Island, Norway yesterday, did so over an hour's time. 

Why was he able to kill so many, over so long a period of time, without being stopped?

Here is what Ed Morrissey, writing for hotair.com, has to say about it:

An hour? Just from a logistical standpoint, that’s terrifying.  Breivik would have had to repeatedly reload, and he must have been carrying a lot of ammunition, wich would have slowed him down somewhat. No one else on the island was armed, apparently, a point underscored by my friends at Power Line. Incidents like this are exceedingly rare, which is why they get so much attention, so people should be wary of drawing any particular lesson from a single data point. In general, though, when malefactors determined to commit violence do appear (whatever the context), a thoroughly disarmed victim set only helps them succeed.

Thank you, Ed, for saying, so plainly, what had to be said.

There are people who consider it some kind of an ideal to completely disarm the citizenry.  But that saying, "if you criminalize gun ownership, only criminals will have guns" is 100% correct - and Utoya Island bears the consequences.

Just one other person with a single weapon on that island, and all or most of the carnage might have been avoided.  But no one with any weapon, and it was open season on children.

Remember that the next time you hear a (usually) well meaning dupe sing the praises of preventing law-abiding citizens from owning firearms.

Ken Berwitz

Want to see what happens when a CNN news show moderator gets called on his overt bias?  Read this transcript from yesterday's "Inside Washington" show, and see it with vivid clarity:

GORDON PETERSON, HOST: House Republicans say they have a solution: Cut, Cap, and Balance. Tea Party folks love the idea of a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget. At what point does reality rear its ugly head with some of these people, cause it ain’t going to happen?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I like the way you pose an objective question implying the insanity of a Republican proposal which passed the House. I just want the viewers to understand how this is a fair and balanced program.

PETERSON: Well, we do our best. We don’t have the vast resources of Rupert Murdoch and Fox News, but we do the best we can.

NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: [Laughs]

 KRAUTHAMMER: I understand, but on a shoestring, you manage to introduce a hell of a lot of bias.

PETERSON: Thank you very much.

KRAUTHAMMER: I commend you on your…

PETERSON: Can you answer my question? When does reality rear its ugly head with these people?

Ken Berwitz

I have not written about the ObamaCare monstrosity for some time.  But the following fact, excerpted from Julian Pecquet's article at thehill.com, is too important to gloss over:

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday, a jihadist group was taking "credit" for the horrific terrorist attacks in Norway which, at latest count, have left 91 people dead; most of them teenagers at a summer youth camp.

Today, it turns out that the one alleged perpetrator (so far), anders behring breivik, describes himself as a Christian with right wing views.

Tomorrow?  I'm sure we'll have new information that may again change our understanding of what happened. 

What do we learn from this?  At the very least, we learn that terrorism may center among one group, but is not exclusive to it.  And we learn, again, that terrorism is now a part of our world that must be acknowledged and dealt with as directly as possible.

I will write more about the terrorism in Norway as additional information becomes available.

Ken Berwitz

If there is one thing President Obama is proving this week, it is that he understands the value of having most media on his side.

Without them, how could he be getting away with demanding plan after plan of Republicans without offering one of his own?  Neither he nor his fellow Democrats have offered a budget in almost 3 YEARS - and, still, barely a peep out of our wonderful "neutral" media.

See, the side that offers the budget is the side that is exposed to the hammering any budget is going to take.  When only one side is doing the offering, only one side is getting the hammering.  And if media give the other side a free pass?  It's political heaven.

But Republicans - uncharacteristically - seem to be standing up to this situation.  And that creates unseemly confrontations, such as the one we had today.

Excerpted from John R. Parkinson's article at abcnews.com:

House Speaker John Boehner held a news conference late Friday night to address his decision to pull out of negotiations with President Obama and shift his focus to working with the Senate leadership in order to cut a deal to raise the debt ceiling, explaining that the talks broke down because “the White House moved the goal post.” 

Boehner said the discussions with the president broke down for two reasons – additional tax increases and a lack of seriousness on the part of the White House to make “the tough choices that are facing our country on entitlement reform.” 

“There was an agreement on some additional revenues until [Thursday] when the president demanded $400 billion more, which was going to be nothing more than a tax increase on the American people, and I can tell you that Leader Cantor and I were very disappointed in this call for higher revenue.” 

Facing the specter of default, the speaker was asked how talks could have broken down over $400 billion in additional revenues. 

“The extra $400 billion would have had to come from increasing taxes on the very people that we expect to invest in our economy and to create jobs,” Boehner answered. “I gave the president’s proposal serious consideration, but let’s understand something: there was an agreement with the White House at $800 billion in revenue. It’s the president who walked away from his agreement and demanded more money at the last minute.” 

Again:  Barack Obama could not be pulling a stunt like this without the complicity of mainstream media. 

President Bush could never have even gotten out of the starting gate with a routine like this, but President Obama apparently thinks he can coast across the finish line with it.

And who knows?  Maybe he's right.  You can do a lot when the referee is rooting for your team.

Ken Berwitz

After passing by 234-190 in the house, the Republican=generated Cut Cap and Balance (CCB) bill went down to defeat in the senate by 51-46.

It had  to be a Republican-generated bill, because the Democrat party, has not offered an actual budget for almost 3 years.  That's right, through all this time, including two years when Democrats were in control of the Presidency and both houses of congress, they did not offer a budget.

Here are the particulars, on this Republican budget initiative, excerpted from Ed Morrissey's article for hotair.com:

When Harry Reid scheduled a rare motion-to-table vote for this morning rather than waiting for the cloture vote tomorrow, one had to presume that he had the votes to kill the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.  He did — but but it was close.  From the Boss Emeritus:

Update: 10:57am Eastern…The Senate just voted down the House Cut Cap and Balance bill, 51-46. Reid danced on its grave, proclaiming it “over, dead, and done.” Back to the Democrat plan:

Nothing!

The House has at least proposed two different plans to deal with the debt crisis.  The Senate has yet to come up with any plan.  Neither has the White House, despite the hysteria over the August 2nd deadline.  So why are Senators streaming out of Washington DC, Senator Reid?  And doesn’t that make this earlier whining a little more hypocritical?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) confronted White House budget director Jack Lew during a Thursday afternoon meeting about secret talks on a deficit-reduction deal between the president and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

“I’m the Senate majority leader — why don’t I know about this deal?” Reid demanded as soon as the budget director walked into the historic Mansfield Room for a meeting with Senate Democrats, according to a lawmaker who witnessed the exchange.

Maybe if the Senate Majority Leader spent some time leading, he might be important enough to include. 

Republicans keep offering budgets, and Democrats, along with their ever-compliant pals in the media, keep tearing them apart. 

There is little doubt that Republicans could tear a Democrat budget apart as well -- if one were ever offered.  But none ever is. 

And those media we just discussed?  Where are they?  Why are they not demanding in the strongest possible terms that President Obama and his fellow Democrats actually offer one? 

Pathetic.

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

.

Ken Berwitz

New details about the terrorist attacks in Norway (whichI won't keep updating because they are sure to keep changing - probably for the worse):

-Norway's Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, may have been scheduled to speak at the Labor Party's youth camp, where a "man" (if you can call a monster like this a man), dressed in a police uniform, opened fire on children.  The number of dead and injured is unknown, but sure to rise;

-mullah kregar's group has proudly taken responsibility for these acts of terrorism.  Excerpted from an article posted on the New York Times web site:

A terror group, Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or the Helpers of the Global Jihad, issued a statement claiming responsibility for the attack, according to Will McCants, a terrorism analyst at C.N.A., a research institute that studies terrorism. The message said the attack was a response to Norwegian forces’ presence in Afghanistan and to unspecified insults to the Prophet Muhammad. “We have warned since the Stockholm raid of more operations,” the group said, according to Mr. McCants’ translation, apparently referring to a bombing in Sweden in December 2010. “What you see is only the beginning, and there is more to come.” The claim could not be confirmed.  

This is the face of terrorism.  This is what so many - too many - people have been determined to put their heads in the sand and avoid.

You can bet that a lot of Norwegians who fit the above description until this morning, are now the equivalent of "9/12 liberals" this afternoon.

I welcome them to reality and hope they can withstand what is sure to follow.

Ken Berwitz

According to multiple reports, including this USA Today report, which continually is being updated , a car bomb exploded in front of a government building in Oslo, Norway today.  At least two people are dead (so far) and at least 15 injured.   There are concerns that other bombs will go off nearby.

And in a separate - but, it is feared, related - incident, a man disguised as a policeman injured at least five children at a youth camp operated by Norway's ruling (albeit by coalition) Labor Party.

The attack occurred just 3 days after Norwegian prosecutors filed terrorism charges against Iraqi-born Mullah Kregar, founder of the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al Islam.  The Associated Press has reported that Kregar threatened Norwegian politicians with death if he were deported.

No one knows for sure who set off the bomb(s) and why. 

But do you think you can make a pretty good guess?

We ignore radical Islam at our own peril. 

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

UPDATE:  As of about 2:15PM Eastern time, the death toll is 7 - and, based on what I am reading, is almost certain to rise significantly.  Keep clicking on the link I have provided, for further updates.

Ken Berwitz

In case you are wondering why Governor Chris Christie rejects the demands of the assorted social activists, leftists, public sector unions, etc., whose idea of how to fix New Jersey's out of control spending and huge deficits is to 'TAX THE RICH".....

Here is what the Tax Foundation - via yahoo.com - has to say about New Jersey's current tax and business climate (bold print is mine):

1. New Jersey
Taxes paid by residents as pct. of income: 12.2%
Total state and local taxes collected: $85.9 billion
Pct. of total taxes paid by residents: 79.5%
Pct. of total taxes paid by non-residents: 20.5%

New Jersey residents have a higher tax burden than those of any other state. As a percent of their income, taxes in the Garden State were 12.2% in 2009, nearly double that of Alaska. Like Connecticut, much of this tax burden comes from state residents who commute to New York City and pay taxes there as well. This illustrates how a state resident contributes to the tax base of multiple states. Although not reflected in the percent of income residents pay in state and local taxes, it is nonetheless an additional burden commuters have to bear. According to Tax Foundation, the state has the third-worst environment for business in the country, with a corporate tax rate of 9%. It also has an above-average sales tax, as well as one of the highest rates in the country for cigarettes and liquor. 

