Ken Berwitz

Democrats have put out still another email.  This one is signed by James Carville.

Please note the avoidance of any heated political rhetoric or incivility:

Dear XXXXX,

 Thought experiment: Picture Washington under total Tea Party control.

Mitch McConnell will privatize Social Security. Jim DeMint will end Medicare. And kiss the EPA goodbye since Tea Partiers think clean water tramples on their constitutional right to be poisoned. The Tea Party’s like kudzu – you give ’em an inch, they take MILES.

They get their crazy ideas through the House, and the Senate stops ’em. Thing is, they flip four seats, and their ideas will fly right on through. Our little thought experiment becomes an ugly-as-sin reality.
 
We saw what Tea Party control looks like this week when Republicans held disaster relief hostage and demanded job-creation programs as a ransom. They came THIS CLOSE to shutting down the government. AGAIN.
 
Luckily, the Senate nipped that in the bud. Crisis averted. But if the Republicans pick up just four seats next November, the Tea Party wrecking crew will rule the Senate.  And if that doesn’t scare you enough, think about this: That’s fewer seats than they gained last cycle. 
 
Here’s one more thought experiment: Picture how good you’ll feel in November 2012 when Democrats still hold the Senate. Happy? Relieved? Feel like you dodged a bullet?
 
You have the power to make that happen. Click and give, and stick it to the Tea Party. Let’s stop this nightmare before it starts.
 
James Carville

Let's see:

-Mr. Carville is telling us that the Tea Party is not just a part of the Republican Party (which is a lie -- though Tea Party positionis are a good deal closer to those of Republicans, they often attack Republicans as well as Democrats), and it isn't just dominated by the Tea Party (an obvious lie), the Tea Party is the Republican Party; they equate to being one and the same (the biggest lie of all). 

-Mitch McConnell will not privatize social security and Jim DeMint will not end medicare.  While McConnell has proposed revising social security and DeMint has proposed revising medicare neither has proposed ending either program.  That's a double lie.

-The house has been under Republican control for only 10 months, and neither social security nor medicare revision has been passed through it during this time.  So the senate could not have stopped such legislation even if it wanted to - not that Mr. McConnell or Mr. DeMint could have done so personally under any circumstances, since neither of them is a house member.  Another lie.

-Republicans did not refuse disaster relief, they demanded that it be paid for using existing funds rather than through increasing the deficit - and Democrats refused.  Yet another lie.

-Suggesting (without saying it in so many words) that four more Republicans in the Senate would have changed a thing on that vote is still another lie.  The final senate vote was 79 in favor and 12 opposed, and a majority of Republicans voted for it.  How can Democrats have nipped it in the bud when it would have passed even if none of them even voted?  How many lies are we up to?

I congratulate Mr. Carville on what how honestly and civilly he has stated his position. 

Aren't we fortunate that he hasn't resorted to that terrible heated political rhetoric and incivility he, and his fellow Democrats, were screaming about earlier this year?

Ken Berwitz

Here is another reason for Barack Obama to stop referring to his tax scheme as the "Buffett Rule":  Buffett doesn't support it.

Do you think I'm kidding?  Do you think that can't be so?  Well, read this transcript of Buffett's interview at CNBC and see for yourself:

CNBC: "Are you happy that the way it is being described. Is the program that the White House has presented a million dollars and over your program? "

Warren Buffett: "Well, the precise program which will -- I don't know what their program will be. My program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low. Not just high incomes. Somebody making $50 million a year playing baseball, his taxes won't change. Make $50 million a year appearing on television, his income won't change. But, if they make a lot of money and pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what other people pay."

CNBC: "Does that mean you disagree with the president's new jobs proposal which would be paid for by raising taxes on households with incomes of over $250,000."

Buffett: "That's another program that I won't be discussing. My program is to have a tax on ultra-rich people who are very tax rates. Not just all rich people. It would probably apply to 50,000 people in a population of 300 million."

Warren Buffett claims that he want to raise taxes only on about 50,000 people.  Barack Obama's proposal would raise taxes on every household earning over $250,000 (and, given his track record for honesty regarding proposed legislation, it will probably wind up raising taxes on a lot more than that). 

Notice a slight disconnect?

Hey, I have an idea.  Since it is such a bad idea that even the guy he is naming it after won't support it, why not rename it the Bush Rule.  That way when it goes sour, like so many other things have in this woeful administration, he can exonerate his pal Whining Warren, and tag George Bush with it, just like he has with the rest of his failures.

What a great solution.  I wonder if this gets me a job with the administration. (Ok, maybe that's a bit of a stretch....)

Ken Berwitz

I don't know for sure, but we may have found the reason that North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue floated the idea that congressional elections should be suspended.

According to a highly illuminating and highly disturbing article by Gary D. Robertson and Michael Biesecker of the Associated Press...

A state lawmaker and a group of Democratic political donors with ties to Gov. Beverly Perdue are poised to sell land at a handsome profit for a tire plant that's being lured with $100 million in state and local incentives .

Hmmm, that doesn't look very savory, does it.  But is there more? 

Yep:

As North Carolina's chief executive, the governor is a key decision maker in large incentives deals involving state money. She also helps appoint the board members of a foundation that's been asked to provide part of the tire plant's package. Perdue's campaign has received more than $52,000 from five men with an ownership stake in the Brunswick County industrial park proposed for the new facility.

But it is only fair to hear the other side of the story.  So what does Ms. Perdue's administration say about it?

"Gov. Perdue is focused on bringing 1,300 jobs to North Carolina," said Mark Johnson, Perdue's spokesman. "She doesn't care where in the state the plant goes, who owns the land or who the company hires as its lawyer. She just wants the jobs."

Perdue's spokesman stressed Thursday that the company seeking the incentives, not the governor's aides, chose the site.

Ok, that sounds like a reasonably credible response.  Except...

The governor's son, Garrett Perdue, is also a lawyer and site-selection consultant for an influential law firm that a county official said was advising the tire company. The firm, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, does not disclose which projects the younger Perdue works on, citing attorney-client privilege.

Hold on.  The Governor's aides had nothing to do with choosing the site -- but the Governor's SON is the company's SITE SELECTION CONSULTANT????

Suddenly that response seems to have lost a bit of its credibility.  Like about 99.9% of it.

Does this stink?  You bet it does. 

It seems to me the citizens of North Carolina need a lot more explaining from their Governor than just the idea that elections should be suspended. 

Maybe a better idea would be for the current Governor's term to be suspended instead.

Ken Berwitz

Every day the Green Scandal gets deeper and deeper. 

Ed Morrissey's blog at hotair.com has the latest installment of this ugly money-laundering scam.  Here is his first paragraph - but don't cheat yourself - be sure to click here and read every word:

Earlier today, I noted that one of the new loans approved by the Department of Energy for green-tech stimulus just happened to favor a company with connections to Nancy Pelosi’s family.  That’s not the only connection in the batch of new loan approvals from the DoE, as the Daily Caller discovered.  Digging into investment records and public statements, it appears that a number of key donors will benefit from the Obama administration’s largesse — including a central figure in the collapse of Solyndra and the destruction of a half-billion dollars in taxpayer money

What a scandal this is.  What a scam.

The most prominent "green" thing about it is the money being laundered from our tax dollars into Democrats' pockets.

If there were investigative reporters in this country allowed to investigate Democrats' corruption, the Green Scandal would  be front page news every day.  But most (not all - there are a very few chinks in the armor) of our "accomplice media", ever vigilant to protect the Obama administration, have buried it so far.

How much longer can they do so?  How many billions have to be lost before they act like journalists again?

Ken Berwitz

Remember that "Arab spring" we were supposed to be so jubilant about?

Remember President Obama helping it along by becoming a driving force in the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak?

Remember all those well bred, well fed protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square, demanding that Mubarak be deposed so that freedom and democracy would flourish in Egypt?

Well, here, excerpted from an article by Agence France Presse via breitbart.com, is a taste of reality for you.  See if it coincides with any of what you remember:

Egyptian security forces stormed the offices of Al-Jazeera Egypt on Thursday, confining its journalists to one room and confiscating equipment, the channel's bureau chief told AFP.

Ahmed Zain said the officers entered the channel's new premises, roughed up staff, forced them into one room and took away their identity papers.

One of the reporters, Hayat al-Yamani, asked for the security officers' identity papers but they refused and pushed her to the ground.

Police at the nearby Agouza station later refused to take her statement, Zain said.

Equipment including cameras and a laptop were also confiscated, he said.

It was the second such raid on Al-Jazeera Egypt this month.

Does that look like an Arab spring to you?  The flourishing of freedom and democracy?

Now add in the lurch toward fundamentalist Islamic law, and the indications that peace with Israel, which started with Anwar Sadat and continued with Hosni Mubarak, is fast disappearing.  What do you get/

It can't be said enough times:  just because something is bad, doesn't mean the alternative can't be even worse.  And that, folks, is what the idealists of Tahrir Square - along with the rest of the world - are learning about Egypt right now.

Ken Berwitz

Just a little while ago I blogged about the apparent death of terrorist subhuman anwar al-awlaki - a report that is quickly being confirmed by several news agencies.

And now we have this, excerpted from Brian Llenas' article at Fox News, about hugo chavez - the President-turned-dictator of Venezuela, who has taken what should be a vibrant, prosperous oil-driven country and kept it a poor, third-world joke, while virtually ending its precious, hard-won freedom of speech in the print and broadcast media :

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez was admitted to the emergency room in the Military Hospital in Caracas Wednesday night, and reportedly is in serious condition as his recovery appears to have taken a turn for the worst, sources tell El Nuevo Herald.

Sources, “who spoke on the condition of anonymity,” said the President was in “bad shape” as he was escorted by his own security team from the presidential palace to the Hospital, according to the Miami newspaper.

Another person from the Military Hospital said Chávez was showing signs of kidney failure after an intense cycle of chemotherapy. The source said the president had shown signs of aplastic anemia - the disappearance for blood production in the bone marrow.

Today is just getting better and better.....

Ken Berwitz

I have just received the latest contribution solicitation from the Democrat party.  This one was signed by Senator Dick Durbin (signees vary from email to email).

Here is the meat of Mr. Durbin's "appeal", in rust, with my comments in blue:

Gee, you can learn a lot from an email.....

Ken Berwitz

If this news is accurate, today is an excellent day in the war on terror.

According to an Associated Press article at msnbc.com, anwar al-awlaki, the American born and raised terrorist subhuman who had substantial success in recruiting muslims to commit terrorist acts, was hit by an air raid where he was hiding in Yemen. 

awlaki is/was (depending on the accuracy of the report) instrumental in a number of attacks on US soil, the most infamous of which was the killing spree by US Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed 12 of his fellow soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas.

Reports do not specify whether the raid was conducted by Yemeni forces or by a US unmanned drone.  Either way, dead is dead.  And if awlaki is dead the world is a far better place for it.

One other point to be made here.  As anyone who reads this column knows, I am extremely critical of President Obama.  But it should be pointed out that, while he certainly is not the person conducting drone attacks against suspected al qaeda terrorists on foreign soil, he has allowed the attacks to continue.  He could have ordered them stopped but has not done so. 

For that, Mr. Obama deserves great credit, and I offer it to him now.

Ken Berwitz

Just yesterday I posted a list of ten "green" companies being considered for loan guarantees by the energy department.  I pointed out that, based on the math the energy department gave us (which, in this administration is certainly suspect) it showed a the cost per per permanent "saved or created" job would be the astounding amount of almost $23,000,000 dollars. 

I ended the blog by wondering how many of the companies involved in this taxpayer-soaking had major Democrats involved.

Well, here's the beginning of the answer- and not the end of it, I'm sure.  The following is excerpted from John Hinderaker's blog at powerlineblog.com:

Yesterday the Department of Energy approved $1 billion in new loan guarantees to “green energy” companies. Drudge is headlining the fact that, as reported by Mark Hemingway in the Weekly Standard, most of that amount–$737 million–is going to SolarReserve LLC for a solar-thermal project in Nevada. SolarReserve’s “investment partners”–I take it that means owners–include the Pacific Corporate Group’s Clean Energy and Technology Fund. One of Pacific Corporate Group’s principals is Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law, Ronald Pelosi. Another of SolarReserve’s owners is Argonaut Private Equity, whose managing director, Steve Mitchell, is on Solyndra’s board of directors.

My guess is that government underwriting of SolarReserve’s project is a horrible idea. But suppose it isn’t: who is going to believe that the Obama administration wasn’t influenced by Pelosi’s brother-in-law’s involvement in the project? Likewise, who will believe that Democratic donor George Kaiser’s involvement in Solyndra was irrelevant to the government’s misbegotten support for that company? Hemingway writes that “[i]t’s increasingly hard to tell the government’s green jobs subsidies apart from the Democrats’ friends and family rewards program.”

Ron Pelosi?  Are you kidding me?  Isn't his sister in law, Nancy, the one who also got all those ObamaCare waivers for businesses, both big and small, in her congressional district?

If this doesn't indicate that the "green" loan guarantee program is a massive payoff from the Obama administration to Democrats it owes big-time favors to, it is the best imitation of it that I have ever seen.

Every day, the Green Scandal stench gets deeper and deeper.  And every day that mainstream media - or, more accurately, our "accomplice media" - do not make this scandal lead-story news, is a day their bias on behalf of Barack Obama disgraces them even more than it already has.

When do they start acting like they are actual journalists and not Obama PR flaks?  Ever?

Ken Berwitz

The classic movie Frankenstein, starring Boris Karloff, was released in 1931.  It was a sensation - one that begged for a sequel.  But there was a problem:  the monster died.

However, this was Hollywood, fantasyland, so the problem was easily overcome.  For decades afterwards, scriptwriters kept inventing increasingly ridiculous plot scenarios in which the monster, so dead at the end of the last movie, somehow managed to be resurrected for the next one.  Ditto for the wolfman.  Ditto for Dracula.

And since it worked - i.e. audiences were willing to suspend disbelief and buy in so they could get another dose of horror, similar deus ex machina techniques have also been used in more recent movie series', like Halloween and Nightmare On Elm Street (Just like Frankenstein's monster, and the wolfman, and Dracula, somehow, Jason and Freddy never die either).

Well, when it comes to bringing horrible entities back from the dead, Hollywood has nothing on the Obaminable administration we are now suffering with.  It has resurrected its own monster, much worse than any that tinsel town ever thought up. 

ACORN lives.

Read this excerpt from a release by Judicial Watch, and see for yourself:

Judicial Watch, the public interest organization that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released “The Rebranding of ACORN,” a special report on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) network, following an extensive investigation of the organization’s transformation into various “spinoffs” and affiliated organizations.

The ACORN-affiliated groups existing today are ACORN in all but name. These groups tend to occupy ACORN’s former offices, are staffed in many cases with former ACORN employees, and remain committed to ACORN’s mission. Overall, Judicial Watch has documented 17 ACORN-affiliated organizations in the following states/regions: Arizona, Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New England, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington.

That's right.  ACORN may be working under different names, with different kinds of cover for what it really is.  But that is ACORN nonetheless. 

Did you really think Barack Obama and his people would willingly give up such a rich source of votes - legal or otherwise - for the coming elections?  Not a chance.

Do yourself a favor:  use the link provided above and read Judicial Watch's report.  Then, if you are sufficiently enraged by the fraudulent little dog and pony show ACORN foisted on us last year, the one where it claimed to cease operations while, in reality, just conducting business as usual with a slightly different veneer, then I suggest you spread the word.  Not just to your friends and neighbors, but maybe the newspapers and your congressional representation as well.

This cannot, and should not, stay under the radar.  And if you're waiting for our "accomplice media" to rat out ACORN and its Democrat benefactors on their own, forget about it.