Got that?  New Jersey already is the most taxed state, and has one of the three worst business environments in the country.

But to the screamers and ideologues, there is a one-size-fits-all panacea that will cure every problem:  "TAX THE RICH". 

Yep, make it even more onerous on the biggest producers/jobmakers, and even harder to conduct business in New Jersey.  There's the answer.  That'll jump-start New Jersey's economy and generate massive new revenue streams.

It has not been easy for Governor Christie to stand firm against the well organized, copiously funded special interests demanding no spending cuts, only more taxes.  But his guts and resolve have, so far, prevailed in spite of them.

Little wonder so many people are begging Chris Christie to consider a presidential run.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a tale of two articles, both from cnnmoney.com.  Read the excerpts below, and watch the spin cycle, in full action:

1) Excerpted from an article posted yesterday:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- U.S. taxpayers likely lost $1.3 billion in the government bailout of Chrysler, the Treasury Department announced Thursday.

 

The fact that the company has done so well -- that they were able to go out and raise private capital to repay us the loan so quickly, is really the big story," said Tim Massad, Treasury assistant secretary for financial stability.

 

Fiat paid the Treasury a total of $560 million for the remaining shares, as well as rights to shares held by the United Auto Workers retiree trust. Fiat now owns a 53.5% stake in the company.

 

Originally, the government committed a total of $12.5 billion to the struggling automaker, Old Chrysler, and the company's newly formed Chrysler Group. Of those funds, $11.2 billion have been returned through principal repayments, interest and cancelled commitments, the Treasury said. The new Chrysler Group paid back $5.1 billion in loans in May.

CNN money would have you believe that we saved Chrysler (and all those union jobs) at a cost to taxpayers of just $1.3 billion dollars.  What great news. 

But wait a minute.  What, exactly, is that "cancelled commitments" line, buried in the last sentence of the excerpt? 

2) Excerpted from an article posted May 5, 2009:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Chrysler LLC will not repay U.S. taxpayers more than $7 billion in bailout money it received earlier this year and as part of its bankruptcy filing.

This revelation was buried within Chrysler's bankruptcy filings last week and confirmed by the Obama administration Tuesday. The filings included a list of business assumptions from one of the company's key financial advisors in the bankruptcy case.

Some of the main assumptions listed by Robert Manzo of Capstone Advisory Group were that the Treasury would forgive a $4 billion bridge loan given to Chrysler in the closing days of the Bush administration, a $300 million fee on that loan, and the $3.2 billion in financing approved last week by the Obama administration to fund Chrysler's operations during bankruptcy.

Does that paint a different picture to you?  I certainly hope so.

Let's add them up:  The $4 billion bridge loan, $300 million fee, and $3.2 billion in financing, comes to $7.5 billion dollars in "cancelled commitments". 

Add in the $1.3 which CNN Money was nice enough to mention yesterday, while not specifying what "cancelled commitments" actually meant, and you have a taxpayer loss of $8.8 billion dollars.

Now add in the fact that we have handed Chrysler over to Fiat, a foreign automaker which owns 53.5% of the company, and you realize that part of this great, wonderful, successful deal is that we have given a gift of $4.7 billion taxpayer dollars (53.5% of $8.8 billion) to a French company.

But all those UAW jobs are still there, under the same contracts that were so instrumental in destroying Chrysler, aren't they?  And, in appreciation, all that union money and organizing capability will still be available to the Obama administration in 2012, won't it?

Nice going, CNN.  We political junkies appreciate a good spin cycle when we see one.  And this one purrs like a kitten.

Ken Berwitz

I didn’t know this until just a few moments ago.  But I have learned that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that paradigm of Democratic decorum, has a mother and stepfather, both deep into Democrat Politics, who are currently facing serious criminal charges. ***

Let’s start with mom, Diana Wasserman Rubin. 

Excerpted from an article in the July 6, 2010 South Florida Business Journal:

Following the issuance of a warrant for her arrest, former Broward County Commissioner Diana Wasserman-Rubin turned herself in to authorities Tuesday evening.

She posted $24,500 in bond just before midnight.

Earlier in the day, Wasserman-Rubin resigned her seat.

The warrant, obtained by the Broward State Attorney’s Office, lists seven counts of unlawful compensation for improperly advocating for and benefiting from government grants written by her husband, Richard Rubin.

According to the arrest affidavit, Wasserman-Rubin is alleged to have:

·         voted six times to approve and fund grants written by her husband for the town of Southwest Ranches to purchase three parcels of land for parks.

·         voted twice to approve and fund a grant written by her husband to purchase land for another Southwest Ranches park.

·         voted twice to approve and fund a grant written by her husband to purchase a piece of property called Southwest Meadows Sanctuary.

·         twice had county staff put Southwest Ranches grant applications written by her husband on the county commission agenda.

·         voted three times to approve and fund a Southwest Ranches grant application written by her husband to purchase Rural Passive Park.

·         voted in favor of a grant application written by her husband for Southwest Ranches to purchase an easement to preserve Silk Oak Farms.

Investigators allege that Rubin received three $15,000 bonuses for his work on successful grants that were supported by his wife.

Four counts are second-degree felonies and three counts are third-degree felonies. A second-degree felony carries a maximum 15-year sentence and/or a $10,000 fine, while a third-degree felony carries a maximum five-year sentence and/or a $5,000 fine.

Now on to stepdad Richard Rubin. 

Excerpted from Bob Norman’s April 14, 2011 article at browardpalmbeach.com:

A lot of people didn't think it was fair that while his wife was hit with felony corruption charges for voting on a grant that benefited him, Richard Rubin seemingly got off scot-free after he and other officials gamed the Town of Southwest Ranches for millions of dollars. 

Well, now Rubin is joining his wife, former Broward County Commissioner Diana Wasserman-Rubin, as a criminal defendant. 

Rubin was hit with federal tax evasion charges for allegedly failing to report $100,000 in fees he received from another municipality, the Town of Davie, for a land deal he brokered back in 2004, according to the Sun-Sentinel.

He has had a habit of cashing in on his wife's political connections for some time. Remember that several years ago, he was hired by lobbyist George Platt's firm, Shutts and Bowen, while the firm was lobbying his wife. He raked in some $1.1 million of cash from the tiny Southwest Ranches for writing grants while his wife was voting to approve them with county money from the parks bond.  

What a lovely pair.  From the looks of things, if they were any dirtier they’d qualify for an EPA cleanup grant.

And I’ll just bet they taught Li’l Debbie everything she knows.

Let me conclude by apologizing to Ms. Wasserman Schultz and all Democrat and left wing women for this example of sexual harassment…..

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

NOTE:  After reading several web sites which stated that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Diana Wasserman Rubin are daughter and mother, I have now read several web sites which advise me that they are not related. 

I will put up further information as I get it.  

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

*** Having read that Diana Wasserman-Rubin was born in Havana, Cuba, I am now convinced that the name similarity is a coincidence.  

FYI:  please note that (as commenter Zeke pointed out, but I had already seen), the Wikipedia entry for Debbie Wasserman Schultz leaves out the names of her parents, which indicated to me that whoever wrote it did not want readers to know who they were.  

But beyond the names, there was also this picture, and article, from the Broward County Parenting Teachers Examiner, which indicates they are mother and daughter: 

Is the mistake understandable?  You decide.

Ok, now here's what it means.

-I was wrong to say Diana Wasserman Rubin and Richard Rubin are Debbie Wasserman Schultz's mother and stepfather.  I apologize for suggesting any parental association between Ms. Wasserman Schultz and this pair.

 

-I also apologize for my admittedly sarcastic suggestion that they taught her everything they know -- although it is clear that, at one time, the women had a positive relationship (you don't have your picture taken with her and the President otherwise.)

That said, however:

-The information I put up about Diana Wasserman Rubin and Richard Rubin appears to be correct.

 

-Everything I have written about Debbie Wasserman Schultz stands - the fact that these are not her parents changes nothing about what she is and what she has said and done.

 

-And the sarcasm about equating criticism of Wasserman Schultz with sexual harrassment stands as well. 

Moving on......

Ken Berwitz

Bernie Marcus is the brilliant businessman who founded Home Depot in 1978 and built it into both a huge commercial success and a job-creating machine - exactly what we so desperately need today.

What does Mr. Marcus think of President Obama, and how his policies affect businesses like Home Depot?  Investors Business Daily asked, and Mr. Marcus answered - in blunt, easy-to-understand terms.

Here are a few key excerpts from the interview (which I urge you to read in its entirety):

IBD: What's the single biggest impediment to job growth today?

Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.

If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

IBD: President Obama has promised to streamline and eliminate regulations. What's your take?

Marcus: His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just ObamaCare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that's probably going end up being 150,000 pages of regulations.

IBD: If you could sit down with Obama and talk to him about job creation, what would you say?

Marcus: I'm not sure Obama would understand anything that I'd say, because he's never really worked a day outside the political or legal area. He doesn't know how to make a payroll, he doesn't understand the problems businesses face. I would try to explain that the plight of the businessman is very reactive to Washington. As Washington piles on regulations and mandates, the impact is tremendous. I don't think he's a bad guy. I just think he has no knowledge of this.

Thank you Mr. Marcus.  I doubt anyone could have said it better.

Ken Berwitz

Since the feud between Rep. Alan West (R-FL) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), which has been boiling for months, flared up big-time this week after Wasserman Schultz attacked West's position on Medicare, I thought it would be worthwhile to give you a chance to hear West explain himself.

Here is a video of Mr. West's 10 minute interview with Mark Levin , in which he goes into detail about what transpired, and about how Ms. Wasserman Schultz has been attacking him for almost a year's time.

And here is the transcript of a key segment, in which Levin and West allege that, when it comes to Medicare, Ms. Wasserman Schultz is a hypocrite:

LEVIN:  Didn’t she vote for ObamaCare, which takes half a trillion dollars out of medicare?