The time to act is now.  I've just done my part.  I suggest you do yours.

Ken Berwitz

"Is it just me, or do you also find that the people who scream "racism" the loudest very often are the people who interject it the most?":  Me, in a blog just yesterday. 

Want another example?  Read this little slice of idiotica from janeane garafolo - who seems determined to provide more of it than anyone else in show business (which, admittedly, would be quite a feat).  It comes to us from realclearpolitics.com, and if you have the stomach for it you can click here to see the accompanying video:

Janeane Garofalo: "Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same.

"People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"

As you can see, janeane garafalo's answer is racism.  The only issue is how to frame the question.

In the world of garofalo, Herman Cain, as a Black, tea party-sympathizing conservative, must therefore be a racist tool.  His reasons - the experiences, thoughts and ideas which lead him to his beliefs?  Not worth listening to.  He's just a racist, remember? 

After all, Herman Cain is only someone who rose from nothing to become CEO of a major company, Director of a Federal Reserve bank and a successful radio talk show host.  How can that compare to the brilliance of comedian, actress and failed talk show host janeane garafalo?

Nope, nothing worth considering here.  He's just a "Black man" not thinking the way janeane garafalo feels all Black men should think.  So he must be a racist, because he is not in sync with garofalo's stereotype of what is acceptable for Black men to think.

Amazing, isn't it, how much racism emanates from people who profess to be against racism?

Ken Berwitz

Readers of this blog certainly do not need a heads-up on what Project Gunrunner/Operation Fast and Furious is.

That said, Frank Miniter, writing for Forbes Magazine, has an excellent piece about this enormous, deadly scandal. You can read it all by clicking here.  But I am posting Mr. Miniter's first paragraph below, because it may well be the most important of his article:

Why a gunrunning scandal codenamed “Fast and Furious,” a program run secretly by the U.S. government that sent thousands of firearms over an international border and directly into the hands of criminals, hasn’t been pursued by an army of reporters all trying to be the next Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein is a story in itself.

Truer words were never written.

How is it possible that a story like this - the United States government intentionally running illegal guns to Mexican Drug Cartels, and our own agents - at least two of them - almost certainly killed by those guns - does not have investigative reporters crawling all over it? 

Why - with some, but nowhere near enough exceptions - has this monumental scandal not become the biggest news story of the year? 

Border agent Brian Terry, customs agent Jaime Zapata, and who knows how many others, are dead because of this insane operation.  Do their lives mean nothing?  Is protecting Barack Obama more important than reporting what has happened? 

How many others will die as a result of Operation Fast and Furious before what passes for media in this country decide it might be important to inform the public?

Journalism in this country may not be dead.  But if this is any indication, it is on life support.  And fading fast.

Ken Berwitz

It was the eighth inning of last night's game.  The Yankees were beating Tampa Bay 7 - 0, despite Yankee Manager Joe Girardi's decision not to use a regular starting pitcher, but instead use a hodgepodge of  minor league prospects, starters being tossed in for a few outs (as opposed to actually starting the game), and no-names.

This was a disgrace.  Though the Yankees had already secured their playoff position, this game decided whether Tampa Bay or the Boston Red Sox made it to the playoffs.   Girardi owed it to baseball to play the game as if it mattered, because it did matter.

Tampa Bay loaded the bases.  At this point, if Girardi were managing a real game, Dave Robertson, his eighth inning setup man, would have been brought in to pitch.  But he wasn't.

Tampa bay scored three runs.  It was now 7 - 3 with two outs, two on and home run hitter Evan Longoria up -an absolute must situation for either Robertson or the Yankees' great hall of fame closer Mariano Rivera.  But both of them sat, Longoria hit that home run, and now it was a 7-6 game.

In the 9th inning, there is only one man the Yankees would send out to close a game they gave a damn about winning.  Mariano Rivera.  But they sent out a different pitcher instead, another home run was hit, and the game was tied.

The Yankees lost 8 - 7 in the 12th inning, by virtue of Longoria hitting another home run off a pitcher who had not done well at all with the Yankees and had no business being on the mound.  Neither Robertson nor Rivera ever got into the game. 

Meanwhile, the Boston Red Sox completed their monumental September collapse by losing to the Baltimore Orioles.  So, instead of a playoff game with Tampa Bay tomorrow to determine which team would advance to the playoffs, their season is over.

It is true that this happened due to the combination of Tampa Bay winning and Boston losing.  But Boston manager Terry Francona did everything he could to win and it didn't happen.  By contrast, Yankee manager Joe Girardi intentionally did not do everything he could to win.

About the best thing I can say is that, technically, Girardi didn't throw the game. 

But, because of Yankee manager Joe Girardi's disgraceful "I don't care if we lose" managing, Boston is out - and Francona, a great manager who led the Red Sox to their first two world championships in 90 years, may well be fired.

I hope you're happy Joe. 

As a Yankee fan of many years, let me say that it will be damn hard to root for them in the playoffs this year.  Thank you, Joe, for that too.

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

NOTE:   I just spoke to my son, at least as much of a Yankee fan as I am, and he disagrees with me completely.  He feels that Robertson and Rivera - especially Rivera, given that he is 41 years old - pitched the day before and should have been withheld for this game so they'd be sufficiently rested for the playoffs.  "What if Rivera got hurt" is one of his points.

Frankly, though he is very smart and very persuasive, my son did not convince me.  How about you?

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I blogged about North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue suggesting that we suspend elections in this country.  I referenced the Raleigh News and Observer article, which had as its headline "Perdue jokes about suspending Congressional elections for two years", as if there were no doubt that she was just being facetious - even though the article itself indicated she probably was serious.

Well, I think we have our answer - via a somewhat redeeming follow-up article by the News and Observer.

Listen here to the actual audio of Governor Perdue's comments, and you will know for certain that this was no joke at all.  Her tone is deadly serious, she makes no "funny" cracks about it before or after it is said, and she neither waits for, nor gets, any laughter in the room.

What an ignorant, constitutionally challenged imbecile.  What an embarrassment that the state of North Carolina elected her.

Now, when do our wonderful "neutral" media jump all over this - you know, the way they would if Ms. Perdue were a Republican instead of a Democrat? 

I'll wait and see, but I'm not confident.

Ken Berwitz

I don't mean to write so much about the Green Scandal (as opposed to the other scandals in progress during this woefully incompetent, corrupt administration).  But the bad news just keeps coming.  And since I am not part of President Obama's "accomplice media", I don't want you to be uninformed. 

How has President Obama and his energy department reacted to the Solyndra disaster?  The answer is right on this chart, which I pulled from an article by Sean Higgins at Investors Business Daily:

 

Can you even believe your eyes? 

The Department of Energy - which is the source of these data - is considering loans totalling about 6.5 billion dollars, to companies offering no guarantee of success (just like Solyndra), which would - if you believe their estimates - create or save a grand total of 3,650 jobs, 283 of them permanent.

That is about $1,800,000 per total number of jobs - and about $23,000,000 per permanent job. 

But if you split the difference on 'create' vs. 'save", it means the total number of created jobs would cost about $3,600,000, and each permanent created job would come in at about $46,000,000.

Has this administration taken leave of its effing senses?

Wasn't it bad enough that the taxpayers were taken to the cleaners for over half a billion dollars in Solyndra scandal?  Is Obama & Co. so proud and happy with that disaster that it wants to risk flushing another $6.5 billion down the toilet?

The answer, obviously, is yes.

And will you be seeing/hearing/reading about this disaster anywhere but at IBD and the blogosphere?  For the most part, no - because the "accomplice media" sure as hell isn't talking about it.  Not while there's an election to help Barack Obama win.

Never in my life have I felt this country was in as much trouble as I feel it is in now.

Oh, one other thing:  I wonder if anyone has checked to see how many of these companies have major Democrat donors involved.  Would you like to take bets on what they would find?

Ken Berwitz

When Barack Obama was running for President, one of his key campaign promises was that he would restaore the United States' international prestige. 

So how's that working out?

Read this excerpt from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's column for the London Daily Telegraph and see:

German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble said it would be a folly to boost the EU's bail-out machinery (EFSF) beyond its €440bn lending limit by deploying leverage to up to €2 trillion, perhaps by raising funds from the European Central Bank.

"I don't understand how anyone in the European Commission can have such a stupid idea. The result would be to endanger the AAA sovereign debt ratings of other member states. It makes no sense," he said.

Mr Schauble told Washington to mind its own businesss after President Barack Obama rebuked EU leaders for failing to recapitalise banks and allowing the debt crisis to escalate to the point where it is "scaring the world".

"It's always much easier to give advice to others than to decide for yourself. I am well prepared to give advice to the US government," he said.

The comments risk irritating the White House. US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has been a key driver of plans to give the EFSF enough firepower to shore up Italy and Spain, fearing a drift into "cascading default, bank runs and catastrophic risk" without dramatic action.

Is this what Mr. Obama had in mind?

The truth is that under Barack Obama our international prestige, which certainly could have used the boost he promised, has instead been tattered, shattered and shredded.  Thinking specifically of economic policy, we are now a laughingstock, disdained even by countries which have their own financial problems. 

The United States is seen as a gigantic glass house which throws stones anyway, that is run by a clueless, overmatched head of state.  And - how hard it is to acknowledge this - under the current administration, that is exactly what we are.

And the fact that President Obama promised us something very different than what he delivered? What about it?   How does that differ from just about every promise he made. 

What, exactly, has improved since Barack Obama took office?  That is not a sarcasm, it is a serious question.  Can you name anything at all? 

And if you can't, don't just give the "credit" to President Obama.  Let's not forget his huge-majority Democrat congress - both houses - which spent two years seconding everything Mr. Obama foisted on us.

The "stimulus package"?  An unmitigated disaster that put us trillions more into debt while unemployment went up, not down.  ObamaCare?  Another money pit that, according to most major polls, the country doesn't even want.  Our borders?  Swiss cheese.  Our immigration policy?  Illegals are welcome - don't forget which party welcomed you, folks.  The Justice Department?  As one clever wordsmith put it, under eric holder it is the Just-us Department.  Our national prestige?  What national prestige? 

In 2010, voters went a good distance toward undoing this mess, by reversing the Democrat majority in the house and halving it in the senate.  Next year we have an opportunity to go the rest of the way.  

Will we?  Can we afford not to?

Ken Berwitz

Here is an editorial from the Manchester (New Hampshire) Union-Leader.  The editorial is so short I can't realistically excerpt it.  But it has more than enough importance to make up for the lack of words - especially the part I've put in bold print:

A NH Solyndra? Wind farm gets fed loan

In the name of “green energy,” the Obama administration is using taxpayer money to subsidize a New Hampshire wind farm that is a subsidiary of a hugely profitable company.

New Hampshire’s largest wind farm, the Granite Reliable Power project under construction in Coos County, is jointly owned by BAIF Granite Holdings, LLC and Freshnet Wind Energy, LLC. BAIF owns 75 percent of Granite Reliable. BAIF Granite Holdings was created earlier this year by Brookfield Renewable Power, which is a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management of New York.

That company, which runs clean energy operations around the world, has deep pockets. It reported net income of $454 million in 2009 and $3.2 billion in 2010. Brookfield Renewable Power financed the creation of BAIF Granite Holdings from its Brookfield Americas Infrastructure fund, which was reported in February to have $2.7 billion in assets. With that kind of backing, it is curious that the U.S. Department of Energy announced it would guarantee up to 80 percent of a $168.9 million loan for the Granite Reliable wind farm project last week.

Why would a company created by a $3.2 billion company and backed by a $2.7 billion private fund need federal loan guarantees? That would be an important question at any time, but it is more pertinent after the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a solar-panel maker that got a $535 million federal loan guarantee from the Obama administration last year.

Granite Reliable’s wind farm is not proven, and Granite Reliable is a limited liability company, which provides broad investor protection if the company goes down. If the wind farm flops, and investors cut their losses, the taxpayers stand to lose $135 million. What is the justification for risking $135 million in public money, especially on a company with access to so much private cash? Apparently, the justification is that Obama likes “green power” and wants to associate himself with it.

With the country running deficits as far as the eye can see, the Obama administration opts to spend money we don’t have to subsidize a risky venture undertaken by the subsidiary of a huge, profitable company. If that doesn’t perfectly illustrate what is wrong with crony capitalism in general and the Obama administration’s practice of it in particular, we don’t know what would.

The Green Scandal is huge.  And getting even bigger. 

Oh, by the way, The New York Times did not favor us with even one word about the Green Scandal this morning.  Nor did the Today Show - though Today did find time to do a ton of reporting on the Michael Jackson trial.

Their apparent motto?  "Keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em.  Go Barack go"

Ken Berwitz

In 1729 Jonathan Swift, addressing the cruel, heartless conditions of poor people in Ireland, wrote "A Modest Proposal", which suggested that the poor might benefit if their children were eaten.  In one especially acerbic passage, he said:

"I grant this food may be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for Landlords, who as they have already devoured most of the Parents, seem to have the best Title to the Children."

"A Modest Proposal" was a sensation, and has endured for almost three centuries as brilliant satire and social commentary.

But, not to be outdone, Governor Beverly Perdue of North Carolina has come up with her own "Modest Proposal" for solving the USA's economic woes.  She doesn't want to eat children, she just wants to suspend elections.

Think I'm kidding (and I don't blame you if you do)?  Than read this account, excerpted from the Raleigh News and Observer -- please be sure to take note of the difference between its title and the body content I've put in bold print:

Perdue jokes about suspending Congressional elections for two years

Speaking to a Cary rotary club today, N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue suggested suspending Congressional elections for two years so that Congress can focus on economic recovery and not the next election.

"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that," Perdue said. "You want people who don't worry about the next election."

The comment -- which came during a discussion of the economy -- perked more than a few ears. It's unclear whether Perdue, a Democrat, is serious -- but her tone was level and she asked others to support her on the idea.

Did she actually say that?  Yes.

Did she actually mean that?  Well, the headline says no.  But the article says maybe, with a strong lean toward yes.

My congratulations to the Raleigh News and Observer for making it impossible to reconcile its headline with its story.  It isn't every day you see this done as clearly.  

Regarding Ms. Perdue's modest proposal?  I have to wonder whether it has anything to do with the fact that a) Democrats got their clocks cleaned in 2010 and b) with the economy even further down the toilet now, they stand to take another drubbing in 2012, maybe even losing both houses of congress and the Presidency in the bargain.

Yep, suspend those elections.  Quick.  Just call it part of the "stimulus" package.

Ken Berwitz

When I was growing up there was a cute little novelty song about a sailor teaching his European girlfriend about the USA.  In it she sang about what she had learned.  Among the lyrics "San Francisco is in Chicago, Arizona is in Wyoming..."

I am happy to report that the Obama administration has corrected this young woman's geography.  It has shown her that Arizona is not in Wyoming.  Colorado is.

At this point you probably are saying something like "Huh?". 

Ok, fair enough.  By way of explanation, here is the map that the Obama administration included among the press credentials for Mr. Obama's latest campaign swin....er, lecture tour to explain the Jobs Act:

 

 \

 

The President will be in Seattle.  Seattle is in Washington.  Washington is highlighted.  So far, so good.

The President will be in San Jose, San Diego and Los Angeles.  They are in California.  California is highlighted.  Perfect.

The President will be in Denver.  Denver is in Colorado.  And Colo...... hey, wait a minute.  That highlighted state is not Colorado, it's Wyoming.

Whoops.

Personally, I just laugh this stuff off.  It happens all the time and is nothing with nothing. 

But I do have one question:  What do you suppose the media would be saying about this map if it had been put out by the Bush administration? 

I'll leave you to your imagination.....