 

WEST:  Yes, you’re absolutely right.  She voted for that, which also puts in place that 15 member board of bureaucrats known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board, that really controls the payment and the pricing of Medicare as well.

 

LEVIN:  Ok, so she votes for this Soviet-style politburo, 15 experts, who have as their job to cut Medicare, and then she votes to cut half a trillion dollars out of Medicare – not to reform it, but to put it into this conglomerate, this mess, called ObamaCare, and yet she claims to stand up for Medicare.  How’s that possible?

 

WEST:  Well, I think that that really comes back to the duplicitous hypocrisy I have seen since I’ve been up here for 7 months in Washington D.C. and on Capitol Hill.  Because they never come up with a plan, they are not responsible or culpable or complicit in anything, and all they seem to be able to do is to ridicule and criticize anything that the house GOP comes up with.

In other words, according to Levin and West, Wasserman Schultz first voted to gut $500 billion dollars out of Medicare, and then accused West of damaging Medicare. 

Are they right?  Which of the two, West or Wasserman Schultz, has the high ground on the Medicare issue? 

You decide.

Ken Berwitz

Cenk Uygur, who was handed Ed Schultz's old time slot by MSNBC last October, but then dumped out of it last week - apparently to be replaced by the career Black supremacist and anti-Semite al sharpton - has left the network.

Why did he leave?  According to Uygur it was because MSNBC was forcing him to tone down his rhetoric; something that anyone who watched his show a few times would probably find very hard to believe.  Every day was an angry, sneering, vicious assault against Fox News, Republicans and, more generally, anyone to his right (which, with Uygur, covers a lot of territory). 

From his explanation at rawstory.com:

At one point, MSNBC management directed him to “tone it down” because “we are the establishment.”

“When your ratings are good and you don’t get the show, it leaves me to believe that might have been the reason,” Uygur said. “I didn’t want to work at a place that didn’t want me to do my kind of show, that wasn’t interested in my kind of show, didn’t want to challenge power”

Actually, Uygur's ratings, while sometimes good, were mixed.  Some days they were better than others, some worse.  And at no time did he seriously challenge Fox News Channel, which is what he said would happen after being given the 5:00PM - 6:00PM time slot:

“I hope (to defeat Fox) through pointing out their hypocrisy, propaganda and general foolishness. But I also plan to beat them in the ratings and make them fear me"

Well, now he is gone.  And, to make matters worse, he is being replaced by a lowdown racist/anti-Semite. 

If al sharpton, with his sordid history, were a right winger getting a show on Fox News Channel, every MSNBC host, along with mediamatters.org., the rest of the leftward blogosphere, and the major networks, would have a field day excoriating Roger Ailes & Co. for giving him air time.

But al sharpton is a left winger getting a show on MSNBC.  So if you expect to hear attacks or criticisms from from those sources, you can kiss it goodbye.  Nevuh happen, baby.

Every day that MSNBC gives sharpton a forum, and Matthews, O'Donnell, Maddow, Schultz, Bashir, Scarborough, Brzezinski, etc. look the other way, they - and Comcast - irretrievably shame themselves.

Being replaced, in and of itself, clearly hurt Cenk Uygur a lot.  But being replaced by someone like al sharpton must have been a dagger through his heart.

Ken Berwitz

Juan Williams, the former mainstay of National Public Radio (NPR) who was dumped earlier this year for daring to make state a candid personal opinion which did not jib with NPR's party line, has written a book about it.

This is going to leave that bunch wondering if there is any way they can fire him again.\

Excerpted from the article by Keach Hagey at politico.com (The bold print is mine):

No single person has had a greater impact on National Public Radio in the past year than Juan Williams.

The political wildfire started by his firing took down the media organization’s CEO, top news executive and top fundraiser, and sparked multiple votes on the floor of Congress to strip the public broadcaster of federal funding.

 

As if this were not vindication enough, in “Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate,” a new book out next week, Williams details a decade of what he said was NPR’s effort to “censor, control and belittle” him because of his longstanding relationship with Fox News, and, to some degree, he said, his race.

 

“It is a very elitist and in this case white institution that I think is struggling with the changing demographics of American society,” he said. “And it struggles with the idea that there are capable thinkers and journalist and people who don’t fit into some box.”

 

He points out that, after he was fired from his NPR news analyst job for saying on “The O’Reilly Factor” that he gets nervous when he boards a plane and sees people “in Muslim garb,” there were no more black males on NPR’s airwaves. And he writes in the book that “it was clear they wanted me out the door,” an NPR news executive told him, “because I did not fit their view of how a black person thinks.”

Earlier today, I noted Alan West's comment that he was called, among other things, an Uncle Tom, a sellout and an oreo cookie (Black on the outside, White on the inside) for his conservative views. 

Now, here is Juan Williams who, politically, is mostly to the liberal-left side, stating that he was censored, controlled and belittled for the crime of appearing on Fox News -- where, it should be noted, he was 100% free to state his views without any censorship at all.  

What is it with media elites and Black people who don't fit their racial stereotype?

Do these ivory tower inhabitants have even the slightest idea of what racism is?  Of how racist they themselves are? 

I almost hope the answer is no.  Because if it is yes, they are intentionally racist; no less than any klansman.

Don't expect to hear an NPR feature on that subject any time soon.

Ken Berwitz

Maybe it's me, but after five, or ten, or twenty or more "unexpected" sets of job numbers, all of which are going in the same direction, wouldn't you think professional journalists would eventually start expecting them?

Excerpted from an article by the expectedly unexpected folks at Reuters:

(Reuters) - New claims for unemployment benefits rose more than expected last week, a government report showed on Thursday, pointing to a labor market that is struggling to regain momentum after job growth faltered in the last two months. 

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 10,000 to a seasonally adjusted 418,000, the Labor Department said.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims rising to 410,000. The prior week's figure was revised up to 408,000 from the previously reported 405,000.

Initial claims have now been above the 400,000 mark for 15 straight weeks. That level is usually associated with a stable labor market.

So tell me;  why, if jobless rates have been "unexpectedly higher" virtually ever week for months, and why, if the previous week's jobless rates continually are revised upward the next week - as they almost always have been during this stretch - would you not assume this is what will happen in the future?

I can come up with two reasons: 

1) Insanity.  As most of us know, Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results;

2) Pro-Obama bias:  i.e. hoping against hope for the rosiest outcome because you're rooting for the guy it would benefit, and then having to eat crow when it turns out differently.  Week after week after week.

Tell you what:  Those are two pretty strong contenders.  Insanity or pro-Obama bias?  Pro-Obama bias or insanity?  Hmmmmmm.

Could be, it's a little of both.....

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I criticized freshman congressperson Alan West for his way-over-the-top email to Democrat house colleague, and hard-line left winger, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  I pointed out that what Schultz said about him is well within the boundaries of what passes for congressional discourse and he should not have reacted as he did. 

I also speculated that West can now count on being baited into similar reactions in the future, so that he can be tagged as unsuitable for congressional office, and be voted out in 2012.

Well, it didn't take long.....

On this morning's Today Show, I watched a group of Democrat congresspeople, all women, whining that what Rep. West said constituted "sexual harassment" and that he should immediately apologize.  (You can see the video by clicking here.)  

The sexual harrassment charge is, of course, is political baiting of the first order.  West's email may have been strident, but it in no way harassed Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a woman.  Its one and only reference to sex was an accusation that, by her actions she was "not a Lady" - a personal attack to be sure, but not in any way sexual harrassment.

Again, the idea is to get a reaction - more exactly, an overreaction - from West, which can then be used against him.

So far, the only comment from Rep. West that I have seen is not only reasonable, but actually turns the tables on them.  West pointed out that he has repeatedly been attacked by Wasserman Schultz prior to this incident without reacting at all.  And that he has been called an Uncle Tom, a sellout, an oreo cookie, etc. for daring to have political views Black politicians are not supposed to have, without whining about it.  (When do his thin-skinned, whining attackers speak out against the overt racial stereotyping he has been subjected to?  Never, that's when.)

If West can keep it at that level, he might yet turn this gaffe into a political asset.  We'll see..............

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

(NOTE 1:  The Today Show report started off by characterizing West as "a Tea Party favorite" - but defined Wasserman Schultz, who is easily as far to the left - or further - than West is to the right, only as a "Democrat".  It's good to see Today retains its level of, er. "neutrality".)

(NOTE 2:  On a personal level, while I did not approve of Rep. West's email, I admit a level of satisfaction with Wasserman Schultz taking a hit.  DWS has a nasty, vituperative mouth and constantly lies about Republicans.  Yet our wonderful "neutral" media almost never call her on it - or ever stand up for West through the racially charged attacks he has sustained as a candidate, and then a congressperson.  It is good to see Wasserman Schultz on the receiving end once in a while.)

Ken Berwitz

You cannot say our wonderful "neutral" media are not consistent.

This excerpt from Brent Bozell's latest blog proves it:

On July 3, 1999, The New York Times exposed Al Gore for lying about his family in a national convention speech as vice president of the United States. In 1996, Gore moved the Democrats to tears by claiming that when his sister Nancy died of cancer in 1984, he vowed then and there to oppose the tobacco industry. How courageous -- and completely untrue.

The Times found Gore campaigned in 1988 boasting of his tobacco-farming prowess. He lied through his teeth. Network coverage from ABC, CBS or NBC on this whopper, even as Gore prepared a presidential run? Zero.

On July 13, 2011, this cycle repeated itself when The New York Times reported on another national Democrat lying about a death in the family in his convention address, presidential debates and just about everywhere. That was Barack Obama in 2008, claiming his mother, Ann Dunham, died of cancer while battling with insurance companies all the way through. Dramatic? Yes. But an utter lie. Network coverage of this new jaw-dropper on ABC, CBS and NBC? Also zip, zilch, zero.

How pathetic. These are the same networks that devote multiple heavy-breathing stories to "correcting" non-candidate Sarah Palin's historical knowledge of Paul Revere or Michele Bachmann's location for the birthplace of John Wayne. But Obama lies about his mother -- a shameless, pandering tug using his mother to get socialized health care, and they're mute!

Bozell calls them pathetic.  But he is wrong.  He understates.

It is not just the bias itself, but the amazing level of flagrancy with which the double standard is presented to us. 

How can these people call themselves "journalists"?  How can they even look themselves in the mirror?

Ken Berwitz

Hail to the Dignite al Karama!  Pride of the Gaza floptilla. 

Of the ten ships that were going to run the Israeli blockade and facilitate hamas-controlled Gaza to have free shipping lanes, it is the only one which actually got through -- sort of.  

Here, via the following excerpt from David Hornik's piece at frontpagemag.com, is a description of that ship's "triumphant" journey:

On Tuesday the Israeli navy intercepted the Dignite al Karama, a French ship of about fifteen radical leftists and others headed straight toward the Israeli maritime blockade of Gaza (reports here and here). The Dignite was also the last remnant of what was supposed to be a ten-ship flotilla to Gaza but was foiled by a combination of tenacious Israeli diplomacy and, particularly, Greece’s refusal to let the ships embark from its ports.

The Dignite got around that by, after initially being stopped by the Greek coast guard, leaving the Greek island of Kastellorizo on Saturday ostensibly for Alexandria—and then shifting course. The passengers included a parliamentarian from the French Communist Party , a former French member of the European Parliament, an Al-Jazeera film crew, radical-left Israeli journalist Amira Hass , and radical Swedish-Israeli Israel-basher Dror Feiler . One passenger said the Dignite was “carrying a message of peace and hope and love.”

As for whatever supplies it was carrying, the Israeli navy told the vessel that they could be delivered to Gaza by land, it being perfectly legal to do so. The Dignite turned down the offer, and also refused to change course when that, too, was suggested. Israeli naval commandos boarded the ship without incident. The captain—who claimed the passengers had forced him to change course to Gaza—and the passengers were brought to Ashdod Port in Israel, from where they stand to be deported.

Thus what began ominously as a flotilla portending further violence, after the bloody Mavi Marmara incident last year, ended in something closer to farce.

My heartiest congratulations to the Dignite al Karama's inspired crew. What a great idea it was to lie about where you were going, so you could be stopped, boarded and taken over without getting there. 

I'm sure that Admiral Farragut is smiling in his grave over your brilliant, strategy of "Damn the Israelis, full speed ahe....oops, they're taking over the ship".

Well, there's always next year.....

Ken Berwitz

Another day, another arrogant MSNBC host asks for a royal reaming -- and gets it.

Yesterday it was Chris Matthews being taken apart by Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL).  Today it was Contessa Brewer's' turn.

Here are the particulars, via this following excerpt from realpolitics.com.  (Click here to see video):

Today, Contessa "educated" a conservative Representative that without the bailout, the country would be in "a depression." Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) said he disagreed which prompted the MSNBC host to ask him if he had a degree in economics.

"Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors," Rep. Brooks responded.

According to his Congressional page: "Mo graduated from Duke University in three years with a double major in political science and economics, with highest honors in economics.

Game.  Set.  Match.

Contessa Brewer, like a good many other media hosts (especially among MSNBC personnel), suffers from AAA disease:  Anger, Arrogance and Attitude. 

This was Contessa Brewer's turn to pay the price for her AAA membership.  And boy did she ever.

Now let's see if she learns from it.  Personally, I doubt she will.

Ken Berwitz

What is Israel going to do, as Iran - despite its obviously fraudulent claims to the contrary - continues on its hell-bent pace to create nuclear weapons?

From Julian Borger's piece in yesterday's London Guardian:

Western capitals have reacted angrily to an announcement by Iran that it is installing more advanced centrifuges in a uranium enrichment plant with the aim of accelerating its nuclear programme.

"The installation of new centrifuges with better quality and speed is ongoing," Ramin Mehmanparast, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, told reporters at his weekly press briefing.

"We have announced it and the agency [the International Atomic Energy Agency] has full supervision of them. They are fully aware that Iran's peaceful nuclear activity continues to progress. This is another confirmation of the Islamic republic's successful strides in its nuclear activities."

However, France said Iran's move – which Tehran claims could triple the rate at which it enriches uranium – confirmed suspicions that the Iranian nuclear programme had "no credible civilian application". The French foreign ministry said: "Iran has just given in to another provocation by announcing the imminent installation of next generation centrifuges.

"This is a new violation of six security council resolutions and 10 resolutions by the council of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]."

The British Foreign Office said the announcement "further undermines Iran's claim that its nuclear programme is designed for purely peaceful purposes, and demonstrates the urgency of increasing pressure on Iran ... Iran must understand that we will not be distracted by events in the region and it should not doubt our resolve".

I'm glad that France knows Iran is lying about how it will use its incipient nuclear capacity.  I'm tickled pink that the British Foreign Office knows it undermines Iran's claim that the nuclear capability is for peaceful purposes.  That's very nice.

Now, what about Israel - the country Iran's President has said, in so many words, he wants to wipe off the face of the map; the country whose most violent enemies (hamas in Gaza, hezbollah in Lebanon) are already being armed by Iran? 

Does Israel have the luxury of doing nothing other than pointing out what a lie Iran is telling, then making vague threats about increasing pressure (whatever that means)?

For years, I've talked about the grim consequences of Iran getting to the point where it has the capability of attacking Israel with nuclear weapons.  And even as that day draws nearer and nearer, the only things we hear from western countries are pious little press-release-quality blatherings like the ones shown above.

Do they not realize that Israel is almost certain to conclude (and probably has already concluded) that, to insure its own survival, Iran must be stopped - even if Israel has to do it alone? 

How do they think Israel will go about stopping Iran?  By issuing its own set of pious press-release-quality blatherings?

I hope France, Britain and other western countries are smarter than this.  I hope they realize that a conflagration between nuclear Israel and nuclear Iran will inherently draw them in as well.  I hope that, covertly, they are doing a lot more than making useless official statements.

For everyone's sake - including the Iranians who wish there were no nuclear program at all, and simply want to live their lives in peace - may that hope be well founded.

Ken Berwitz

This settles it:  Chris Matthews better stop allowing that trickle of conservative guests he uses as a tiny little counterpoint to the tsunami of left wing regulars on his MSNBC "Hardball" show.

Yesterday he made the mistake of butting up against Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) on Walsh's opposition to raising the debt ceiling, and his dismissal of President Obama's threat that if we don't raise it we might default on August 2nd. 

But instead of successfully beating up on Walsh, Matthews got his butt kicked.

Read the transcript, which I got from Noel Shepperd's blog at newsbusters.org, and see for yourself:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: August 2nd. Let me ask you this: if we do have spiking interest rates, if we do have a drop, downgrade of our bond rating in this country, and we do have a financial crisis because we haven't done this on time, which you say is not that important, will you resign?

CONGRESSMAN JOE WALSH (R-ILLINOIS): August 2nd’s not important, Chris. Solving this debt crisis is important.

MATTHEWS: If we have a crisis in August, will you resign?

WALSH: Chris, hey, Chris, will you resign? Will you leave your show?

MATTHEWS: I don't hold a public office.

WALSH: Chris, what kind of a silly question is that?

MATTHEWS: I don't hold a fiduciary -- you know what? Because you're saying it doesn't matter. Because the silliness is on the part of those who say we don’t have to act.

WALSH: No, the silliness is on the questions you’re asking me.

Good for you, Joe!  What an ass Matthews made of himself - and continues to make of himself daily. 

If the criterion for resignation is coming out wrong on a policy position, wouldn't the first casualty be President Obama - who gave us the so-called "stimulus package" and told us it would stop unemployment (then at 8.1%) in its tracks?  Unemployment immediately went in the opposite direction, at one point jumping over 10%.  And in 2 1/2 years since passage of the "stimulus package", it has never come down anywhere near even the original 8.1% level. 

But don't hold your breath waiting for Chris Matthews to demand Mr. Obama's resignation.  That is reserved only for Republicans; especially conservative Republicans.

Y'know, it wasn't so many years ago that Chris Matthews was a pretty good interviewer, with a great talent for turning a phrase.  Now he is a pathetic loudmouth, who barely lets any guest finish a sentence, let alone a thought, and makes imbecilic comments like the one he shot out at Rep. Walsh.

On the other hand, given the current lineup at MSNBC I suppose it can be argued that, within his network, he is middle-of-the-road.

In any event, I suggest that Matthews put some ointment on the "Cat's Paw" black-and-blue mark Mr. Walsh put on his butt, and then stick to nodding agreement with his regulars.  That should make life a lot easier for him.

Ken Berwitz

I have great admiration for former military officer and current Florida congressperson Alan West.  And I have major problems with his angry, sour, hard-left colleague, Florida congressperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

But when Ms. Schultz indirectly attacked his position on debt ceiling legislation in a speech on the house floor yesterday, Mr. West's reaction was way, way over the line.

Specifically, Ms. Wasserman Schultz said:

“The gentleman from Florida. who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries – unbelievable from a member from South Florida”

Obviously Mr. West disagrees with Ms. Wasserman Schultz's claim.  Ok, fair enough.  But is what you just read enough to generate this email?

From: Z112 West, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 04:48 PM
To: Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
Cc: McCarthy, Kevin; Blyth, Jonathan; Pelosi, Nancy; Cantor, Eric
Subject: Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz

Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional ,and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!

I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior……which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.

You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!

Steadfast and Loyal

Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)

Obviously, what Debbie Wasserman Schultz said was objectionable to Alan West.  But it was perfectly reasonable for her to say it.  And, in reality, her comment was relatively mild compared to some of the other things that are said by, and to, congresspeople on the house floor.  

It is very hard to fathom why Mr. West would feel the need to respond in this manner.  The most likely reason I can come up with is that, based on his years as a career military officer, West sees Wasserman Schultz's criticism as a form of insubordination, which he cannot abide.  

If so, he better get used to it.  Because comments like Wasserman Schultz's are made in congress every day. 

And, now that West's paper-thin skin has been exposed, you can bet he will be baited at every opportunity, in the hope that he will write more such emails, wind up being dismissed as someone who does not have the temperament to be a congressperson, and booted out in the 2012 elections.