Ken Berwitz

Here is an absolutely asinine attack based on nothing rational.  It comes from MSNBC (pardon my redundancy).

When President Obama addressed the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) he did not speak to them the way he speaks to general audiences.  His speech patterns changed to something appreciably more 'down-home Black".  He accomplished this by, among other things, dropping the "g" in words that end in "ing".  

What Mr. Obama was doing was pandering to his Black audience, much as a Jewish politician talking to a Jewish audience might pander to it by intentionally tossing in a few hebrew expressions he would not use elsewhere.

I suppose this can be viewed as offensive, and maybe it should be.  But as offensive things go it is pretty mild stuff.

The problem, however, involves the fact that, when reporting Mr. Obama's comments to the CBC, a great many news venues "cleaned up" his speech pattern by putting back the "g"s.  But the Associated Press did not; it reported the speech pattern as Mr. Obama said it, without the "g" sound. 

Should the Associated Press have done this?  Of course it should have.  This was no slip of the tongue, it was an intentional speech pattern that the President used for a specific reason.  And the corollary - that other news venues should not have "cleaned it up", is every bit as true for exactly the same reason.

Enter MSNBC.

The following is excerpted from Paul Joseph Watson's blog at infowars.com:

“Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes,” Obama lectured the audience. “Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on. We have work to do.”

 

However, after the Associated Press accurately transcribed Obama’s dropped g’s, MSNBC aired a debate segment asking whether the decision not to “clean up” Obama’s words was “racist”.

 

“On MSNBC, the African-American author Karen Hunter complained the news service transcribed Obama’s speech without cleaning it up as other outlets did–specifically including the “dropped g’s,” reports Yahoo News.

 

“Hunter called the AP’s version “inherently racist,” sparring with New Republic contributing editor and noted linguistics expert John McWhorter, who argued the g-less version “is actually the correct one,” noting that the president’s victory in the 2008 election was due, in part, to how effortlessly “he can switch into that [black] dialect.”

 

It goes without saying that Hunter’s claim is completely ridiculous. Obama’s dropping of his g’s was blatantly deliberate. If the AP had “cleaned up” his speech it would have been completely misleading and inaccurate.

 

Hunter claimed the AP transcriber didn’t “fix” Obama’s grammar because of the color of his skin, while failing to mention the fact that transcripts of George W. Bush’s speeches were routinely transcribed (accurately) by including dropped g’s and other idiosyncratic styles of speech. She then ventured further into the realms of absurdity, claiming the AP writer was using a secret “code” through which to express his racism.

 

As we have documented on numerous occasions, the establishment likes to play the race card in characterizing any criticism, or even any portrayal that could be considered unsympathetic, of Obama as racist. MSNBC has proven itself adept at this dirty trick.

 

During an appearance on MSNBC’s The Last Word recently, talking head Richard Wolffe mused that Republican opposition to Obama making a speech on a date that clashed with a presidential debate was down to “the color of his skin”.

 

Back during the Obama Joker poster era, when depictions of the President as the fictional character out of Batman were deemed racist by the establishment media despite identical images being produced of Bush as the Joker for years before, MSNBC host Carlos Watson insinuated that calling Obama a “socialist” to criticize his big government agenda was secret code for a racist slur.

Is it just me, or do you also find that the people who scream "racism" the loudest very often are the people who interject it the most?  

For these people, racism seems clearly to be their all-purpose answer for anyone who disagrees with them about Barack Obama, so they constantly seek out opportunities to use the accusation, no matter how ridiculous and unfounded they might be. 

That certainly is what has happened with the AP's wholly accurate reporting of Mr. Obama's speech.  And, as Mr. Watson points out, this is no isolated instance for MSNBC.  Their "analysts" (if you can use that word to describe them) repeatedly invoke racism at the drop of a hat (or of a "g").

Racism is real.  It is odious.  It should be fought and stopped at every turn.  But one of the major impediments to doing so is idiotic accusations like the ones enumerated above, which trivialize racism into something more deserving of derisive laughter than serious attention.

Shame on Karen Hunter.  Shame on Richard Wolffe.  Shame on Carlos Watson.  And, most of all, shame on MSNBC.

Ken Berwitz

In case you still need a reason to vote Obama administration out of office, try this one on for size.

President Obama's Treasury Secretary, Timothy "Tax Cheat" Geithner, believes that government-created jobs, at a cost of $200,000 per job, are our single best job creation option.

No, I'm not making this up.  It isn't a satire, he really said it.  Read the following excerpts from Ben Forer's article at ABC World News and see for yourself:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner didn't dispute a Harvard economist's estimate that each job in the White House's jobs plan would cost $200,000, but said the pricetag is the wrong way to measure the bill's worth.

And he also pointed out, in an interview today with ABC News' David Muir, that there is no other option on the table for getting the economy moving and putting more people back to work.

"You've got to think about the costs of the alternatives," Geithner said when asked about Harvard economist Martin Feldstein's calculation that each job created by President Obama's American Jobs Act would cost taxpayers about $200,000.

"If government does nothing, it does nothing now because they're scared by politics or they want to debate what's perfect, then there will be fewer Americans back to work, the economy will be weaker," he said.

Has Timothy Geithner ever heard of the free market?  Has he ever noticed that when businesses are liberated to innovate, invest and expand, it creates employment?  Can he possibly believe that government-created jobs - at a cost of $200,000 per job - is a better idea than letting the free market work? 

This, folks, is the genius Barack Obama put in charge of our Treasury. 

And, in case you think I'm the only one who noticed, here is a tiny sampling of comments by readers of the article (believe me, there were tons to pick from):

"How did that man graduate High School?It's bad when "[Greece] borrowed a lot and they spent too much", but it's good for America?Stimulus didn't work last time, why would it work this time?Please get those morons out of the way so the US can get back to work."

 

"Can they please get someone in the WH administration that has actually worked for a living and made a payroll. It might be worth $200k per job, if we could afford it, but it's not the government's job to create jobs. Most of the jobs Obama proposes are temporary jobs that last a year or two and then the projects are over. We have got to get the private sector creating permanent jobs but these dolts in DC can't seem to see beyond a two year horizon. Gee, I wonder why."

 

"Japan did the same exact thing a decade ago. One "stimulus" after another...each time claiming that the previous "stimulus" was not great enough.The Japanese learned their lesson. You can't spend your way out of debt just like you can't "dig" your way "out" of a hole."

 

"Geithner is proof that an Ivy League education doesn't really prepare one for real life. Spending all that money for a so called education did not fix Timmy's stupid."

Do you still need a reason to vote the Obama administration out of office? 

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday, only because I happened to see his latest numbers, I blogged - for the first time in months - about keith olbermann.

This morning, however, the New York Times has an article By Bill Carter which blames MSNBC's recent drop in viewership on olbermann's departure.  This flies in the face of my conclusions.  So now I have to write a second blog to debunk what Mr. said.

Here are the relevant excerpts from his article in rust, with my responses in blue:

How badly has MSNBC been hurt by the loss of Keith Olbermann? Enough, apparently, to be on the verge of falling back into third place among the cable news networks.  OK, we have the premise of Carter’s article:  MSNBC’s drop in viewership is a direct consequence of olbermann's leaving.  

 

For the month, CNN averaged 257,000 viewers in prime time in the category that counts most to the networks — viewers between the ages of 25 and 54 — because that is where the advertising money goes for news programming. MSNBC was just barely ahead with 269,000 viewers. (Neither approached the leader, Fox News, with 526,000).   Thanks for the numbers, Bill.  Waiting for proof that olbermann’s departure had anything to do with this.

Both CNN and MSNBC had one especially strong night because of the Republican presidential debates. With those excluded, however, CNN beat MSNBC, 219,000 to 207,000. A year ago, when Mr. Olbermann still occupied the 8 p.m. hour, MSNBC edged CNN by 83,000 viewers, with 256,000 viewers for MSNBC to 173,000 for CNN.  Now we're gettiong somewhere.  If olbermann’s leaving MSNBC were the one and only change since then, Carter may have a valid point.  However…

The change in the September ratings was most noticeable at 8 p.m., where CNN has moved its best-known host, Anderson Cooper. The network’s performance during that hour has improved by 38 percent over last year, growing to 215,000 viewers from 156,000.  Wait a minute.  Y’mean there’s something else that happened, which worked out dramatically well for CNN at the expense of MSNBC?  Well, well, well.  Suddeny the argument that olbermann was the one and only reason is gone with the wind. 

On MSNBC, meanwhile, Lawrence O’Donnell has lost 100,000 viewers from the numbers Mr. Olbermann posted last September, with 185,000 viewers in the 25-to-54 age group, a drop of 35 percent. (Bill O’Reilly on Fox, as always, dwarfs his competitors with about three times as many viewers, 611,000.)  Funny, you didn’t mention the fact that O’Reilly lost about 100,000 viewers too.  How come?  Because it refutes your premise about olbermann?  The fact is, cable news loses overall viewership in years without major elections. 

Mr. Olbermann is now on the air head-to-head against Mr. O’Donnell. The channel he appears on, Current TV, is not in the league of either CNN or MSNBC in terms of national profile, and his audience totals do not approach any of the other 8 p.m. competitors. The way that is put, you’d swear the difference was a lot bigger than it actually is.  For the record, MSNBC has coverage of about 90 million households, while Current TV is at about 60 million.

Mr. Olbermann averaged just over 50,000 viewers in the 25-to-54 measure in September, or less than 20 percent of what he attracted on MSNBC. Still, many of those 50,000 may have previously been viewers of MSNBC — and Mr. O’Donnell was 30,000 viewers behind Mr. Cooper in September.  We’ll stop right here.  Why?  Because since olbermann lost about 33% his coverage (90 million households down to 60 million) but over 80% of his viewership, it makes mincemeat of Mr. Carter’s premise that olbermann’s departure was the reason for MSNBC’s decline. 

In conclusion, I would suggest to Bill Carter that he read his own article - starting with the second paragraph.  If he does, that first paragraph will go away in about two seconds flat, because it makes no sense at all.

Case closed.

Ken Berwitz

If you are not a baseball fan, skip this blog.  But if you are........

These are the last few days of the baseball season.

I'm watching the game between the New York Yankees and Tampa Bay Rays.  Tampa is winning 5-2 in the bottom of the 8th inning.

The Boston Red Sox are losing to the Baltimore Orioles, also late in the game.

If both scores hold, Tampa Bay will tie Boston for the "wild card" playoff spot - and make up a 9 game deficit in, I believe, less than a month.

Obviously this is a hugely important game for Tampa Bay and an amazing comeback - not to mention the fact that they are playing the Yankees, baseball's single biggest draw.  Yet Tampa's stadium is only about 2/3 full, maybe even less.  It wouldn't surprise me if it were only half full.

This city does not deserve a major league team.  It certainly does not deserve a playoff team.

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

UPDATE:  According to the box score, attendance was 18,772 in a stadium that seats 34,078, which means that, if you believe the attendance report, only 55% of the seats were taken.  However, I'm not sure I do believe it.  As the old sarcasm goes, it looked like some of those 18,772 people "came disguised as empty seats".

If I owned this team I would consider moving it.  Fast.

Ken Berwitz

Chris Christie, the Governor of New Jersey, has a considerable weight problem. 

You would think that grownups would not make stupid, snarky, sarcastic "jokes" about Mr. Christie's weight.  But this is Christiane Amanpour's Good Morning America and MSNBC we are talking about.

Mark Finkelstein, of newsbusters.org, blogged yesterday about the juvenile double entendres about Christie barfed out by John Hendren and Christiane Amanpour during ABC's Good Morning America show. 

Today Mr. Finkelstein notes that this "story line" has continued with MSNBC's Martin Bashir, who had this to say (bold print is Mark's):

“The real will-he-or-won't-he fervor is around the massively popular New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. While Christie has said he won't run, he hasn't exactly pushed away from the table and left the room.  But if it's such a piece of cake to walk into the White House next year, why doesn't he do it?  Or is it possible that President Obama won't be that easy to roll over?”

That's a laff riot....among 6th graders taking a break from their food fight during lunch period.

But when it comes from a supposed adult?  Then it really isn't funny at all.  It just makes the "adult" look like a brown puckered asshole.

That goes for all three of you.  Try growing up.

Ken Berwitz

Speaking of someone I haven't blogged about in months....

On the off chance that anyone still cares, here is the latest news about keith olbermann's "Countdown" show on Current TV, from Jonathan Pearson's blog at filmindustrynetwork.biz:

After his promising debut on Al Gore’s network it would seem the host is struggling to keep his audience as his weekly average fell from 319,000 viewers in the first week on air to 142,000 for the 2nd week of September.

Ratings battles are nothing new but the Current TV show may have struggled in the past 2 weeks due to news events taking place elsewhere, Obama’s job speech, and competing channels with far higher distribution. Current TV is after all not a mainstream outlet for programming and can only reach roughly 60% of American households compared to CNN and MSNBC.

It was a valiant try, Jonathan.  But you just can't put a happy-face on those ratings.

At the time of his hasty-and-then-some departure from MSNBC, olbermann was drawing roughly 1,000,000 vewers a day.  If Current TV has about 60% of MSNBC's coverage (and the retained and unretained households have similar demographic profiles), a comparable showing for olbermann's show would be about 600,000 viewers per night.  But it is less than one-fourth that number. 

Please do not tell me the missing 75%+ is because of "news events taking place elsewhere", whatever that means.  CNN, MSNBC - and Fox (the cable news leader which Mr. Pearson somehow forgot to mention in his article) sure as hell didn't lose 75%+ of their coverage, did they? 

Maybe I'll check back at some point in the future and see if this changes -- assuming he is still on the show, that is.  keith olbermann doesn't have a very good record for staying power.  

Ken Berwitz

Let's start with a couple of quotes.

First we have President Obama, at last week's speech to the United Nations:

"America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable, and our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring,"

Then we have the "President" of Judea and Samaria (the west bank), abou abbas, speaking to a cheering throng of 200 Palestinian Arabs prior to making his speech at the United Nations:

"They talk to us about the Jewish state, but I respond to them with a final answer: We shall not recognize a Jewish state"

Given Mr. Obama's professed unshakable commitment to Israel and deep, enduring friendship, abbas' comment, it seems to me, would require a word or two from him.   

But there is more:  abbas presented his demand for a vote on statehood for "Palestine" on a document whose letterhead's logo shows a land area which includes all of Israel.  Not "disputed territories", but every square inch of it.  Here is the logo - take a good look at that green outline; see for yourself:

And, most significantly of all, there is the fact that abbas' faction, fatah, which controls the west bank, has just signed a "unity agreement" with hamas, which controls Gaza - and therefore is on board with its aims.

What are the aims of hamas?  Its charter calls specifically:

-For Islam to eliminate Israel (in its preface);

-For death to all Jews both in and out of Israel (article 7);

-For unequivocally rejecting all peace talks (article 13).

Please, please do not take my word for this.  I've provided a link to the hamas charter above.  I urge you to click on it and read the parts I am citing, so you will know that they are not being misquoted in any way.

Now a question:  If President Obama is unshakeably committed to Israel's security and friendship with Israel, why is it that we have not heard one word of criticism from him about what you have just read?  Not even a reference to it.

Not one stinking word. 

But it isn't as if we haven't heard from President Obama at all.  We've heard him demand that Israel stop building residential housing for Jews in its capital city of Jerusalem, haven't we?  And we've heard him demand that Israel must start its negotiations by going back to the "pre-1967 borders" - which (excuse a little historical accuracy here, Mr. President) were never "borders" at all;  they were armistice lines, with the borders to be determined through negotiations.

If you want a true look at President Obama's "commitment to Israel", there it is.

How anyone who cares about Israel, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, can vote for Barack Obama is beyond me.

And how anyone, regardless of his/her feelings about Israel, can ever trust Barack Obama to tell the truth about anything?  That is beyond me too.

Ken Berwitz

I would have loved to hear Maxine Waters' reaction if the President who told Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) members to stop whinin', stop complainin', etc. were White instead of Black. 

But I can't.  So I will have to settle for what Ms. Waters did say:

Interesting. 

Here is a summary of what Ms. Waters said: 

-We're not sure who you are talking about (the fact you said it specifically to us?  Irrelevant'n'immaterial).  We just found your words a bit curious.

-We know you're not talking about Hispanics.  We know you're not talking about gays and lesbians (quick aside:  I can never figure out why those two terms are separated as if the term "gay" doesn't apply to women as much as men).  We know you're not talking about Jews. 

-But not to worry.  We support you, Mr. Obama.  We are protecting your base (i.e. us).  We intend to back you enthusiastically.  (In other words, you can say whatever you want to us, and you'll still own our votes anyway).

Yep, that's what she'd have said to a White Democrat alright.  No racial discrimination here, sheeple.  Move along, move along....

Ken Berwitz

Are you aware that the Republican club of the University of California - Berkeley (yes, Virginia, there is a Republican club) is running an overtly racist bake sale? 

I'm not kidding about this either.  Different ethnicities will be expected to pay different prices for the same baked goods, with Whites paying the most and Blacks and "native Americans" paying the least.

You might at this point be saying "What a bunch of disgusting racists.  And they're just as stupid as they are racist, because it is being done right in front of everyone; they aren't even smart enough to hide their racism." 

But if you do, you will be missing the point of why the bake sale is taking place.

Excerpted from Holly Yan's article at CNN.com (the bold print is mine):

It's meant to be racist, and it's meant to be discriminatory.

 

But the controversial "Increase Diversity Bake Sale" hosted by the Berkeley College Republicans is still on, the club's president said, despite "grossly misguided comments" and threats aimed toward supporters of the University of California Berkeley student group.

 

During the sale, scheduled for Tuesday, baked goods will be sold to white men for $2, Asian men for $1.50, Latino men for $1, black men for $0.75 and Native American men for $0.25. All women will get $0.25 off those prices.

 

The bake sale is meant to draw attention to pending legislation that would allow California universities consider race or national origin during the admission process.

 

"We agree that the event is inherently racist, but that is the point," BCR President Shawn Lewis wrote in response to backlash to the event. "It is no more racist than giving an individual an advantage in college admissions based solely on their race (or) gender."

 

Berkeley's student government, the Associated Students of the University of California, held an emergency Senate meeting late Sunday to discuss the issue and passed a resolution that, in part, "condemns the use of discrimination whether it is in satire or in seriousness by any student group."

 

"I completely support the idea of BCR -- or any students on campus -- (having) political discussion," ASUC President Vishalli Loomba said. "I think student members of BCR have a full right to express their feelings, but I don't necessarily think this tactic is constructive. I strongly encourage them to engage in this dialogue in a more constructive manner, such as a forum or a town hall meeting.'

That puts things in a different light, doesn't it?

To me, the most telling part of the article is how Berkeley's student government is reacting.  They condemn the bake sale's discrimination - which is all fine and well.  But do you see any condemnation of the admissions policy - i.e. giving students of some races and national backgrounds an advantage, which inherently means giving all other races and national backgrounds a disadvantage:? 

Racism in admission standards is a bit more important than racism in a satirical bake sale.  Like about a million percent more important.  But not a peep about it from this bunch.  Use the link I've provided.  Read every word.  You won't find it there.

So what do we learn from this? 

We learn that UC-Berkeley is perfectly fine with overt racial discrimination in admissions to the school - both the administration and the student government, neither of which object in the least.  But they are outraged at a bake sale run exactly the same way for the purpose of demonstrating that the admissions system is engaging in overt racial discrimination.

I will end this blog with a simple question.  Who are the real racists at UC-Berkeley?

That's an easy one, wouldn't you say?

Ken Berwitz

That's a great title, isn't it?  I only wish I had come up with it.  But - honesty must prevail here - I did not.

Actually, that title was lifted from John Ransom's latest column at townhall.com, which I am excerpting below.  Mr. Ransom, like so many others - me included - has about had it with President Obama blaming everyone and everything else for his own failures.  

Barack Obama continued his stirring “It’s All Your Fault” campaign tour this week scolding crowds in New York, Ohio, Washington, DC and people on the West Bank and in Israel for not doing their jobs.

It seems that citizens around the world are screwing up what otherwise would have been a fun-filled four years of taxpayers’ subsidized vacations for Barry and Michelle. And Obama is hoping that will change.

“[I]f you love me, you've got to help me pass this bill," said Obama two weeks ago as he kicked off the desperation reelection tour. He was scolding a crowd in North Carolina about doing a homework assignment for him involving lobbying for his new tax increase.

"For those of you who did skip class today, I've got a homework assignment for you," continued Obama, "tell your Congress person that the time for gridlock and games is over; the time for action is now…. You can write a letter. When was the last time you did that?"

Very innovative strategy from the Obama administration: getting sixth-graders to write lobbying letters to Congress. “Did you pass it yet? Did you pass it yet? Did you pass it yet? Did you pass it yet?” They might get one vote from an annoyed John McCain.

“Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes,” Obama demanded of the Congressional Black Caucus over the weekend. The Caucus has been restless, pointing out that blacks are a lot worse off under Obama’s presidency than they were under Bush.

“Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’,” Obama continued. “We are going to press on. We have work to do.” 

That, readers, is the philosophy of Barack Obama.  It either works and he takes the accolades for it, or it doesn't work and you didn't do your part.  

It is worth remembering that Mr. Obama sits at the same desk where Harry Truman placed that famous saying "The Buck Stops Here".

The Obama saying is only slightly different, by just one letter.  In his mind "The Buck Stops There".

Maybe, after almost three years in office, it is time for President Obama to start taking responsibility for his own actions, even if they have resulted in the economic, social, energy, and foreign policy mess we currently are in.

When I was growing up, my mother used to refer to that as "acting like a big boy".  I bet she still does.  I'll ask her and get back to you.

Ken Berwitz

Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus, speaking to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz on CBS News' Face The Nation, about her defense of President Obama's performance:

"It sounds like the new slogan is no longer 'Hope and change', it's, 'Hey, it could've been worse'.  Great bumper sticker, Debbie. I hope it works for you."

Make of it what you will.

Ken Berwitz

Last night, President Obama addressed a racist Black group, "talked Black" to them, and informed them that they should join him to fight for jobs and opportunity - both of which have sunk like rocks for Black people since Mr. Obama became President.

How sick is that?  

From Mark S. Smith's article for the Associated Press:

Obama tells blacks to 'stop complainin' and fight

In a fiery summons to an important voting bloc, President Barack Obama told blacks on Saturday to quit crying and complaining and "put on your marching shoes" to follow him into battle for jobs and opportunity.

And though he didn't say it directly, for a second term, too.

Obama's speech to the annual awards dinner of the Congressional Black Caucus was his answer to increasingly vocal griping from black leaders that he's been giving away too much in talks with Republicans -- and not doing enough to fight black unemployment, which is nearly double the national average at 16.7 percent.

"It gets folks discouraged. I know. I listen to some of y'all," Obama told an audience of some 3,000 in a darkened Washington convention center.

But he said blacks need to have faith in the future -- and understand that the fight won't be won if they don't rally to his side.

"I need your help," Obama said.

Barack Obama addresses the Congressional Black Caucus, a segregated, Black-only organization, and uses language like "Stop complainin'?" and "Y'all"?  Could this man possibly be more of a panderer?  

Mr. Obama tells them to quit crying and complaining; to join him - as if by not following his instructions which (surprise, surprise) are to help him get re-elected - they are at fault for what has happened under his administration? 

But what about the fact that, under Barack Obama's leadership, Black unemployment has risen to its highest levels in 27 years?

As of the August data, overall, Black unemployment is at the horrific level of 16.7%.  Unemployment for Black males is at 19.1%.  And Black unemployment for teens is a staggering 46.5%.

Please keep in mind that this did not happen within months of Mr. Obama taking over from the Bush administration.  This is due to Black unemployment soaring now. 

It has been 2 3/4 years since Obama & Co. took over, and over 2 1/2 years since enactment of his so-called "stimulus package".

In January of 2009, when Barack Obama became President, overall unemployment was 8.1% and Black unemployment was 12.6%.  Now, after the "stimulus package" put us trillions of dollars into debt, overall unemployment is 9.1% and Black unemployment is 16.7%. 

Years ago, when WLIB (1190 AM New York) was a Black leftist talk radio station, I used to listen to its morning show host, Mark Riley.  One of his favorite sayings was "If we stand for nothing, we'll fall for anything".  I wonder what Mr. Riley would say now?  Maybe today he would be saying  "If we stand for something that isn't working, just because the guy offering it is Black, we've already fallen". 

And if he did, he'd be 100% right.

Ken Berwitz

How far are our "accomplice media" willing to go to protect Barack Obama from the burgeoning Green Scandal?

Read this excerpt from Brent Baker;s blog at newsbusters.org and see (the bold print is mine):

Appearing Friday before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the CEO and CFO of Solyndra both invoked their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.

But instead of highlighting the cover-up in the scandal of the $535 million federal loan trumpeted by the Obama administration to the solar panel manufacturer which went bankrupt, neither ABC nor NBC mentioned the development Friday night and CBS allocated a mere 25 seconds.

“Images of its executives taking the Fifth today are not the optics the White House had hoped for,” NBC’s Lisa Myers noted on Friday’s Today show, a concern the White House didn’t have to fear from NBC since its evening newscast didn’t bother to show any such images. Neither ABC’s GMA nor CBS’s Early Show offered a word about Solyndra on Friday morning.

The three evening newscasts each last ran a Solyndra story on Wednesday, September 14. Saturday’s NBC Nightly News didn’t catch up with Friday’s news. (College football bumped the CBS Evening News in all but the west and ABC does not produce a World News for any time zone on Saturdays during the college football

In recent days I have taken to using the term "accomplice media" - a reference to the many media venues which overtly work on behalf of President Obama by withholding negative information about his administration from their viewers/readers/listeners.

This is a classic example of what I am talking about. News - major news - is subordinated to protecting their lord high master, Barack Obama.

How can these people call themselves journalists?  How can they face real journalists?  How can they look at themselves in a mirror?

They are pathetic.

Ken Berwitz

Human Events has done us a great service by compiling its list of the top ten most egregious Green Job Fiascoes.  Here are #'s 1, 2 and 10.  But don't cheat yourself (why bother - as this article shows, the Obama administration is already doing that for you).  Be sure to click on the link I've provided and read them all:

1.  Solar debacle:  Solyndra Inc., which manufactured solar panels at its plant in Fremont, Calif., received $535 million in Energy Department loans, and President Obama talked glowingly about how the company was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.”  Instead of creating work for Americans after receiving taxpayer money, the company shipped half its manufacturing jobs to China.  In August, Solyndra declared bankruptcy and laid off 1,100 workers.

2.  Government Motors:  The bailout that General Motors​ received from the government came with a price:  The carmaker was tasked to create the ultimate green vehicle.  The result—the Chevy Volt​—is a product with an exorbitant price tag that nobody wants to buy.  Despite vast government subsidies, GM only sold 3,200 cars in the first eight months since the electric plug-in vehicles hit the marketplace.

10.  Almost two jobs created in Vegas:  Clark County, Nev., which happens to be the home of the gambling mecca of Las Vegas, received $490,000 in stimulus money from the U.S. Forest Service to plant trees in urban neighborhoods (more palm trees on The Strip?).  The stimulus that resulted from the grant to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home state created 1.7 jobs (one full-time employee and one part time) and 11 temporary jobs.  You get a better return for your money at the slot machines.

Keep in mind that Human Events hasn't posted all the fiascoes, just the ten it considers to be the worst.  There are plenty of (dis)honorable mentions as well.

All brought to you from those wonderful folks in Obamaland, that wonderful, magical place where the administration is determined to do just as great a job on your health care too.

Can we move up the 2012 elections?  Please?

Ken Berwitz

Earlier this week I  blogged about dennis gannon, a Chicago labor leader who, because of some too-clever-by-half wording in the state pension code, is now in line to collect $158,000 a year - by "virtue" (what an improper word that is) of being rehired for one day in 1994 and then put on "indefinite leave".

Think I'm kidding?  Think that's not possible?  Think again.  You can read all about it in Jason Grotto's article for the Chicago Tribune.

This stinks worse than a 100 year old outhouse hole. In other words, it is "The Chicago Way".

But just in case you think that dennis gannon is the only beneficiary of this beyond-disgusting fraud on union workers and the public at large, read the following excerpts from Mr. Grotto's latest article:

All it took to give nearly two dozen labor leaders from Chicago a windfall worth millions was a few tweaks to a handful of sentences in the state's lengthy pension code.

The changes became law with no public debate among state legislators and, more importantly, no cost analysis.

Twenty years later, 23 retired union officials from Chicago stand to collect about $56 million from two ailing city pension funds thanks to the changes, a Tribune/WGN-TV investigation found.

Because the law bases the city pensions on the labor leaders' union salaries, they are reaping retirement benefits that far outstrip the modest salaries they made as city employees. On average, their pensions are nearly three times higher than what the typical retired city worker receives.

No one from either the state Legislature or city government will take credit for the law, which passed in 1991, and the process of drafting pension legislation in Springfield is so shrouded in secrecy that there's no way of knowing exactly whom to hold responsible.

The Tribune and WGN-TV found that Senate President John Cullerton was one of only 10 lawmakers on the committee that inserted the changes into a much larger bill. He's also the only one who is still in office.

Cullerton, who declined to be interviewed for this story, denied being involved in the changes and issued a statement that acknowledged the law now looks like a bad idea.

"Municipal pensions should be for the hard-working municipal employees, who typically toil in obscurity, loyally contribute to the pension funds and aren't about to get rich off of their retirements," he said in a prepared statement. "Outliers such as those highlighted by the WGN and Tribune reports should be corrected in order to help restore the system's fiscal and public integrity."

You would be hard pressed to find legislation dirtier than this.  It reeks of backroom deals and complete disdain for honest, hard-working union members.

Like I said, "The Chicago Way".

Here's how I put it in the earlier blog:

There you go.  Raping the taxpayers.  Right in your face.  Cronyism at its very worst. 

 

In other words, The Chicago Way.  The way that Barack Obama learned first-hand on the streets as a "community organizer" (whatever that is), then a do-nothing state senator, which he parlayed into four years as a do-nothing US senator and now, over 2 1/2 years as a do-nothing-right President.

 

And the saddest part?  We deserve this.

 

Chicago certainly does.  When was the last time Chicago elected any serious Republican presence there?  Forget the mayoralty (which has not been held by a Republican since 1927!!) - when was the last time Chicago elected any serious contingent of city Republicans councilpeople?  Not a majority, mind you, just enough to force a little scrutiny regarding the political corruption that goes on there? 

Well, in the past 20 years, Chicago has had a grand total of.....one.  That's right.  Over the past 1/5 of a century, the Chicago city council, comprised of 50 members, has had a total of one Republican. 

 

And, be assured, that as long as Chicago continues to mindlessly, reflexively, elect Democrats, and virtually nothing but Democrats, it will get - and deserve - all the corruption that emanates from its self-imposed one party governance.

 

As for the country?  We elected Barack Obama - a man we knew nothing about, other than that he was a product of the Chicago political machine, and had exactly no qualifications for the office.  

 

In this world you get what you pay for.  Well, this is what we paid for and this is what we got.

 

Will the country be smart enough to change things next election day?  The fact that it even has to be asked is appalling.