Sadly, if this is any indication, that might be an accurate assessment. 

Ken Berwitz

Remember that sweet song Olivia Newton-John sang in Grease:  "Hopelessly Devoted to You"?

Well I thought of it while reading Mike Bates' blog, today, at newsbusters.org, as he detailed the hopeless devotion exhibited by CNN's Shannon Travis toward Barack Obama.

Mr. Travis, in an on-air discussion with Newsroom anchor Randi Kaye, said (bold print is mine):

Yes, really, really quickly, billionaire Steve Wynn, you've seen his resorts all over Las Vegas. He's blasting President Obama. I'm going to read this quote from a call, an earnings call yesterday. Quote, "I'm saying it bluntly that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime". Those are from Steve Wynn.

We know there are a lot of businesses who have been on a hiring streak, Randi, but this is what Steve Wynn, billionaire real estate mogul in Las Vegas thinks about the Obama administration.

 Bates was incredulous.  As he should be.  As I am.  And as you should be.  Among the points he makes:

-New unemployment claims have been above 400,000 for the past 14 weeks in a row;

-The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that there are 2,500,000 more people out of work today than the day Barack Obama took office (14,100,000 now versus 11,600,000 then).    While you're reflecting on that statistic, please remember that, less than a month after becoming President, Mr. Obama and his Democrat majority in congress gave us the so-called "stimulus package" which a) was supposed to resolve this mess and b) in any event, certainly transferred ownership of the economy to his watch rather than Bush's;

-And according to the Chamber of Commerce, 3/4 of small businesses (74%) either are not expecting to hire new employees in the next year (62%) or are expecting to cut their payrolls (12%).

This is a HIRING STREAK???????  Does Travis also think the Chicago Cubs are on a world series winning streak?  If that isn't being hopelessly devoted to "O", what is?

The worst part is that he, and Davis, are "newspeople"  Shannon said it on the air, and Ms. Kaye did not challenge it.  Therefore, CNN viewers actually heard to this mung and, god help them, might have believed it.

And then they wonder why people call them biased......

Ken Berwitz

Did you see the attempted attack on Rupert Murdoch by a hopelessly, helplessly hapless pie-throwing weenie?

The weenie decided he was going to "pie" Murdoch with a plate full of what appeared to be shaving cream.  Except Murdoch's wife - his 42 year old, lithe, former volleyball-playing wife (and a Yale MBA as well) - reached over and spiked the sucker right on the noggin.  If his head was a volleyball it would have been a point for Wendy's team, and maybe a timeout to re-inflate the ball.   

Murdoch wound up with a bit of shaving cream, wiped it away, and carried on.  The weenie wound up with most of the shaving cream all over his face and upper body, and was carried off - to jail, I would hope.

Yes, this is funny - as it turned out.  But let's remember that if a weenie like this could get that close with a plate of shaving cream, he could have gotten that close with a knife or a gun as well.  It seems to me that there has to be an immediate investigation into how he was able to do it -- more specifically, who let him in to do it.  No one this inept could have pulled a stunt like this off by himself. 

Well, anyway, the would-be pie thrower certainly got his just "desserts", didn't he? 

My congratulations to Ms. Murdoch for her quick reaction, and beautiful spike of the weenie's head.  I hope for Rupert Murdoch's sake, that he knows never, ever, to tick her off. 

Ken Berwitz

From the Indianapolis Star's political cartoonist, Gary Varvel:

.

Ken Berwitz

I'm sure you know who Steve Wynn is.  I'm sure you are aware of what a hugely successful business entrepreneur he has been for over 40 years.  You've probably stayed at one or another of his hotels/casinos - maybe more than one and maybe more than once.

When someone like this talks, you are wise to listen. 

And here, during a discussion of his company's latest earnings report, is what Mr. Wynn had to say about the Obama administration:

Well, here's our problem. There are a host of opportunities for expansion in Las Vegas, a host of opportunities to create tens of thousands of jobs in Las Vegas. I know that I could do 10,000 more myself and according to the Chamber of Commerce and the Visitors Convention Bureau, if we hired 10,000 employees, it would create another 20,000 additional jobs for a grand total of 30,000.

 

I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States.

 

You watch television and see what's going on, on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.

 

And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right.

 

A President that seems -- that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money.

 

Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America. You bet. And until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President.

 

And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, "Oh God, don't be attacking Obama." Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America. The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.

 

Everybody's afraid of the government, and there's no need to soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth.

 

And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.

Those are words worth thinking about.  Especially next election day.

Ken Berwitz

Where does West Coast Russ get this stuff?

Here is his latest:  an explanation of life.  See if it resonates with you (or at least gives you a smile):

On the first day, God created the dog and said, "Sit all day by the door of your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past.  For this, I will give you a life span of twenty years." 

The dog said, "That's a long time to be barking.  How about only ten years and I'll give you back the other ten?"

 

So God saw it was good. 

On the second day, God created the monkey and said, "Entertain people, do tricks, and make them laugh.  For this, I'll give you a twenty-year life span."  

The monkey said, "Monkey tricks for twenty years?  That's a pretty long time to perform.  How about I give you back ten like the dog did?"

 

And God, again saw it was good.

On the third day, God created the cow and said, "You must go into the field with the farmer all day long and suffer under the sun, have calves and give milk to support the farmer's family.  For this, I will give you a life span of sixty years." 

The cow said, "That's kind of a tough life you want me to live for sixty years. How about twenty and I'll give back the other forty?" 

 

And God agreed it was good. 

On the fourth day, God created humans and said, "Eat, sleep, play, marry and enjoy your life.  For this, I'll give you twenty years." 

But the human said, "Only twenty years?  Could you  possibly give me my twenty, the forty the cow gave back, the ten the monkey gave back, and the ten the dog gave back; that makes eighty, okay?"

"Okay," said God, "You asked for it." 

So that is why for our first twenty years, we eat, sleep, play and enjoy ourselves.  For the next forty years, we slave in the sun to support our family.  For the next ten years, we do monkey tricks to entertain the grandchildren.  And for the last ten years, we sit on the front porch and bark at everyone. 

Life has now been explained to you.  

There is no need to thank me for this valuable information. I'm doing it as a public service.  If you need me I'll be on the front porch.

Ken Berwitz

Since I'm already on the subject of scandals which mainstream media are doing their best to bury instead of report, let's talk about another major example:  teachers who are cheating schoolchildren - most often Black, inner city schoolchildren - by doctoring their exams.

If I were back in school, finding a teacher who would take my poor exams and change the answers to make me look good would be seventh heaven.  I would not have seen beyond the fact that, instead of failing, I passed - maybe even got compliments from my parents for the quality of work I did not do.  Wow, great.

As an adult, however, I have a different view.  Teachers who cheat on behalf of their students to make them look good, are doing terrible damage to those students.

-They won't develop good study habits (why should they, they're getting good marks without them). 

-They won't learn how to overcome poor performance (why should they, their poor performance is being overcome by the teachers). 

-They will learn, straight from their authority figures/potential role models, that it is ok to cheat, lie, and then receive accolades for it.

-And they will be perfectly primed for failure when they leave the offending school system and try to make it somewhere else - like college, or on the job.  They will see others their age, with what appear to be similar academic credentials, operating at a vastly higher level than they can achieve.  What happens then? 

With that in mind, please read the following excerpts from Walter Williams' article in yesterday's Washington Examiner, and see just how pervasive - and damaging - this scandal really is.  Please pay special attention to the last part, which I have put in bold print: 

Last December, I reported on Harvard University professor Stephan Thernstrom's essay, "Minorities in College -- Good News, But...," on Minding the Campus, a website sponsored by the New York-based Manhattan Institute.

Thernstrom was commenting on the results of the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), saying that the scores "mean that black students aged 17 do not read with any greater facility than whites who are four years younger and still in junior high. ... Exactly the same glaring gaps appear in NAEP's tests of basic mathematics skills."

Thernstrom asked, "If we put a randomly-selected group of 100 eighth-graders and another of 100 twelfth-graders in a typical college, would we expect the first group to perform as well as the second?"

In other words, is it reasonable to expect a college freshman of any race who has the equivalent of an eighth-grade education to compete successfully with those having a 12th-grade education?

The situation is worse than we thought. The July 7 edition of U.S. News & World Report featured a story titled "Educators Implicated in Atlanta Cheating Scandal," saying that "for 10 years, hundreds of Atlanta public school teachers and principals changed answers on state tests in one of the largest cheating scandals in U.S. history, according to a scathing 413-page investigative report released Tuesday by Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal."

Teacher and principal exam cheating is not restricted to Atlanta; it's widespread. The Detroit Free Press and USA Today released an investigative report in March that found higher-than-average erasure rates on tests taken by students at 34 schools in and around Detroit in 2008 and 2009.

Overall, their report "found 304 schools where experts say the gains on standardized tests in 2009-10 are so statistically improbable, they merit further investigation. Besides Michigan, the other states (where suspected cheating was found) were Ohio, Arizona, Colorado, Florida and California."

A Dallas Morning News investigation reported finding high rates of test erasures in Texas. Six teachers and two principals were dismissed after cheating was uncovered.

In 2007, Baltimore's George Washington Elementary School was named a Blue Ribbon School after the number of students who passed state reading tests shot from 32 percent to nearly 100 percent in just four years.

Last year, The Baltimore Sun reported thousands of erasures on those tests. Susan Burgess, the school's principal, had her professional license revoked after an investigation by state and city school board officials.

Why is there widespread cheating by America's educators? According to Diane Ravitch, who is the research professor of education at New York University, it's not teachers and principals who are to blame; it's the mandates of the No Child Left Behind law, enacted during the George W. Bush administration. In other words, the devil made them do it.

It would be hard to overstate the magnitude of this scandal, or the disaster it is visiting upon Black inner-city children, who are being passed along with grades they neither earned nor learned anything to get.

But instead of putting the blame where it might truly belong - such as the quality of teaching or environmental factors students may have to deal with outside of school - the Diane Ravitch's of the world (and there are plenty of them) see a different reason:  President George Bush. 

Yep, George Bush; that horrible ogre, who had the gall to push through legislation which requires children to demonstrate they have learned something in school.  He's the problem.  