Sadly, there is no need to change even one word.

Ken Berwitz

For years I have blogged that the United Nations is morally, spiritually and ethically dead. 

In his latest column, the Toronto Sun's Salim Mansur also argues that it has not had anywhere near the value to international peace and stability as it - and its supporters - claim.  Instead, it has degenerated into little more than a platform for dictators and murderers to lie in front of the cameras - and get international coverage of their lies.

Here is the last part of Mr. Mansur's column.  See if you agree:

Right from the outset of the UN’s founding, open societies were confronted with a barrage of lies from leaders of totalitarian powers — the former Soviet Union, its satellite states of Eastern Europe and Communist China.

It was not the UN that kept peace during the Cold War years between the free world and the totalitarian states, and neither did the UN contribute to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union and liberation of its European satellites.

Since the implosion of the Soviet Union, the largest voting bloc in the UN consists of countries from the Arab-Muslim world.

This is a bloc of countries that excels in the manufacture and promotion of half-truths and outright lies to compensate for its abject failure in meeting the basic needs of its own population.

In this bloc is Turkey that denies the genocide its rulers unleashed against Armenians, or Pakistan where military dictators ordered the rape and murder of their own people in former East Pakistan, or Syria where a despot sends tanks against unarmed civilians, or Iran whose rulers loudly deny the Holocaust and crush domestic opposition with hired thugs. The list goes on.

This year’s UN General Assembly session — or a carnival of lies — will once again rehash lies about Israel and claims about Palestinian rights as Western leaders engage in appeasing the hyenas and jackals of the Arab-Muslim world in our time. 

Is Mr. Mansur correct?  And, if he is, why do we have a United Nations which functions this way?  Can this organization be made relevant by establishing standards and expelling member states which do not meet them, or should it be disbanded altogether?

The League of Nations was formed by the winners of world war I (who else would form such an organization but the winners?).  It had wonderful aims.  And then, the more countries it let in, the lower its quality and the more diluted were its aims.  Eventually it disbanded. 

Is this not the same path the United Nations has taken?

Maybe what we need is to retain the UN, let it "function" (if that word even fits) at its present level - but also create a new international organization, spearheaded by the United States, which establishes specific behavioral criteria and is serious about restricting membership to countries which meet those criteria. 

Then, maybe, if/when it is up and running, we bug out of the United Nations, tell them to find another world headquarters - Tehran would be nice - and let the liars and haters rant to each other at will.

Ken Berwitz

My wife's cousin Laura used to describe hopeless situations as having "one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel".  Little did we know that she might have been describing an international currency.

Excerpted from James Chapman's article at London's Daily Mail:

World leaders were warned last night that they have just six weeks to save the euro from collapse.

On another day of gathering economic gloom, George Osborne savaged eurozone leaders for failing to get a grip on their towering debts.

The Chancellor set a deadline of six weeks – when leaders of the G20 group of leading countries will meet for crunch talks in France – for action.

He said: 'Patience is running out in the international community. There is a sense from across the leading lights of the eurozone that time is running out for them.

'The eurozone has six weeks to resolve this political crisis.' 

Greece is almost beyond hope.  Spain is a baby step behind.  Ireland, Italy and Portugal are fast approaching from the rear (or, more accurately, heading to the rear).  And the few European countries that are doing well by comparison certainly don't want to carry the load for them - especially since European countries have disliked, even hated each other for centuries.

Call me a pessimist, but that does not look much like a prescription for euro longevity.

What would the monetary and political ramifications be if the euro collapsed?  I am, to say the least, not knowledgable enough to say.  But some people better be.  And at least some of the "some people" better be in the United States.

Does this mean our go-to guy is Timmy the Tax Cheat Geithner?  God help us.

Ken Berwitz

I did not watch most of the Republican debate last night.   But all day I have been treated to reports that a soldier asked about rights for gay and lesbian military personnel and was booed by the audience.  I also read that Rick Santorum, who fielded the soldier's question, said he did not hear the boos, but would have admonished the audience if he had.

Based on those reports, I was ready to attack the audience, and at least consider giving the benefit of the doubt to Santorum about not hearing any booing.

But now that I have seen/heard the actual video of what happened?  My reaction is exactly opposite.

The audience watching this debate was extremely large.  And when Mr. Hill finished asking his question, I heard two people loudly boo - then, almost immediately thereafter, maybe several more booed less loudly.  I am certain the total number, out of hundreds and hundreds of people., was less than 10.  Moreover, I cannot know for certain whether the few boos after those two loud ones were aimed at Mr. Hill or the initial two booers.

To claim that "the audience booed", therefore, is an absolute lie. 

Here is the video below.  Click on it and see/hear for yourself (if you have trouble doing so, use the link I've provided above):

As for Rick Santorum:  his claim that he did not hear the boos is also an absolute lie.  A deaf man could have heard them.  Mr. Santorum made himself look ridiculous, and untrustworthy, by saying otherwise.

One more point:  Santorum's answer, which was that he would re-institute "Don't Ask/Don't Tell", and would not throw people out of the military for being gay, drew prolonged applause.  Since we're on the subject of honesty, it would have been nice to see/hear that mentioned by a few of the venues claiming the audience booed.  Too bad the sites I looked at made no mention of this fact.

Ken Berwitz

The Associated Press has published an "article" (I use the term under advisement, because it suggests neutrality) by Amy Teibel and Mohammed Daraghmeh, titled Palestinians Submit UN Statehood Bid.

Here is just a small excerpt of this article in rust, with my comments in blue.  See how you think it makes out in the neutrality department:

To be sure, Abbas' appeal to the U.N. to recognize an independent Palestine would not deliver any immediate changes on the ground: Israel would remain an occupying force in the West Bank and east Jerusalem and continue to severely restrict access to Gaza, ruled by Palestinian Hamas militants. Occupying force?  Occupying whose land?  Israel got Judea and Samaria (the west bank) from Jordan and Gaza from Egypt.  If either of those countries are demanding it back – and, believe me, neither is – then we can argue over whether it is occupied.  But if it is not demanded back by the countries Israel won it from, how is it “occupied”.  By what logic do Palestinian Arabs own it any more or less than Jews?  And by what logic to call Israel an occupying force in this article as if it were undeniably factual?  

The strategy also put the Palestinians in direct confrontation with the U.S., which has threatened to veto their membership bid in the Council, reasoning, like Israel, that statehood can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties to end the long and bloody conflict.  As discussed many times in this blog, so long as hamas, which rules Gaza, explicitly states in its charter that all of Israel is to be taken through jihad, and all Jews, both in and out of Israel, should be killed, and so long as fatah, which rules the west bank, maintains its “unity agreement” with hamas, thus legitimizing these requirements, there is no basis to negotiate.  Maybe Ms. Teibel and Mr. Daraghmed can explain how "we require that all of Israel cease to exist and all Jews die" is a negotiating position.  That I would love to hear.

Also hanging heavy in the air was the threat of renewed violence over frustrated Palestinian aspirations, in spite of Abbas' vow — perceived by Israeli security officials as genuine Really?  Based on what?  Name any Israeli of any authority who made this statement. Oh, you don't name anyone, do you?  I wonder why — to prevent Palestinian violence. The death on Friday of 35-year-old Issam Badram, in gunfire that erupted after rampaging Jewish settlers destroyed trees in a Palestinian grove, was the type of incident that both Palestinians and Israelis had feared would spark widespread violence.  Rampaging Jewish settlers?  Is that so?  According to whose account?  Does Israel agree?  If not, how do you know which side of the story is true?  You don't, do you?  But that didn't stop you from writing the Palestinian side as if it were a proven fact - which it is not. 

"We extend our hands to the Israeli government and the Israeli people for peacemaking," Abbas said. "Let us build the bridges of dialogue instead of checkpoints and walls of separation, and build cooperative relations based on parity and equity between two neighboring states — Palestine and Israel — instead of policies of occupation, settlement, war and eliminating the other," he said.  But you are not renouncing that “unity agreement” with hamas, are you, abbas? Therefore these words could not be emptier.

Sadly, this is what the Associated Press considers straight reporting, when it comes to Israel.

As they say in Tel Aviv, nishtu gedacht! (it shoudn't happen/may we be saved from it!)

Ken Berwitz

The more we find out, the worse this stinks.

Excerpted from Alexander Burns' blog at politico.com:

President Barack Obama will raise money in early October with a Missouri businessman whose company benefited from a $107 million federal tax credit to develop a wind power facility in his state.

 

Tom Carnahan, a scion of Missouri’s most prominent Democratic political family, is listed on Obama’s campaign website as a host of a $25,000-per-person fundraiser to be held in St. Louis on October 4.

 

His investment firm, Wind Capital Group, was helped by a sizable credit authorized in the stimulus, for an energy project in northwest Missouri.

 

Republicans argue that it’s inappropriate for the Obama campaign to raise money from a donor who has benefited directly from the Recovery Act.

Sad to say, this is nothing new.  It is the same formula we have seen before.  Give a bunch of money to Obama & Co., get a much bigger bunch back from Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer - then pray they don't find out about it.

Well, this time we are finding out about it.  And even usually complicit media venues are reporting it. 

Maybe this administration could be more corrupt and more inept.  But it would take some explaining to convince me of how. In fact, corruption appears to be just about the only thing it does competently.

I count the seconds until the 2012 election.

Ken Berwitz

Physically, Rick Perry doesn't look much like Michele Bachmann.  But his candidacy sure looks a lot like hers.  A big beginning with lots of hoopla, and then a continuing downward trajectory.

I did not watch a lot of the debate last night.  But based on what I have read from muliple sources, covering a range from supportive to nonsupportive of Republicans, Romney was far from perfect, but did well, Santorum did very well, and Perry started with a clever comment or two, but for most of the debate was awful.  He talked too much and said too little. Plus, in Republican primaries, his positions on immigration - very much including his position on in-state tuition for the children of illegals - is not going to win him any popularity contests.

To paraphrase the great W.C. Handy's line from Saint Louis Blues, in Rick Perry Republicans may well have "a man with a candidacy like a rock cast into the sea"  All he seems to be doing is sinking.

Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post's conservative blogger, thinks this may open the door for a Chris Christie candidacy.  I'm not sure about that, nor am I sure that would be a good thing for the Republican Party (I'm not sure it wouldn't be either, I just don't know).  But I wouldn't at all be surprised if Rick Perry's 15 minutes as a front runner are coming to an end.

Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from an article at the web site for Chicago radio stationWLS-AM:

CHICAGO (WLS) - Another top aide to President Obama is in Chicago talking about the bankruptcy of the solar power company Solyndra that got a big federal loan guarantee.

David Axelrod – Obama’s former senior adviser at the White House who is now back in Chicago running the president’s re-election campaign – is no joining former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in denying any knowledge of the Solyndra deal.

“I don’t know anybody associated with Solyndra and I know nothing about the project,” Axelrod said.

Last week Mayor Rahm Emanuel denied any knowledge of a developing scandal in Washington that dates back to his days as President Barack Obama’s chief of staff.

Emanuel was the chief of staff during the Obama administrations's green energy initiative when the loan was rushed through.

Yeah, right.

If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.  And a unicorn.  And a Smurf.  And a political administra....er, forget that one.  Apparently it already has been sold.

Ken Berwitz

Why are the voters turning on Barack Obama? 

-Is it the utter failure of this administration to get anything right? 

-Is it the "stimulus package" which put us trillions more in debt while unemployment rose anyway? 

-Is it ObamaCare, which the country does not want? 

-Is it the icy-cold shoulder he has given the UK and Israel, arguably our most loyal allies in the world? 

-Is it the free pass he gave ahmadinejad while democracy protesters were marching in the streets of Tehran? 

-Is it the kick he gave Hosni Mubarak out the door in Egypt, which appears to be resulting in the country turning towards fundamentalist Islam? 

Well, no.  It is none of those things.  Not in the eyes of Chris Matthews, anyway.

In the (amazingly myopic) eyes of Chris Matthews, it is racism.  It must be racism.  What else could it be?

Read this short transcript from yesterday's "Hardball" show, with Matthews talking to similarly race-obsessed Michael Eric Dyson, and see for yourself:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Professor Peterson, let me ask you about white votes.  Do you have a sense as you've looked at politics in America that there are some white voters who will vote for an African-American say once? And they will hold that person to a very rigorous standard. Perhaps a much higher standard than they would a white politician.  And they'll give them one shot and then they'll dump them the next time.  I look at this, I look at the Ed Brooke. I look at the senator from Illinois. I think about this--

 

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Carol Moseley Braun

 

MATTHEWS: Yeah, Carol Moseley Braun. I wonder if this is a phenomenon you professors have looked at analytically at all, this sense of, okay, you've got your shot, but let's see you do it, if it isn't really, really good, you know, you're out of there.

FYI:  Ed Brooke was a Black REPUBLICAN senator from Massachusetts, who lost his re-election campaign after admitting to having lied about his finances (which loses votes) during his divorce proceedings (which loses lots of votes in Massachusetts).  Maybe, just maybe, that had something to do with it.

Carol Mosely Braun was a one-term senator from Illinois, who lost her re-election bid in large part because (this is excerpted from wikipedia.com and is completely accurate):

Moseley Braun was the subject of a 1993 Federal Elections Commission investigation over $249,000 in unaccounted-for campaign funds. The agency found some small violations, but took no action against Moseley Braun, citing a lack of resources. Moseley Braun only admitted to bookkeeping errors. The Justice Department turned down two requests for investigations from the IRS.^[12]

In 1996, Moseley Braun made a private trip to Nigeria, where she met with dictator Sani Abacha. Despite U.S. sanctions against that country due to Abacha's actions, the Senator did not notify, nor register her trip with, the State Department. She subsequently defended Abacha's human rights records in Congress.^[13] Her former fiancé Kgosie Matthews, who also served on her campaign staff (in violation of U.S. immigration regulations^[14]), had been a lobbyist for the Nigerian government; Matthews would later leave the country. She had paid Matthews, a native of South Africa, a salary of $15,000 a month during the campaign

Could it just possibly be that this is why she lost? 

Also, Matthews neglected to mention that Ms. Braun challenged Rahm Emanuel in last year's Chicago mayoralty election.  She got virtually no support, despite the fact that Chicago is about 60% Black.  Are they all racists too?

Going back to Barack Obama:  No, Chris; it isn't that Barack Obama is suffering some kind of retroactive racism from White people who voted for him in 2008.  It is because he has been a lousy President.

And you have degenerated into a mindless drone, subordinating your not inconsiderable intelligence to wild-eyed left wing flights of fantasy.  You have become a ridiculous left wing wind-up toy. 

No wonder MSNBC keeps you on the air.

Ken Berwitz

The New York Times is finally doing significant reporting on the Green Scandal - specifically the Solyndra part of it. 

But, this being the New York Times, it still does whatever it can to protect its lord and savior, Barack Obama.

Today's Times has a front page story by Eric Lipton and John M. Broder on how Solyndra has probably scammed the taxpayers out of over a half billion dollars in loan guarantees.  And, if you search far enough in, you will even find damning evidence that the Obama administration agreed to the guarantees because a big-time donor and campaign bundler was Solyndra's major investor (more in this further on). 

But the first page headline?  "In Rush To Assist A Solar Company, U.S. Missed Signs".  No hint of corruption or cronyism, just that the U.S. was so eager to go green (which we all know is wonderful) that it missed signs of trouble (heck, with such good intentions anyone could make a little mistake, right?).

And when you go to the jump page (A21), the headline reinforces this claim:  "In Rush to Assist Solar Firm, Obama Administration Missed Warning Signs" 

Sadly, this turns a genuinely informational piece into a laughable attempt at partisan spin-doctoring.