It isn't those other factors.  They are just details.  George Bush has (gasp!) forced teachers to administer tests which assess whether children are progressing academically.  Oh, the inhumanity!!

And the fact that this legislation was shepherded through the senate by President Bush's willing, enthusiastic cohort, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts?  That doesn't count.  Teddy was a good guy, not like that miserable so and so George.  So we'll forget his involvement.

As regular readers know, I am exasperated by how the term "racism" has been overused, and trivialized, into meaninglessness. 

But, lamentably,  racism - real racism - most certainly exists.  People have to deal with it every day.  And it comes in a variety of forms.

I assume we all agree that someone who calls Black people niggers, or refuses to work with/provide services to Black people, or talks about "them" in monolithic terms, is a racist.

But what is a teacher or school administrator who, if given a choice between either working to improve the academics of underperforming children, or leaving them in that condition and just changing their test scores, decides on choice #2?  What are they?

If you want an example of racism, that's an example of racism.  In one of its most insidious, damaging forms.

Ken Berwitz

The Project Gunrunner/Operation Fast and Furious scandal continues to grow ----- as the Obama administration continues to duck, dodge and stonewall, and as most of our wonderful "neutral" media continue to obligingly look the other way on their behalf.

Here, excerpted from an article by John Hayward at humanevents.com, is the latest news:

So far, there has been one confirmed American victim of the Gun Walker project, in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives deliberately “walked” American guns across the border into Mexico.  In addition to over a hundred and fifty Mexicans, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed with a Gun Walker weapon.

 

Questions linger about a possible second American victim, immigration agent Jaime Zapata, who was murdered by a Mexican drug cartel on the Pan-American Highway last February.  Zapata’s partner, ICE agent Victor Avila, was also wounded in the attack.

 

Zapata’s family wants to know if the gun that killed him came from the ATF.  Roughly 200 Gun Walker weapons have turned up at Mexican crime scenes, according to an article in the L.A. Times.  The family has been unable to get answers from the FBI or Homeland Security, but now House Oversight chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is investigating Zapata’s death and its possible links to the Gun Walker project.

 

Issa and his Senate partner, Charles Grassley of the Judiciary Committee, have been running out of patience with Attorney General Eric Holder.  In a new 10-page letter to Holder, they complain that “the Justice Department prevented Acting Director Melson from communicating with Congress, and even his own staff.” 

 

Issa and Grassley once again accused the Justice Department of misleading Ken Melson about his options for testifying before their committees, and leaking media stories designed to set him as the Fast & Furious fall guy.  Most shockingly, they assert “the Department’s efforts to isolate Mr. Melson went so far as to prevent him from communicating with his own staff about Fast and Furious.”  It’s funny how much time this Administration spends on preventing our massive government from communicating with either the people, or itself.

 

Issa and Grassley are keenly interested in exploring the FBI’s connections to the Gun Walker operations:

 

Melson characterizes the Justice Department’s response to the Gun Walker investigation as a “disaster.”  Issa and Grassley say that “less than one percent of the documents the Department, by its own admission, has reviewed.”  They note archly that “if the attorneys working on the Department’s response to the Committee spent less time redacting documents and more time producing them, we would be much closer to understanding the failures in leadership surrounding Operation Fast and Furious.”  It took DOJ two months to cough up 69 pages of non-public documents.

 

The Congressmen sternly inform Eric Holder that his department “needs to move from spin mode to disclosure mode” and stop treating “the Fast and Furious inquiry as merely a public relations problem, rather than a legitimate topic in need of congressional oversight and corrective action.”  The designated fall guy won’t fall, and the involvement of other agencies renders him useless as a firewall to protect his superiors anyway.  This scandal has moved beyond “Operation Fast and Furious,” and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

This is a scandal.  A huge, murderous scandal.  A scandal that leads straight to the Attorney General of the United States, and to  the President.

It is long past the point when mainstream media, as a matter of basic journalism if nothing else, should have jumped in and demanded answers to questions.  Yet most are doing no such thing. 

Instead, they are running interference for eric holder and Barack Obama, to protect them from being blamed - 100% justifiably - for escalating Project Gunrunner into an ill conceived, horribly bungled operation which has done little other than arm Mexican drug cartels, promote their dirty business, and kill civilians on both sides of the border along with one, and probably two US agents.

Let me remind you again that these are the same media which spent years, and untold hours, desperately trying to ferret out whether President Bush missed a few national guard meetings over 35 years before becoming President. 

It is hard not to conclude that when the bullseye is on a Republican, no scandal is too small to investigate - but when it is on a Democrat, no scandal is too large to bury.

These are journalists? You're kidding, right?  They shame their profession.

Ken Berwitz

How can MSNBC criticize what Fox or any other venue does when, apparently, it is about to add a racist/anti-Semite show host to its roster?

Excerpted from Chris Ariens' article at mediabistro.com:

TVNewser hears (Cenk) Uygur may be moved out of the 6pm hour, possibly to be replaced by Al Sharpton. When the host changes happened earlier this year, the 6pm hour was simply known as “MSNBC Live,” a telling sign that MSNBC was trying out Uygur.

Sharpton has hosted the 6pm show for the last two weeks. This past week, the hour was second, to Fox News, in A25-54 viewers Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

It will be interesting to see if the loud, often obnoxious, always-partisan, Uygur gets to host another time slot or is just out altogether.  Remember, this is the guy who, just a few months ago, bragged that he was going to run roughshod over the hated enemy, Fox News Channel  Uygur’s exact words:

“I hope (to defeat Fox) through pointing out their hypocrisy, propaganda and general foolishness. But I also plan to beat them in the ratings and make them fear me"

Well, that didn’t happen.  And if he’s shut out, maybe it will be humbling enough to do him some good.

But whatever problems I have had with Cenk Uygur, I have never known him to be either a racist or anti-Semite.  And I know Al Sharpton to be both.

I have written about sharpton's disgusting history several times in this blog.  In one such blog I quoted Scott Johnson of newsbusters.org, who said:

From his promotion of Tawana Brawley's hoax and his defamation of Steven Pagones and Robert Abrams, to his defense of the Central Park "wilding" rapists, to his role in the pogroms leading to the murders of Yankel Rosenbaum in Crown Heights and eight victims in Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem, Sharpton has compiled a record that should result in his excommunication by decent people from civil society.

To which I added:

FYI, Johnson left out a few additional facts:

-sharpton is a decades-long supporter of the Black supremacist, anti-Semitic louis farrakhan,

-he was a proud friend, and attendee at the funeral of, Black supremacist, anti-Semitic khalid muhammad,

-his National Action Network's tax filings just a few years ago showed that virtually all the money collected for this supposedly altruistic venture went for the "expenses" of Sharpton  and a couple of cronies, without ever reaching the needy,

-and that he has stiffed people right and left, running up a ton of debts that, somehow, he never gets around to paying (even Stahl had to acknowledge this, though her estimate - about 2.8 million dollars - probably is on the low side.)

al sharpton is a sorry excuse for a human being.  And if MSNBC gives sharpton his own show, it is a sorry excuse for a cable news network.

Can you imagine what Chris Matthews, or Lawrence O’Donnell, or Rachel Maddow, or Ed Schultz would say if Fox ever gave a right wing racist and anti-Semite his/her own show?  

But will any of them have the honesty and/or courage to do the same if their masters at MSNBC hand one to sharpton?  I’d be impressed as hell if it happened.  But I wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.   

Ken Berwitz

Either Barack Obama is a very gutsy bluffer, or he thinks there are enough people out there who don't care if we spend ourselves into oblivion to re-elect him in 2012.  Maybe both.

Excerpted from Sam Youngman's article at thehill.com:

The White House on Monday warned President Obama will veto GOP legislation to “cut, cap and balance” spending and the budget.

The House Rules Committee is expected to take up the measure Monday, and it is likely to receive a floor vote on Tuesday. The measure would cut spending in fiscal 2012 by $111 billion, cap future spending at 19.9 percent of gross domestic product and allow for the debt ceiling to be increased if a balanced-budget amendment is approved by Congress and sent to the states. 

The president's veto threat was followed by a full-on assault from administration officials who blasted the GOP proposal as "extreme, radical [and] unprecedented."

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a conference call Monday afternoon that the Republican plan "enshrines into the Constitution the Ryan plan on steroids." Pfeiffer was referring to the House GOP budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which included significant reforms to Medicare. 

Republicans are rallying around the "cut, cap and balance" measure as their answer to the debt talks as negotiations between the administration and congressional leaders have stalled. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was disappointed at Obama's veto threat and that the House vote would go forward Tuesday as scheduled.

"It’s disappointing the White House would reject this common-sense plan to rein in the debt and deficits that are hurting job creation in America," Boehner said in a statement. "While American families have to set priorities and balance their books, this White House obviously isn’t serious about making the same tough choices. 

"This unfortunate veto threat should make clear that the issue is not congressional inaction, but rather the [resident’s unwillingness to cut spending and restrain the future growth of our government. If we are going to raise the debt limit and avoid default, the White House must be willing to demonstrate more courage than we have seen to date," Boehner said.

The White House also blasted some of the cuts Republicans have suggested, saying the proposal would “undercut the federal government’s ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future.

Translation:  President Obama, who has overseen a 28% increase in our national deficit over just 2 1/2 years as President,  is threatening to veto this bill on the grounds that if we don't continue to spend more than we have people are going to suffer.

Will the people buy it?  I'm sure some will:  for example, people who get things from the goverment while paying little or now taxes are going to be among them.  To this group, a tax hike is the equivalent of getting a raise.

But what about the producers?  What about the people who pay taxes?  What about the people who have children and grandchildren who will shoulder the burden of what Mr. Obama is demanding that we do today?  Will they buy it?

Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are playing a game of chicken with the future of this country which, politically, they might win or lose.  The problem is, if they win we lose.

Personally, I think Republicans would do very well to call the President's bluff.  Let Mr. Obama veto a plan to stop runaway deficit spending, and tell people that by bankrupting the country he is somehow saving their futures. 

Get it on the table, and trust the people to use their good sense. 

Ken Berwitz

Either Barack Obama is a very gutsy bluffer, or he thinks there are enough people out there who don't care if we spend ourselves into oblivion to re-elect him in 2012.  Maybe both.

Excerpted from Sam Youngman's article at thehill.com:

The White House on Monday warned President Obama will veto GOP legislation to “cut, cap and balance” spending and the budget.

The House Rules Committee is expected to take up the measure Monday, and it is likely to receive a floor vote on Tuesday. The measure would cut spending in fiscal 2012 by $111 billion, cap future spending at 19.9 percent of gross domestic product and allow for the debt ceiling to be increased if a balanced-budget amendment is approved by Congress and sent to the states. 

The president's veto threat was followed by a full-on assault from administration officials who blasted the GOP proposal as "extreme, radical [and] unprecedented."

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a conference call Monday afternoon that the Republican plan "enshrines into the Constitution the Ryan plan on steroids." Pfeiffer was referring to the House GOP budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which included significant reforms to Medicare. 

Republicans are rallying around the "cut, cap and balance" measure as their answer to the debt talks as negotiations between the administration and congressional leaders have stalled. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was disappointed at Obama's veto threat and that the House vote would go forward Tuesday as scheduled.

"It’s disappointing the White House would reject this common-sense plan to rein in the debt and deficits that are hurting job creation in America," Boehner said in a statement. "While American families have to set priorities and balance their books, this White House obviously isn’t serious about making the same tough choices. 

"This unfortunate veto threat should make clear that the issue is not congressional inaction, but rather the [resident’s unwillingness to cut spending and restrain the future growth of our government. If we are going to raise the debt limit and avoid default, the White House must be willing to demonstrate more courage than we have seen to date," Boehner said.

The White House also blasted some of the cuts Republicans have suggested, saying the proposal would “undercut the federal government’s ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future.

Translation:  President Obama, who has overseen a 28% increase in our national deficit over just 2 1/2 years as President,  is threatening to veto this bill on the grounds that if we don't continue to spend more than we have people are going to suffer.

Will the people buy it?  I'm sure some will:  for example, people who get things from the goverment while paying little or now taxes are going to be among them.  To this group, a tax hike is the equivalent of getting a raise.

But what about the producers?  What about the people who pay taxes?  What about the people who have children and grandchildren who will shoulder the burden of what Mr. Obama is demanding that we do today?  Will they buy it?

Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are playing a game of chicken with the future of this country which, politically, they might win or lose.  The problem is, if they win we lose.

Personally, I think Republicans would do very well to call the President's bluff.  Let Mr. Obama veto a plan to stop runaway deficit spending, and tell people that by bankrupting the country he is somehow saving their futures. 

Get it on the table, and trust the people to use their good sense. 

Ken Berwitz

These two emails were received 1 hour and 38 minutes apart today.  Both are shown in their entirety, and in the order they were received:

Today, Eric Cantor and the House "Hell No" Caucus will again use their right-wing extremist budget demands to stonewall an agreement with President Obama.

And while they drive the nation closer to economic meltdown, they're executing a strategy to use it politically against the president and every Democrat they can find. Rove's people are on the air right now in seven states.

So many grassroots donors have told us they want us to fight back hard on this. That's why we created the Emergency Media Campaign last week. The response has been overwhelming, with more than $100,000 raised (see chart below). With the deadline on Friday, we're more than halfway there. Can you kick in $10 to get us there before Friday?

 

We will defeat every Republican possible. We will defend every defender of Medicare. We will not let Republicans get away with their obstruction, petulance and blatant disregard for the people they claim to represent. And this Emergency Media Campaign will help do it.

If you believe in this effort too, will you kick in $10?

Click that link and say to yourself, "Hell no, Eric Cantor."

Best,
Jason

--
Jason Rosenbaum
Director of Online Communications

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

 

Dear XXX

As the August 2nd deadline for raising the federal debt ceiling nears, Barack Obama and the leftist Democrats in Washington are becoming desperate for a deal that will allow their Big Government spending spree to continue.

Make no mistake -- it is too much spending that has gotten us where we are, not too little revenue. Barack Obama has burned through $3.7 trillion of taxpayers' money, bringing the debt to an astonishing $14.3 trillion -- $46,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

The Obama Democrats' irresponsible call for massive tax increases on the already overburdened American people is a non-starter. It's time for serious reform. It's time for a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor are leading the charge to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment this week. Talk is cheap -- if Democrats want more spending, they must commit to ending the ceaseless cycle of spending and debt for good now -- not in 2013 or some mythical date in the future.

If $14.3 trillion isn't enough spending for Barack Obama and his profligate Democrat allies, no amount will be. You and I must live within our means -- and it's high time Washington learned to do the same.

We have to show we mean business, by word and deed. That's why I need you to do two things right now:

• First, add your name to the RNC's petition to let Speaker Boehner and Rep. Cantor know you are 100% behind their effort to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment through the U.S. House; and,
• Help us raise one million dollars by the end of July to elect fiscally conservative Republican candidates who won't forget who they work for -- and won't spend any more money we don't have -- by making a contribution of $10, $15, or $20 to the RNC today.

Please stand with me for renewed fiscal sanity -- sign our petition and make your gift now. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee

Take a  close look at each email.  Note what they say, the tone used to say it, and which "buttons" each is trying to press.

See what, if anything, they tell you about each side.

Ken Berwitz

Since I've already blogged today about the Associated Press's determined effort to protect President Obama, let's hit for the daily double and do one more blog on this subject.

Here, according to the AP, is why our national debt has rison to its current suffocatingly high level:

Q: How did the debt grow from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to its current $14.3 trillion?

A: The biggest contributors to the nearly $9 trillion increase over a decade were:

-2001 and 2003 tax cuts under President George W. Bush: $1.6 trillion.

-Additional interest costs: $1.4 trillion.

-Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: $1.3 trillion.

-Economic stimulus package under Obama: $800 billion.

-2010 tax cuts, a compromise by Obama and Republicans that extended jobless benefits and cut payroll taxes: $400 billion.

-2003 creation of Medicare's prescription drug benefit: $300 billion.

-2008 financial industry bailout: $200 billion.

-Hundreds of billions less in revenue than expected since the Great Recession began in December 2007.

- Other spending increases in domestic, farm and defense programs, adding lesser amounts.

As you can see, in the world of AP, President Bush is responsible for almost all of the deficit - most notably, that 1.6 trillion from his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.  Obama?  A piddling $800 million - not even 10% - and hal the "blame" ($200 billion) for the 2010 tax cuts.

Is that really the way of things? 

Well, read this excerpt from a piece by the Washington Times' Richard Dwyer last February, and see if you can find another side to the story.  Please pay special attention to the part I've put in bold print:

A favorite liberal narrative is that President George W. Bush squan- dered the Clinton-era budget surpluses and piled up deficits with expensive wars and tax cuts for the rich.

The truth is that Mr. Bush’s deficits were the product of spending, not tax cuts. In fact, Mr. Obama could learn an important lesson for his own economic plan by studying Mr. Bush’s two very different attempts at tax-cutting.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

In reading those data, please keep in mind that the $785 billion is not the total increase.  It is where the increase rose to in 2007.  

Let's look at the revenues for every year since 2003 and see what actually happened:

Ken Berwitz

It is a death panel.  It will make decisions on what care seniors can and cannot get.  The health care industry knows it.  Republicans know it.  I know it and you know it. 

But the President and his people are pretending it is not a death panel.  And, lamentably given its presumptive status as a straight-news organization, the Associated Press is trying its level best to back them up.

Read this excerpt from Ricardo Alonzo-Zalvidor's article for the AP (in rust), my comments (in blue), and see what I mean:

So long death panels. Hello "rationing" board.  Great start.  Before seeing any facts at all, readers have been instructed in so many words that there is nothing that could be construed as a death panel.  This is supposed to be a news article?  It already could be an Obama press release.

 

An independent panel authorized by President Barack Obama's health care law to control excessive Medicare cost increases is drawing heavy fire from Republicans. Nearly every health industry lobbying group is pushing for its repeal, as are some consumer advocates. GOP lawmakers call it a rationing panel, and at least one has suggested seniors will die from its decisions.  Ok.  Now, only after having been indoctrinated to a point of view, we find out that an awful lot of people – political opposition, health industry groups and consumer advocates among them – are against this “independent panel”.  But if it isn’t a “death panel”, what them to be so opposed?

 

But don't look for the Independent Payment Advisory Board to start chopping any time soon. It doesn't exist yet. Known as IPAB, the board may not be appointed for another couple of years, and remains in suspended animation to see if the brouhaha dies down.  If all these groups are this opposed to IPAB before it even exists – maybe years before – you would think there has to be something objectionable there.  So what is it?

 

IPAB has the power to force Medicare cuts if costs go up beyond certain levels and Congress fails to act. Although Medicare's long-term finances are troubled, it's unclear if short-run costs will rise enough over the next decade to trigger the board's intervention. If that happens, the law explicitly forbids IPAB from rationing care, shifting costs to retirees or restricting benefits.  Huh?  Wha….?  What does that mean?  The IPAB has the power to foce Medicare cuts….but is forbidden to ration care, or shift costs, or restrict benefits??????  How, then would it force medicare cuts?  Is President Obama also creating a Department of Alchemy to find magic potions that will do this?  

 

Yet the uproar is getting louder.  You’re damn right the uproar is getting louder.  Because the previous paragraph’s “explanation” makes exactly zero sense.  And they know it.

 

"Senior citizens will lose control over what they actually get in Medicare," GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann told conservative bloggers in Minneapolis last month, "because a politically appointed 15-member board that's unelected and unresponsive to the will of the people called IPAB will make the decisions about what care we get and what care we don't."  I don’t care if you like or dislike Michele Bachmann about anything else.  On this, she is absolutely right.  There isn’t enough spin in a gyroscope factory to spin this away.

The reality is that ObamaCare, as constructed, is going to necessitate some form of "death panels".  Decisions will have to be made on what care seniors will and will not be able to get.  And anyone who tries to tell you otherwise, is lying to you - lying being nothing new in this administration, to say the least.