You have to get to the 13th paragraph, well into the jump page, before you find the real story:

Some Republican lawmakers have raised questions about political interference in the loan decision, pointing to the fact that George B. Kaiser, a billionaire from Tulsa, Okla., was a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign and the backer of a foundation that is Solyndra’s leading investor. While he has met with top White House and administration officials multiple times, Mr. Kaiser and administration officials say they discussed issues related to his foundation, not Solyndra.

 

But during the period when Solyndra’s loan guarantee was under review and management by the Energy Department, the company spent nearly $1.8 million on Washington lobbyists, employing six firms with ties to members of Congress and officials of the Obama White House. None of the other three solar panel manufacturers that eventually got federal loan guarantees spent a dime on lobbyists.

 

Energy Department officials said the lobbying had no impact on their decisions. But Solyndra, which had been among 143 companies to express an interest in a loan guarantee and 16 that were asked to submit a formal application — ended up securing the first financial commitment. Solyndra’s loan guarantee was the highest of the four companies.

I wonder if Mr. Lipton and Mr. Broder mentioned in their original draft that the loan guarantees the other three solar companies got were a minuscule fraction of what was given to george kaiser-dominated Solyndra.  What I do know is that, somehow, this information did not make it into the article.

But, that aside, there is another very interesting element to the Solyndra story even further on in the article:

Bush administration officials had started the review of the Solyndra application in May 2008. They were anxious to approve the deal, because members of Congress were complaining that the loan guarantee program, signed into law in 2005, still had not given out its first award. But in the final weeks of the administration, Energy Department officials put the brakes on any loan commitment to Solyndra, partly out of concern that its costs made the price of manufacturing power capacity significantly higher than its competitors.

Can someone explain to me how the Obama administration could have "missed the signs" about Solyndra, when the previous administration "put the brakes on any loan commitment to Solyndra" because its costs made the eventual price noncompetitive"? 

That was not a "sign".  That was a decision:  one that the Obama administration had to have been fully aware of.

To me, this is a clear case of crony capitalism.  Barack Obama rewarded big-time donor and campaign bundler george kaiser by handing him a huge taxpayer-funded loan guarantee for a company that the government already knew was primed for failure. 

And let's not forget that one of the conditions set down by kaiser was that if (when is more like it) Solyndra went down, he, rather than the taxpayers, was first in line to be paid back from disposition of the company's assets.

So I congratulate the New York Times for publishing this story (though I suspect the only reason it did so was that the story is exploding anyway and would have to be published).  

But I also shake my head in disgust at the Times' clumsy attempt to spin it in a way that might cause some readers to think Solyndra was just an innocent gaffe, not due to the corruption of this consummately corrupt administration.

Ken Berwitz

After years of appeals, and the denial of a stay by the US Supreme Court, Troy Davis was executed last night for the murder of off-duty police officer Mark MacPhail in 1989.

Mr. Davis has always maintained his innocence.  And a number of witnesses subsequently recanted their testimony (why aren't they being punished?).

Personally, I am against the death penalty in almost all cases.  My main reason is that it is irreversible.  Mistakes cannot be undone; a graveside apology doesn't help.

Troy Davis probably did kill Office MacPhail.  But there is clearly an element of doubt.  And you don't execute someone when there is clear doubt. 

That is why I consider his execution a travesty of justice.

Ken Berwitz

Earlier today I congratulated President Obama for the political theater aspect of his "Jobs Act" speech, made while standing in front of a bridge that connects (John Boehner's) Ohio to (Mitch McConnell's) Kentucky. 

The fact that the bridge is not eligible for any of the Jobs Act funding?  Just a trifling little detail not worth worrying about.  Heck, President Obama gets bigger things than that wrong every day.

But, not to be outdone in the political theater department, Republicans are performing providing some of  their own.  And it is a beaut.

Excerpted from Alicia M. Cohn's blog at thehill.com:

Republicans demand Buffett’s tax returns

The GOP is making a concerted effort to pressure billionaire investment guru Warren Buffett to release his tax returns to the public.

Republicans say Buffett — the public face of Obama’s proposed “Buffett rule” to increase taxes on the wealthy — needs to reveal his finances if his views on tax rates are going to serve as the basis for Obama administration policy.

 

“Will Warren Buffett release his tax returns so we can see why he should be the standard for tax policy?” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) questioned in a tweet Thursday.

“If he’s going to be the gold standard, so to speak, in terms of what our tax policy should be, yeah, let’s look at it [his tax returns],” Cornyn told ABC News.

Buffett’s ties to the administration don’t end with the tax plan. He is also helping the president fundraise for his reelection campaign and has become a vocal champion of the administration’s deficit-reduction goals.

Buffett called on the administration to raise taxes on him and his "mega-rich" friends in an op-ed earlier in the year, and claimed he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. 

Republicans such as House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) have argued that the majority of Buffett’s income likely comes from capital gains, which have already been subject to a tax, and are placing the burden on Buffett to prove otherwise.  

Touché.  (Actually, a swift kick in Warren Buffett's touché).

Are Republicans making a legitimate demand?  I'd have to say they are, since Mr. Buffett blew the door wide open by claiming he pays a lower percentage of his income tax than his secretary does.

Will Whining Warren actually prove it, by showing us his complete, uncensored tax returns?  I doubt it.  But if he does not, you can bet that Republicans will immediately pigeonhole him as nothing more than another rich left wing hypocrite, spouting  phony pro-Obama rhetoric but unable to back any of it up with facts.

And y'know what?  They'll have a point.

Remember that old adage which warned that if you play with fire you might get burned?  Warren Buffett is now finding out what it means, first-hand.

And so is the President.  Because if Whining Warren doesn't come across with complete tax info, Mr. Obama is going to have to bury the term "Buffett Rule" even deeper than "stimulus" "man-made disasters" and "kinetic military action".

Does this administration ever get anything right?

Ken Berwitz

Elizabeth Warren is a lawyer, a philosopher, an author an academic and a political leftist who has worked (no surprise here) in President Obama's administration.  This, in Ms. Warren’s mind, apparently makes her an expert in what it means to be an entrepreneur. 

It doesn’t.

But since Ms. Warren has announced her candidacy for the United States senate, and – assuming she wins her primary – will run against Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown next year, I thought you might be interested in how she sees the entrepreneur class - i.e. people who innovate, create, take the risks, and, if they succeed, provide goods, services and employment to many people.

These are her own words, from just this past weekend. 

“I hear all this, y’know, well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.  No.

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own.  Nobody.

You built a factory out there?  Good for you.  But I want to be clear.  You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.  You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.  You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.  You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this because of the work the rest of us did.  

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea?  God bless.  Keep a big hunk of it.  But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Ken Berwitz

The Operation Fast & Furious scandal is getting even worse.  Again.

Excerpted from Michael A. Walsh's article in today's New York Post:

The stench from Washington is getting stronger. Rep. Darrell Issa has called for a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of the festering mess known as Operation Fast and Furious.

Hatched somewhere in the bowels of the Justice Department, that misbegotten scheme had the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives deliberately allowing high-powered guns to “walk” from Arizona and elsewhere into Mexico: Our agents turned a blind eye toward the straw purchasers who were funneling the weapons to the drug cartels.

The (dumb) idea was to trace cross-border arms trafficking, and so prove the (false) claim that 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexican drug war zones originate in the US. (The real figure is closer to 17 percent.) But, as Issa’s Oversight and Government Reform committee continues its investigation, that pretension has evaporated -- and a major international scandal has been born.

Marisela Morales, the Mexican attorney general, estimates that at least 200 Mexicans have been killed with Fast and Furious weapons -- among them, a powerful Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle that took down a federal helicopter. Morales, who calls the program a “betrayal” of her country, told the Los Angeles Times that she first learned about Fast and Furious from news reports, and that US officials still haven’t briefed their Mexican counterparts on it.

She shouldn’t feel lonely: The administration has been notably unforthcoming to everybody on this one. Eric Holder’s Justice has engaged in a rearguard battle against Issa’s committee -- turning over subpoenaed documents only slowly and heavily redacted, making witnesses unavailable and transferring or retiring implicated officials such as former ATF head Kenneth Melson. Issa has publicly accused Holder & Co. of “gaming” congressional investigators.

“There is an ongoing coverup of a pattern of wrongdoing,” Issa noted earlier this week. “Even though I have subpoena ability, I don’t have the ability to lock people up for contempt until they fess up and give us what we want.”

Locking people up will probably have to happen. For the evidence strongly suggests that Fast and Furious was hatched in the Justice Department in an attempt to paint law-abiding American gun dealers and gun owners as renegades, to give the administration an excuse to crack down.

In other words, it was a deliberate provocation, undertaken without a thought for how it might affect our relations with Mexico -- or how many people might die.

Of all the dirty dealings this administration is neck-deep in, this is the single worst.  People have died because of it - apparently including at least two of our own:  border agent Brian Terry and customs agent Jaime Zapata.  And that's all we know of so far -- who can say how many others there are and how many others there are going to be.

This scandal is so big that even some of the "accomplice media" have been reporting on it.  Let's hope, for the sake of what is left of our reputation, that they continue to do so, and clean out this festering boil of stupidity - no matter how far up the food chain it goes.  Even if it goes straight to the top - which there is a very good likelihood that it does.

Ken Berwitz

This is definitely a classic for the "you can't make this stuff up"  (or maybe a "you can't stuff this dumpling up") file.

From Reuters:

KIEV — A 77-year-old Ukrainian man won a jar full of sour cream for coming first in a dumpling eating contest and then promptly died, local media reported on Wednesday.

Ivan Mendel ate 10 dumplings in half a minute to win first place and a one-liter jar of sour cream in the contest held in the town of Tokmak in the southeastern Zaporizhya region on September 18, Fakty I Kommentarii newspaper said.

Shortly afterwards, Mendel became unwell and died, according to local news websites.

Dumplings, called "vareniki" in the former Soviet republic, are a staple of Ukrainian cuisine and are often stuffed with a range of fillings from mushrooms to cherries.

I'm sorry for Mr. Mendel, I truly am.  But would it be fair to suggest that maybe a 77 year old man eating 10 stuffed dumplings in 30 seconds was not such a good idea?

Given where the contest took place, I would have expected them to be stuffed with chicken.  But I guess they were just winging it.

Did they check the will?  Who got the sour cream?

Ok, next bad joke is yours..

Ken Berwitz

Apropos of the Brent Spence bridge, which President Obama is using as a prop to promote his “Jobs Act” today (and which I blogged about earlier this morning)….

I just read Andrew Malcolm’s (increasingly invaluable) blog for the Los Angeles Times, and found out that, under the provisions of Mr. Obama’s “Jobs Act”, this bridge will not even qualify for funding!

Read this excerpt from Mr. Malcolm's piece, and see for yourself:

It doesn't really need repairs. It's got decades of good life left in its steel spans. It's just overloaded. The bridge was built to handle 85,000 cars and trucks a day, which seemed like a lot back during construction in the Nixon era.

Today, the bridge sort of handles more than 150,000 vehicles a day with frequent jam-ups.

So, plans are not to repair or replace the Brent Spence Bridge. But to build another bridge nearby to ease the loads.

But here's the problem, as John Merline graphically notes here, that could screw up all those envisioned photo op shots of the Democrat and the traffic:

The president's jobs bill is designed for "immediate" highway spending.

And the new $2.3 billion Cincy bridge is not scheduled to even start construction for probably four years, long after Republicans have scheduled the Obama presidency for completion.

In other words, President Obama and his people have picked a venue for touting the “Jobs Act” legislation that will not create a single job.  What a bungling mess!!!

On the other hand, as Mr. Malcolm points out, in terms of raw politics, this can work for President Obama and his fellow Democrats anyway (the bold print is mine):

But there is some possible good news for President Obama: The $447-billion jobs bill that he wanted passed "right now" back in early September is stuck in a legislative traffic jam in the Senate.

Fellow Democrat Harry Reid, the majority leader who can run that place like a school principal whenever he wants, is aware of opposition to the measure among some of his own caucus members.

And, well, darn it, wouldn't you know, Reid just can't seem to find a place for Obama's jobs bill in the chamber's overloaded schedule. As a result, as of right now Obama's "right now" jobs bill won't come up until later in the fall, possibly much later.

In a way the scheduling doesn't matter. Since the Democrat in the White House would rather have Republican opposition to it than any of its job-creating provisions, so he can have obstructionist charges for next year's campaign.

Translation:  While piously condemning Republicans for holding up the creation of jobs, Democrats - via the ham-handed manipulations of Harry Reid - are perfectly content to let those jobs twist in the wind, so that they can put the wood to Republicans in next year’s elections.

Fraud and hypocrisy don’t even begin to describe what is being done here.

But will our media – beyond Mr. Malcolm’s blog entry – report this, or will they maintain their status as “accomplice media” and bury it on behalf of the love of their life, Barack Obama?

I don’t know for sure yet.  But I’m willing to take bets……..

Ken Berwitz

In case you wonder what is meant by "The Chicago Way" - aka what President Obama learned in his formative political years - read the following excerpts from Jason Grotto's article in today's Chicago Tribune, and see for yourself.  The bold print is mine:

One-day rehiring nets former Chicago labor leader a $158,000 city pension

 

Most city workers spend decades in public service to build up modest pensions. But for former labor leader Dennis Gannon, the keys to securing a public pension were one day on the city payroll and some help from the Daley administration.

And his city pension is more than modest. It's the highest of any retired union leader: $158,000. That's roughly five times greater than what the typical retired city worker receives.

In fact, his pension is so high that it exceeds federal limits and required the city pension fund to file special paperwork with the Internal Revenue Service to give it to him.

Gannon's inflated pension is a prime example of how government officials and labor leaders have manipulated city pension funds at the expense of union workers and taxpayers. Like other labor leaders, he was able to take a long leave from a city job to work for a union and then receive a city pension based on a high union salary.

But in a new twist, a Tribune/WGN-TV investigation has found that Gannon is eligible for the lucrative pension deal only because City Hall rehired the former Streets and Sanitation Department worker for a single day in 1994, then granted him an indefinite leave of absence.

There you go.  Raping the taxpayers.  Right in your face.  Cronyism at its very worst. 

In other words, The Chicago Way.  The way that Barack Obama learned first-hand on the streets as a "community organizer" (whatever that is), then a do-nothing state senator, which he parlayed into four years as a do-nothing US senator and now, over 2 1/2 years as a do-nothing-right President.

And the saddest part?  We deserve this.

Chicago certainly does.  When was the last time Chicago elected any serious Republican presence there?  Forget the mayoralty (which has not been held by a Republican since 1927!!) - when was the last time Chicago elected any serious contingent of city Republicans councilpeople?  Not a majority, mind you, just enough to force a little scrutiny regarding the political corruption that goes on there? 

Well, in the past 20 years, Chicago has had a grand total of.....one.  That's right.  Over the past 1/5 of a century, the Chicago city council, comprised of 50 members, has had a total of one Republican. 

And, be assured, that as long as Chicago continues to mindlessly, reflexively, elect Democrats, and virtually nothing but Democrats, it will get - and deserve - all the corruption that emanates from its self-imposed one party governance.

As for the country?  We elected Barack Obama - a man we knew nothing about, other than that he was a product of the Chicago political machine, and had exactly no qualifications for the office.  

In this world you get what you pay for.  Well, this is what we paid for and this is what we got.

Will the country be smart enough to change things next election day?  The fact that it even has to be asked is appalling.

Ken Berwitz

The Brent Spence bridge, which connects Ohio and Kentucky is in need of repair. As are numerous bridges throughout the USA.

But this particular bridge connects two potential swing states that Barack Obama aspires to win in the 2012 election.  So he has picked this bridge to make a speech today, pitching his "Jobs Act". 

Excerpted from Dan Sewell's Associated Press article:

Of the thousands of bridges, highways and other infrastructure across the nation in need of repair or replacement, President Barack Obama is paying special attention to a 1960s-built double-decker across the Ohio River laden with political ramifications.

 

The Brent Spence Bridge connecting Ohio and Kentucky—the respective home states of Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell—will serve as the backdrop Thursday to a visit by Obama to promote his jobs plan.

 

"You think these things happen by accident?" Boehner asked this week.

 

White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer agreed Wednesday that the location is no accident, saying the president will contend his plan would put construction workers back to work on a project critical to both Ohio and Kentucky—"if the Republican leaders in Congress were willing to work with the president and the Democrats to do something that would create jobs in the economy." 

As politics go, this is great theater.  It is a serious plea for support, combined with some clearly partisan political mischief.  My congratulations to Mr. Obama for this cleverly designed combination. 

But I have a few questions for the President: 

-If the $447 billion dollar "Jobs Act" is supposed to be used to rebuild our infrastructure, what the eff was the $787 billion dollar "stimulus package" of 2009 supposed to do?  Isn't that the EXACT SAME THING we were told then?

-If the original $787 billion dollars did not rebuild our infrastructure, what did it do?  When are we going to see an accounting of where that money went?  Why haven't we seen one yet?  And - very especially - why haven't our "accomplice media" been demanding such an accounting for the past two and a half years, as they most assuredly would have demanded if your name were Bush instead of of Obama?

-I have read that the preponderance of "stimulus package" funds went straight to Democrat states and Democrat districts within states.  Is that true or not true?  If so, why?  Specifics, please.

-Finally, since you have repeatedly lied to us about so many things, both before taking over the presidency and during your term of office, why should we believe a word you say about the "Jobs Act" now?

The stated goals of the "Jobs Act" are wonderful.  I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being dead serious.  But I cannot support it unless the above questions are answered - not with mealy-mouthed politicisms, but with real facts and figures. 

Provide us with satisfactory answers to those questions, Mr. President, and you will get my support for your legislation.  Don't answer them and you won't.  End of story.

Ken Berwitz

It's not like there isn't enough anti-Israel bias to go around.  But, having just read Brad Wilmouth's eye-opening, heavily referenced piece at newsbusters.org, I must say that CBS deserves a special award as leader of the pack.

Despite not being overly long, there is so much important information that excerpting Mr. Wilmouth's piece would not do it justice.  So please, please click on the link I've provided and read every word.  You won't believe what is in front of you.

Despite stiff competition, I think the most telling quote, from hopelessly compromised CBS correspondent mark phillips, is:

“The statehood claim is based on the 1967 lines, drawn before the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in the Six Day War. It's a proposed border rejected as indefensible by the Israelis, half a million of whom live in what used to be the Palestinian side of the line.”

The Palestinian side of the line, mark?  Do you think Israel won that land from the country of Palestine?  I don't know how to break this to you, but there has never been a country of Palestine, it is a land area with countries in it. Israel won Judea and Samaria (the west bank) from Jordan.  

If, however, your intention is to convey that Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state, you've got it right.  Jordan comprises almost 4/5ths of Palestine.  It is an Arab state, with an Arab culture.  And the vast majority of its people are Palestinian.  So, of course it is a Palestinian Arab state.

But somehow, based on everything else you've reported, mark, I doubt that you are saying this. 

I think it's more like you don't know what the hell you are talking about, but are being paid very handsomely to keep talking anyway.

Way to go, CBS News.  What a boon this is to your credibility.....in hamas and fatah enclaves everywhere.

Ken Berwitz

Just in case there is anyone left who has any doubt about the real intentions of Palestinian Arabs...

...we have this, reported by Ann Bayefsky writing for the Weekly Standard:

Palestine Logo Suggests Elimination of Israel

5:42 PM, Sep 21, 2011 • By ANNE BAYEFSKY  

 

Bottom of Form

 

logo of “the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations” – on their website and on top of their official statements at the U.N. – shows the Palestinian Authority’s claim to a Palestine that stretches throughout the entire historical entity of the former Palestine mandate.

 

 

And the logo:

 

Absent from the logo is any hint that Palestine consists of anything other than Arab territory. No nod is given even to the U.N.’s 1948 decision to divide the region into Jewish and Arab sectors. As for the shape of Israel by the time it was forced into waging the defensive Six Day war in 1967: irrelevant. The logo illustrates that the Palestinian bid before the U.N. for support of a unilateral declaration of statehood is disingenuous and dangerous.

There is not too much left to the imagination here: Israel is “wiped off the map.”

Any questions? 

Ken Berwitz

If a state of Palestine is created, who would populate it? 

That seems like a silly question, doesn't it?  After all, the most basic purpose of creating such a state is so Palestinian Arabs would have a homeland.  So, self-evidently, Palestinian Arabs would therefore be welcome there, right?

Incredibly, that is wrong.

Excerpted from Evelyn Gordon's truly shocking piece at Commentary Magazine:

…consider the shocking interview the PLO’s ambassador to Lebanon, Abdullah Abdullah, gave the Lebanese Daily Star last week:

 

The ambassador unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state…

 

This would not only apply to refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan or the other 132 countries where Abdullah says Palestinians reside. Abdullah said that “even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.”

 

Abdullah said that the new Palestinian state would “absolutely not” be issuing Palestinian passports to refugees…

“When we have a state accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.”

 

The Palestinian Liberation Organization would remain responsible for refugees, and Abdullah says that UNRWA would continue its work as usual.

 

This is simply unbelievable. For years, the world has backed a Palestinian state on the grounds Palestinians are stateless people who deserve a country of their own. And now, a senior Palestinian official has announced once they have received a state, most Palestinians will still be stateless – even those who actually live in “Palestine.”

 

Moreover, the new state won’t provide these residents with any services: It expects UNRWA – or, more accurately, the American and European taxpayers who provide the bulk of that organization’s funding – to continue providing their schooling, healthcare, welfare allowances, etc.

How can a state of Palestine, created expressly so that Palestinian Arabs have a homeland (as if Jordan - itself a Palestinian Arab homeland - and the 21 other Arab states aren't enough) possibly reject the desire of Palestinian Arabs to emigrate and live there?

It makes absolutely no sense of any kind whatsoever --- unless you understand that the idea of creating a state of Palestine, alongside Israel, is not what they have in mind. 

If you understand that this state is meant to be an interim step toward taking over Israel, however, it makes plenty of sense.

The thinking, pretty evidently, is that when they get it all, then those Palestinian refugees can come in, and maybe they can be stuck in some part of the land.  But not now; not when there is only the UN-created Palestine. 

A blind man could see this -- which certainly explains why it is more than likely that the United Nations either can't or, probably more to the point, can see it perfectly but is fine with it.

When Israel was created in 1947,  by a very different United Nations, it unconditionally accepted Jews from all over the world - even though this meant absorbing a huge number of older refugees, many of them physically wracked by the holocaust, thus in need of special attention, at a time when five Arab armies were making war on the new state.

But if Palestine were created by today's United Nations, without any war and with the greatest per capita amount of foreign aid given to any country in the world (Israel included)?  It's position is that Palestinian Arabs from around the world can stay right where they are.  No homeland for you.   

These, folks, are the people Israel is supposed to negotiate a peace with. 

How?

Ken Berwitz

latifa abu hmeid is a Palestinian Arab. 

She is a mother many times over. 

She was honored by the Palestinian Authority by being appointed to lead the procession to United Nations offices in Ramallah, where she handed a letter to the UN Secretary telling that the PA would demand a vote on statehood.

And that's not all.  Read this excerpt from Itamar Marcus and Jacques Zilberdik's piece at Palestine Media Watch and find out what else she is - paying special attention to the last two paragraphs, which I have put in bold print:

The Palestinian Authority chose the mother of 4 terrorist murderers, one of whom killed seven Israeli civilians and attempted to kill twelve others, as the person to launch their statehood campaign with the UN. In a widely publicized event, the PA had Latifa Abu Hmeid lead the procession to the UN offices in Ramallah and to hand over a letter for the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

 

 The official PA daily reported that she launched the UN campaign last week, and noted that she is the "mother of seven prisoners and of the Shahid (Martyr) Abd Al-Mun'im Abu Hmeid." However, the paper did not mention that 4 of her imprisoned sons are murderers.

Palestinian Media Watch reported last year that Abu Hmeid then had 4 sons in Israeli prisons who were each serving between two and seven life sentences, a total of 18 life sentences. At that time she was in the news because the PA Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, decided to honor her with an award, "the Plaque of Resoluteness and Giving... inscribed with the names of her four sons who are imprisoned."

The PA minister explained then why the mother of 4 murderers of Israelis deserves such honor:

"It is she who gave birth to the fighters, and she deserves that we bow to her in salute and in honor."

Keep in mind that this is not even hamas.  It is the Palestinian Authority:  the faction we keep being told is comprised of moderates. 

These are the people the world demands that Israel make peace with.

How?

Ken Berwitz

Israel versus Palestinian Arabs:  It's United Nations Dog & Pony Day. 

Almost Everyone is saying almost all the right words (e.g. because Barack Obama did not call for Palestinian Arabs to drop their demand for immediate statehood).  But almost.

So, is there anything to this?

The answer, sorry to say, is no.  Not a thing.  After decades of rejecting every negotiated settlement offered them, Palestinian Arabs still have never offered any plan of their own.  The hamas charter still calls for the obliteration of Israel through jihad and the death of all Jews - both in and out of Israel.  And fatah maintains its "unity" agreement with hamas, which means they are on the same page.

The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby has written a (typically) brilliant column today, in which he enumerates the many, many opportunities to accept increasingly generous peace offers which Palestinian Arabs have rejected.  See for yourself:

In 2008, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state on territory equal (after land swaps) to 100 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, with free passage between the two plus a capital in the Arab section of Jerusalem. Yet Abbas turned down the Israeli offer. And he has refused ever since even to engage in negotiations.

...for the better part of a century, the Arabs of Palestine have consistently said no when presented with the chance to build a state of their own. They said no in 1937, when the British government, which then ruled Palestine, proposed to divide the land into separate Arab and Jewish states. Arab leaders said no again in 1947, choosing to go to war rather than accept the UN's decision to partition Palestine between its Jewish and Arab populations. When Israel in 1967 offered to relinquish the land it had acquired in exchange for peace with its neighbors, the Arab world's response, issued at a summit in Khartoum, was not one no, but three: "No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel."

 At Camp David in 2000, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a sovereign state with shared control of Jerusalem and billions of dollars in compensation for Palestinian refugees. Yasser Arafat refused the offer, and returned to launch the deadly terror war known as the Second Intifada.

It is no mystery, however. The raison d'etre of the Palestinian movement has never been the establishment and building-up of a sovereign Palestinian homeland. It has always been the negation of a sovereign Jewish homeland. That is why well-intended proposals for a "two-state solution" have never come to fruition, no matter how earnestly proposed by US presidents or UN secretaries-general. That is why the basic charter not just of Hamas but even of Abbas's supposedly moderate Fatah vows to continue the "armed struggle" until "the Zionist state is demolished." And that is why Abbas and other Palestinian leaders insist that a Palestinian state would be explicitly Arab and Muslim, but adamantly refuse to acknowledge that Israel is legitimately the Jewish state.

 "Palestinian nationalism," Edward Said told an interviewer in 1999, "was based on driving all Israelis out." Sadly, it still is.

If you can read that, and still believe there is any chance of a negotiated peace settlement as things now stand, you have a stunning level of innocence and naivete. 

Until the mindset of Palestinian Arabs changes - until they explicitly renounce their requirements that Israel not exist in any form and Jews be obliterated from Israel along with everywhere else - there is nothing to negotiate.  Period.

Ken Berwitz

In my book, "The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics" (which is still a good read if I do say so myself) I referred to Nevada Senator Harry Reid as "Harry The Corpse" because “…in all the years I have followed politics I never saw a man whose voice and body language was more cadaverous. Every time he’s on TV I find myself fighting the urge to walk up to the screen and try to dust dirt from his suit jacket.”

But now, five years after writing that description, I have a different view of Mr. Reid.  Now I picture him with a loose multi-colored suit, a big red nose that honks if you squeeze it, and a seltzer bottle.

Here is my latest reason for this change of heart, excerpted from Pete Kasperowicz's blog at thehill.com:

Ken Berwitz

President Obama's Green Scandal is already so huge that you might wonder how it could get even bigger.  But it is doing just that.

Excerpted from an article at Reuters:

Solyndra execs will decline to testify at hearing

Solyndra LLC's chief executive and chief financial officer will invoke their Fifth Amendment rights and decline to answer any questions put to them at a Congressional hearing on Friday, according to letters from their attorneys obtained by Reuters.

In the letters sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, attorneys for Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison and CFO W. G. Stover said they advised their clients not to provide testimony during the hearings.

Just when things looked about as bad as possible, they get worse. 

Let's review:  Solyndra, a company that appears to have had no chance of succeeding was offered a half BILLION dollars in loan guarantees by the Obama administration.  Solyndra happily accepted - but only after extracting a concession that, if the company were to go under, at least one Solyndra investor would be first on line to collect money from the disposition of its assets.

And who would that one Solyndra investor be?  Why george kaiser - Obama supporter, campaign contributor, and bundler extraordinare.

Now, after being skunked out of over a half billion dollars, we taxpayers find out that Solyndra's CEO and CFO are going to plead the fifth - which is typically done to avoid self-incrimination. 

Even Michael Corleone didn't plead the fifth.  But Solyndra's CEO and CFO are going to do it.

And what does the Obama administration have to say about this.....besides nothing?

When does this end?  Let us hope that it is January 20, 2013 -- and lament that it cannot be even earlier.

Ken Berwitz

What is the real cost of ObamaCare?

No one knows for certain.  But one thing we all should know for certain is that it will be dramatically higher than President Obama and his fellow Democrats are claiming.

And now one of those Democrats - an especially loose-lipped one, not surprisingly - has slipped and acknowledged what a lie this bunch has been telling us all along. 

From Conn Carroll's blog at washingtonexaminer.com:

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman, and doctor, Howard Dean backed a McKinsey & Co. survey today that found that almost a third of private-sector employers will drop their employee health insurance coverage when Obamacare's government-managed insurance exchanges come online.

Dean told Morning Joe, "The fact is it is very good for small business. There was a McKinsey study, which the Democrats don't like, but I do, and I think its true. Most small businesses are not going to be in the health insurance business anymore after this thing goes into effect."

The reason Democrats fought so hard to dismiss the McKinsey survey when it was released is because its conclusion undermines two major claims  Obama made during health care debate: "If you like your health plan, you can keep it" and "It will not add one penny to the deficit."

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) premised their Obamacare score on the assumption that only 7 percent of employers would drop their employee health plans. If the percentage is closer to the 30 percent, as the McKinsey survey results predict, Obamacare's price tag would rise by almost $1 trillion.

Hello.  What was that?

Keep in mind that we're not talking about just anybody's admission.  Howard Dean is a 6-time Democrat Governor of Vermont, a leading Democrat presidential candidate in 2004 (until that famously big mouth blew it for him), headed the Democratic National Committee - and is a medical doctor to boot.  If a hardline partisan Democrat like Dean admits that this is what will happen, baby, this is what will happen.

And the cost?  Hell, not much;  only another trillion dollars of debt - for the privilege of forcing people out of their current health insurance and into a government system. 

I mean, what's the problem?  The government is so terrific at running everything else, wouldn't all those lucky people jump at the chance to put it in charge of their health care?

Howard Dean apparently thinks so.  Do you?

Ken Berwitz

President Obama pledged not to put US troops on the ground in Libya.