Ken Berwitz

A week or so ago President Obama misstated his daughter's age.  Our wonderful "neutral" media shrugged it off with a smile.  Hey, we all make mistakes, don't we? 

At that time I asked what if it were President Bush getting his twin daughters' ages wrong.

Well, it's time to ask again.  Because this time the President got his own age wrong.  On Friday, July 15th, he said:

“I’m going to be turning 50 in a week, so I’m starting to think a little bit more about medicare eligibility…”

The problem?  Mr. Obama isn't turning 50 in a week.  His birthday is August 4th.  Even the various versions of his birth certificate we have seen all agree on that.

Now it is Monday, July 18th.  And, as usual, the same media which would have skewered George Bush as a hopeless dunce for first getting his children's ages wrong and then his own, are - as per usual - giving Barack Obama a free pass. 

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

Ken Berwitz

Does anyone really think Barack Obama is amassing all that money for his re-election campaign $5 at a time?  That he is the President of the little guy?

Read this excerpt from Lynn Sweet's article in yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times and see the real story.  The bold print is mine:

244 mega-fund-raisers rake in the money for Obama

 

WASHINGTON — The Obama re-election team released the names of more than 244 mega-fund-raisers Friday — including 31 who raised at least $500,000 to bankroll the Obama 2012 campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

 

The fund-raisers are known in the political business as “bundlers,” people who use their extensive networks to raise money on behalf of a candidate. The Obama for America campaign calls their bundlers “volunteer fund-raisers.”

 

The Obama team on Wednesday reported its first 2012 results, collecting more than $86 million in second-quarter fund-raising, with $47 million directly for the Obama for America 2012 campaign and more than $38 million for the Democratic National Committee. Chicagoan and close Obama friend Martin Nesbitt is the Obama for America treasurer, reprising the role from the 2008 campaign.

 

Obama has rewarded his best fund-raisers from his 2008 campaign, from handing out ambassadorships — for example, Chicagoans Louis Susman to Great Britain, David Jacobson to Canada — to other White House appointments. The minus: These ambassadors are not out fund-raising for Obama 2012. One of Obama’s top 2008 bundlers, Matthew Barzun, was named ambassador to Sweden — and stepped down to return to the U.S. to be Obama’s 2012 national finance chairman.

 

According to the Center for Public Integrity, one-third of the Obama 2008 campaign’s 556 bundlers were appointed by Obama to jobs or advisory posts. Of the mega fund-raisers — those raising more than $500,000 in 2008, fully 80 percent landed “key administration” posts — many on advisory panels. According to CPI, 24 bundlers are serving as ambassadors.

In other words, like so many other claims by this honesty-challenged administration, the idea that Barack Obama is funded by the man in the street is a complete fantasy.

In this administration, "The Chicago Way" continues in full blossom.  Bring in the do-re-mi, get something in return.

And, frankly, if you have paid any attention to how Mr. Obama and the people around him have operated for the past two and a half years, you shouldn't need this blog to know it.

Ken Berwitz

The Rupert Murdoch/Fox-hating media (i.e. pretty much the entire media other than what Murdoch owns) are having a field day with the hacking scandal we have all been reading about this month.

Two points to be made:

1)  They are right. If News Corp. media venues did what is alleged - and it certainly appears they did - the tidal wave of attacks on them is 100% deserved. 

However:

2)  Remember that old adage "what goes around comes around"?  The media venues going after News Corp. - especially the most avid Murdoch haters, like the BBC (no stranger to scandals in its own right) and MSNBC (which regularly is crushed by Fox in the ratings) - had better be as clean as a hound's tooth when it comes to underhanded ways of gathering their own news information.  Because you can bet your bottom dollar that Murdoch and his people are actively working to find out if they have engaged in their own ethical gymnastics.  And if they have (wanna take bets?), God help them when Murdoch has the evidence.

Incidentally, that "clean as a hound's tooth" reference was used by then-Presidential Candidate, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, who was concerned about the ethics level of his Vice Presidential selection, Richard Nixon.

How'd that turn out?

Ken Berwitz

Blogger Meryl Yourish has written a must-read piece at hotair.com, which demonstrates how deeply international media are committed to supporting the so-called "Palestinians" while putting the wood to Israel.  

It is too long to post verbatim, and there is nothing I would leave out.  So here is a link for you to read it as Ms. Yourish wrote it.

I strongly urge you to do so.

Ken Berwitz

I watch a lot of these political panel discussions in an effort to hear both sides of the story.  This necessitates enduring tons of blather and posturing by both sides.

But every now and again something is laid out so clearly and plainly that it is a pleasure to hear it.

This leads straight to Charles Krauthammer's devastation of Nina Totenberg's claim that, in return for an agreement to raise the debt ceiling and taxes along with it, President Obama was willing reform entitlement programs - a claim that has been mindlessly repeated by Obama-loving media drones for weeks.

Here, from Noel Sheppard's blog at newsbusters.org, are transcripts of how he did it.

Transcript: 1: 

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: [The President] talks a good game. “Oh, I’m prepared to do entitlements, I’m ready to do entitlements.” Not once has he ever enunciated in public - other than all these leaks which I don’t trust for half a second – one structural change in entitlements, and without that, everybody over the age of nine knows we are not going to get a handle on the debt. So let’s hear him say it in public once.

NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: So why is it when he offered the big deal, the $4 trillion deal…

GORDON PETERSON, HOST: The grand bargain.

TOTENBERG: …the grand bargain, Republicans backed away from it?

KRAUTHAMMER: When did he offer that?

TOTENBERG: He offered that last week.

KRAUTHAMMER: Where?

TOTENBERG: In, he did it, publicly and in negotiations.

KRAUTHAMMER: In your leaks? What’s in the $4 trillion?

TOTENBERG: But Charles.

KRAUTHAMMER: Give me a number. Explain to me what’s in it.

TOTENBERG: Why is it, in two, in matter of two days, Republicans backed away from that and said we don’t want it?

KRAUTHAMMER: You accept everything he says, a $4 trillion deal, if you don’t have a single item in it that you can enunciate.

TOTENBERG: Well, I’m not at the table. Perhaps you are, but I’m not.

 KRAUTHAMMER: Well then how does he expect America to accept something in which he explains nothing?

TOTENBERG: He actually said I’m going to get heat from my own people.

Transcript # 2, moments later:

KRAUTHAMMER: My colleagues are demonstrating a point I’ve been trying to make about how you have a completely compliant, pliant, supine press accepting every leak out of the White House. Tell me, we have been told, I’ve heard it again and again that the President’s prepared to do, to make cuts in entitlements. Name me one.

PETERSON: Charles, a complete and compliant supine press. I love that.

KRAUTHAMMER: Yeah.

PETERSON: Let’s move along.

KRAUTHAMMER: I’ve got, I’ve got other adjectives, but we’re short on time.

PETERSON: Yes, and we have to keep it on the air

There it is.  Complete and utter devastation of the out-of-thin-air claim that President Obama would agree to specifically address entitlements. 

I have been in marketing research for over 40 years - a majority of it spent in qualitative research (mostly moderating focus groups).  And if I've learned one thing during those years, it is that perception can be, and usually is, more powerful than reality.

If someone wants to believe something, it's a very good bet that he/she will believe it, even in the face of good reasons not to.

And that goes straight to the point that we have - what did Charles say?  Oh yeah - a complete and compliant supine press.  One that is willing to accept what President Obama says, even though a) he offers no specifics and b) he has lied to us repeatedly during his presidency on just about everything (readers of this blog have seen an ongoing chronicling of those lies).   They want to believe Mr. Obama, so they do, and they report accordingly.

In fairness, it should be pointed out that Charles's claim is, of course, exaggerated.  Some media venues are neutral and some are anti-Obama.  But, for the preponderance of major media, he is dead on, 100% correct.

I thank him for saying as much in so many words.  Maybe it will shame a few of the people he is talking about into rethinking their actions and becoming professional journalists again.

Ken Berwitz

What do we lose if we lose Israel?

Forgetting for a moment trifling little matters like the only Jewish homeland on Earth and an - despite the current administration -- an intensely loyal US ally, there is also the matter of technology.

How important is Israel in technology?  Well, read this excerpt from Chuck Devore's series at Investors Business Daily and see for yourself:

Israel, a New Jersey-sized nation of 7.5 million people (1.7 million of whom are Arab) filed 7,082 international patents in the five years ending in 2007. By contrast, 28 majority-Muslim nations with almost 1.2 billion people — 155 times the population of Israel — were granted 2,071 patents in the same period.

Narrowing the comparison to the 17 Muslim nations of the Middle East from Morocco to Iran and down the Arabian Peninsula, the 409 million people in that region generated 680 patents in five years.

This means that the Arab and Iranian world produced about one patent per year for every 3 million people, compared with Israel's output of one annual patent for every 5,295 people, an Israeli rate some 568 times that of Israel's neighbors and sometime enemies.

Is that impressive?  Even amazing?  I'd say so.

And now we have this, as excerpted from Dominic Waghorn's article last Sunday for Sky News:

The bright sparks at the country's Technion Institute of Technology in Haifa have developed a road that generates power when vehicles pass over it.

 

And they hope the technology will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

 

In a university car park, Haim Abramovich and his team run a heavy truck repeatedly over a special stretch of tarmac.

 

"The name of the game is harvesting," he told Sky News. "Harvesting means energy which is available but is going to waste.

 

"So what I want to is to harvest part of that energy and make it useful. This is the name of the game and this is my dream."

 

Making his dream come true are hundreds of rugged metallic crystals. When put under pressure they generate electricity.

 

So lined up in special pads buried under the tarmac, they create power. It is called 'piezo' electricity. It has been around a while, but never used like this before.

 

One truck can generate 2,000 volts, but to create useful electricity you need a lot of amps too and that requires many pads over hundreds of metres and a high percentage of traffic, preferably moving quickly.

 

The team is pioneering the idea on a 30 metre strip of highway near Tel Aviv.

 

It could be used to power traffic lights or street lamps already, but with sufficient progress the techno