However, 4 troops have been sent to protect the US embassy in Tripoli, and now another 12 will be sent, for a total of 16.

Some people are going to make a big deal about this.  I won't be one of them. 

While these soldiers are technically combat troops, their purpose in being there is perfectly reasonable, 100% necessary and has nothing to do with actual combat. 

I suggest the Obama-haters let this one go.  There's no "there" there.

Ken Berwitz

The reason Richard Blumenthal is Connecticut's junior US Senator is that Linda McMahon ran against him. 

In 2010, Ms. McMahon bought her nomination by wildly outspending Rob Simmons, who would have been a far more credible candidate but had to bow out because he couldn't compete money-wise.  But in the general election she was a weak candidate whose history as CEO of the World Wrestling Federation/World Wrestling Entertainment made her look like a ridiculous clown who got rich off a dirty business.  This enabled Blumenthal, an insipid campaigner who lied about his military service, to beat her handily.

Now she's at it again. 

Christopher Shays, an intelligent, thoughtful, capable former multi-term congressperson who can attract Democrat votes, is going to announce his candidacy for the seat currently held by retiring Joe Lieberman.  But McMahon, still just as loaded with money, intends to buy another nomination.  And, most likely, she will again lose a winnable senate seat for exactly the same reasons she lost in 2010.

Any Republican interested in retaking the senate ought to wish - fervently - that Ms. McMahon would stop mucking things up and just go away. 

Ken Berwitz

Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are competing for the Republican presidential nomination.  Not surprisingly, therefore, they criticize each other a great deal.

But among the issues they are in complete agreement on is Israel.  And they are both 100% correct.

First we have Mitt Romney's comments, pulled from Daniel Halper's article at the Weekly Standard:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has just released a statement on the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations, blasting President Obama's policies toward Israel for the situation. “What we are watching unfold at the United Nations is an unmitigated diplomatic disaster," Romney said in a statement. "It is the culmination of President Obama’s repeated efforts over three years to throw Israel under the bus and undermine its negotiating position. That policy must stop now."

And then there is Rick Perry's version, from Beth Fouhy and Kasie Hunt's article for the Associated Press:

“We are indignant that certain Middle Eastern leaders have discarded the principle of direct negotiations between the sovereign nation of Israel and the Palestinian leadership,” Perry said in excerpts provided by one of his aides to The Associated Press. “And we are equally indignant that the Obama administration’s Middle East policy of appeasement has encouraged such an ominous act of bad faith.”

To both of which I respond...."Yep.  You got that right".

Can anyone tell me what Barack Obama and the people around him get right?

-It isn't the stimulus package which blew our debt sky-high while raising rather than lowering unemployment

-It isn't ObamaCare, which this country has made it plain it doesn't want - not even his union pals who asked for and got all those waivers;

-It isn't his swiss-cheese immigration policy;

-It isn't Afghanistan, where tripling to quadrupling the troop strength has not only resulted in no benefit, but the taliban are, if anything, even stronger than before; 

-It isn't Iraq, where he broke his promise to remove all troops;  

-It isn't Egypt or Libya, both of which look ominously as if they are morphing into shari'a law states;

-It isn't Iran, which we looked the other way on as ahmadinejad and his thugs beat, killed, jailed and executed the people marching for democracy;

-And, as Mr. Romney and Mr. Perry so succinctly point out, it sure as hell isn't Israel.

Someone.  Please.  Give me one example of anything this woefully overmatched administration has gotten right.  I'll wait.

Ken

Yesterday President Obama told us that the rich must pay "their fair share", and that "this is not class warfare, it's math"

Well, the verdict is in and....the rich already pay more than their fair share.  And it's class warfare.

There are countless web sites showing various proofs that this is so.  But, only because it has so often in the past seemed to favor Mr. Obama I am showing excerpts from Associated Press writer Stephen Ohlemacher's debunking of this latest hot steamy load of BS. 

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.

 

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

 

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

 

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

 

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

In other words, "rich people" not only pay the freight for just about everyone else in the country, they also pay it at about double the tax rate than the middle class.

But, then again, I have little doubt that Mr. Obama and his people know this.  The idea is not to provide reality, the idea is to fool the gullible and energize the left wing base.

Will it work?  Based on the fact that just about every web site I've looked at either questions what President Obama is selling or outright calls it wrong, I would have to say no.

Not even a nice try, guys.

There is a clothing and accessory store in my part of the country (maybe yours too) called Syms.  Their long time slogan is "An educated consumer is our best customer".

In Barack Obama's case, that might read "An educated citizen is our most losable voter"

Ken Berwitz

In over 2 1/2 years as President, Barack Obama has, in my (and many others') opinion  shown that he can do one thing very well; make a speech.

Now, even that is tarnished.

Here are excerpts of today's editorial in the New York Daily News, about yesterday morning's speech - which ostensibly was about the reducing the budget deficit:

President Barack Obama is campaigning, not leading, with his no-pain debt reduction plan

Obama's much-awaited plan for achieving long-term U.S. solvency proved to be less than met the ear. He followed what's becoming a depressingly familiar pattern of trumpeting supposedly hard choices while leaving the politically difficult measures to others.

Raise the Medicare retirement age? Not him.

Obama appears to believe that calling for higher taxes on the wealthy and on upper-income earners while claiming undeservedly to be an aggressive budget cutter will make for good campaigning. That it may, but there is far more for a President to be concerned about than the polls.

The debt is more than $14 trillion. Obama is right to castigate Republicans for ruling out all tax increases because, as the President says, Washington cannot cut its way out of such a deep hole.

At the same time, while Obama is on firm ground in seeking revenue from the wealthy, he is wrong to give the impression that America can tax its way to health without reining in spending more than he has the courage to venture.

The President's proposal to reduce the debt by $4 trillion over a decade fell far short of a critical target set by the bipartisan debt and deficit commission he appointed last year.

Obama starts with the first $1 trillion, seems to endorse only $580 billion of the next batch of cuts, adds the war savings plus $1.5 trillion in taxes, plus lower federal interest payments, and reaches $4 trillion without shrinking the government to any degree.

Most revealing is his no-sweat approach to Medicare. He foresees cutting the program $224 billion by nothing more stressful than "reducing overpayments."

This was a hoped-for reelection road map, not a fiscal strategy.

Exactly. 

Mr. Obama's speech was about 10% a sound blueprint for budget reduction which might generate bipartisan support, and about 90% a self-promotional campaign strategy - heavy on class warfare but light as a feather on making hard choices. 

Just what he wanted it to be.

Well, the Daily News sees right through it.  As do I.  As do, I am certain, many, many others.  

Here's a question for you:  If just about the only thing Mr. Obama has done effectively is make speeches, and now he is not making speeches effectively..........I'll let you finish that one yourself.

Ken Berwitz

My friend, whom I will call P.R. Ann, posted the following note on her facebook wall.  It is from her newly deployed son Danny and, presumably was written to a third party:

I AM IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY. I AM A SOLDIER AND A WARRIOR. NO OTHER BRANCH DEPLOYS MORE THAN I OR IS ON A SINGLE DEPLOYMENT LONGER THAN I. YOU STRESS ABOUT YOUR CLASSES, I STRESS ABOUT THE MISSION. YOU STUDY TO PASS YOUR TEST, I STUDY TO STAY ALIVE. YOU CRY ABOUT HIGH SCHOOL TYPE DRAMA, I CRY BECAUSE IM AWAY FROM FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND MIGHT NOT MAKE IT HOME. YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THE WARS, I FIGHT SO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO. REPOST IF YOU SUPPORT YOUR UNITED STATES ARMY SOLDIERS

The grammar and syntax may not be perfect.  But the sentiment is pretty damn close.

All the best to you Danny.  Thank you for your service.  And come home safely. 

Ken Berwitz

This morning, President Obama unveiled what he characterized as a series of tax hikes which would insure that "rich people" pay their "fair share".

However, according to Matthew Taylor, writing for the Associated Press:

- Airline passengers who take non-stop flights will pay $5 - $10 additional in federal security fees;

-Federal employees will pay 1.2 more towards their pensions;

-Military retirees will pay a $200 fee at age 65 to be able to get their medicare benefits, as well as more for their prescriptions;

-Plus several others just liike them (read the entire article and see).

But,  please note, none of these are specifically taxes.  You just pay more for things and the government collects the money, you see.  No taxes at all (wink, wink). 

How can anyone believe a thing this man says?

Ken Berwitz

Does the name Kinde Durkee mean anything to you?

If you count on mainstream media, chances are the answer is no.  The New York Times, for example, has managed one article about her, on September 13^th, and out – at least so far.

But if you are one of the 200 or so Democrats, this Democrat fundraiser apparently stole from, it is a name you will never forget.

Excerpted from Peter Hannaford’s article at American Spectator:

It's said that word-of-mouth advertising is the best kind. It certainly worked for Ms. Kinde Durkee for more than 12 years. It would still be working if she hadn't helped herself to some of her clients' bank accounts once too often.

Durkee's nearly 200 clients weren't stores and small factories. They were California Democratic office holders, candidates, and committees. For all those years she was the go-to person to be treasurer for any Democrat's campaign accounts. Campaign treasurers serve as bankers and accountants for campaigns and see to the many complex state and federal reports required. There are few experts at this arcane craft in California. She was the best known and was trusted.

It isn't yet known how much of her donors' money she used for personal expenses, but it was a lot. It is alleged that as much as $1 million is missing collectively from client accounts. It may be months -- even years -- before this is unscrambled. Meanwhile, most of these clients do not have access to what is left in their accounts because she was the only person on their bank signature cards. Most of the accounts were at one bank in Southern California and it says it won't release the remaining funds unless the clients sign "hold harmless" agreements to protect the bank.

To make matters more complicated, Durkee used a Ponzi-like technique to keep all the balls in the air. If she helped herself to a few thousand dollars from Officeholder A's account, she would transfer that much from Officeholder B's into A's to make up for it. And so forth.

Garry South, a veteran Democrat consultant, told the Wall Street Journal that "...she might have removed millions of dollars from Democratic campaign coffers of 2012 and it might not be easy to replace." The Los Angeles Democratic Central Committee, alone, estimates it has lost $200,000.

If this were a Republican operative stealing from Republicans, do you think the story would be downplayed the way it has been for Kinde Durkee and California Democrats?  Or do you think it would achieve lead story status for days, with Republicans being ridiculed for what dufuses they were to trust Durkee, complete with panels discussing how they could possibly be competent legislators if they couldn’t even identify a thief – a fellow Republican thief at that – who stole from them this way?   I think we both know the answer.

But when it comes to Democrats, we have an “accomplice media” in this country, happy to embarrass Republicans whenever possible, but equally happy to run interference for its friends in the Democrat party. 

Pathetic.

Ken Berwitz

President Obama has just made a campaign spee...er, a speech about the economy.  And, in it, he quoted George Washington on the need for raising taxes.  Specifically he quoted from this tiny little part of Washington's farewell address (I think I got the entire part he used, but since it is from memory, I'm not 100% sure):

...it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that...the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties...

President Washington sure did have a point there.  But - please pay attention, Mr. Obama - he was talking very generally about the need for taxes: not demanding that "the rich pay their fair share" a la your definition of who is rich or what a "fair share" is.  And since no one on either side of the political aisle is demanding an end to taxation, President Washington's quote is therefore meaningless to your proposed legislation.

However, Mr. Obama, you might be interested in what Mr. Washington said at the beginning of the same paragraph you quoted from (bold print is mine):

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

Translation:  Taxes should pretty much only be to finance wars if we have to fight them.  Otherwise, minimize debt by spending as little as possible.  Since you're blaming every fiscal mistake you and your administration has made on one President named George, maybe you should heed the good advice from this other George.

Oh, and one more thing:  At another point in the same speech, Washington also said this:

The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

There, Mr. Obama, is another area where you could very definitely learn from President Washington.

And, let's end with this followup to the previously quoted paragraph:

Thanks, President Washington.  Come next presidential election, that's a sentiment that the voters can learn from.

Ken Berwitz

When Barack Obama calls it an ACT, he's not kidding.

Remember the President's speech of September 8th, to a joint session of congress, when he told us - 17 different times in the same speech - that it had to be passed right away, right now, immediately, etc.?  Remember the thunderous applause from his fellow Democrats?

Well, here is a transcript of an exchange during yesterday's edition of "State of the Union" between CNN's Candy Crowley and Democrat Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin:

Crowley: When is the bill going to get on the floor?

Durbin: The bill is on the calendar. Majority leader Reid moved it to the calendar. It is ready and poised. There are a couple other items we may get into this week not on the bill and some related issues that may create jobs. But we're going to move forward on the president's bill. There will be a healthy debate. I hope the Republicans will come to...

Crowley: After the recess, so next month? Or when will it actually begin to act on?

Durbin: I think that's more realistic it would be next month.

Liars. 

Ken Berwitz

For days I have been suggesting that the Green Scandal will be almost impossible to cover up.

Well, it took some time but, based on "new emails" (as opposed to all the other evidence I've been writing about all this time) the Associated Press has awakened and is now on top of the story.

Excerpted from today's article by Matthew Daly, which I saw in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Obama admin reworked Solyndra loan to favor donor

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama — moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show.

Newly released emails show that the Obama administration was worried about the financial health of a troubled solar energy company even as officials publicly declared the company in good shape. An email from a White House budget official to a co-worker discussed the likely effect of a default by Solyndra Inc. on President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File)

Administration officials defended the loan restructuring, saying that without an infusion of cash earlier this year, solar panel maker Solyndra Inc. would likely have faced immediate bankruptcy, putting more than 1,000 people out of work.

I especially am intrigued by that last paragraph.  The administration defends loaning $535 million dollars to Solyndra on the grounds that, without an infusion of cash the company would have faced bankruptcy and would have put 1,000 people out of work.  So they handed over the money -- and Solyndra went bankrupt and put more than 1,000 out of work.

The difference?  We're out over half a billion dollars.

Is this another of the serial examples of administration incompetence, or just a $535 million dollar gift to george kaiser, the billionaire Obama donor/bundler who was in the middle of the Solyndra scandal, or both?  And which choice is the good one?

This scandal is enormous....and growing.  Stay tuned.

Ken Berwitz

Former President Bill Clinton was a guest on this morning's Today Show.  Matt Lauer conducted what was supposed to have been an interview with Mr. Clinton, to discuss an economic "global initiative" he is hosting this week.

But it was not an interview.  It was, instead, the single most obsequious, unctuous kiss-up interview I have ever seen on the Today show - and that, folks, is no small accomplishment.  Simply stated, if Clinton had farted he would have given Lauer bad breath.

If you want to see/hear for yourself, just click here .

The "interview" (if you can even call it that) consisted of Lauer setting Clinton up as an economic expert who made our economy boom, and who therefore could pontificate about the current economic situation from that lofty peak. 

The problem?  This has never been anything but a lie.  But to the Lauers of the world it is some kind of holy grail to drink from every time the Clinton name is mentioned.

In reality, Bill Clinton inherited an already-strong economy - one which he lied about to get elected, by characterizing it as a deep recession and the worst economy in 50 years. 

Doubt me?  Well, here are the GDP growth data for the previous administration, from January 1989 when George Bush (the father) took office to January 1993, when Bush left office and Bill Clinton took over: 

1989:  1^st qtr: +3.8%   2^nd qtr:  +3.0%   3^rd qtr:  +3.2%   4^th qtr: +0.9%

 

1990  1^st qtr: +4.2%    2^nd qtr:  +1.6%   3^rd qtr:   0.0%   4^th qtr:  -3.5%

 

1991: 1^st qtr: -1.9%    2^nd qtr:  +2.7%   3^rd qtr:  +1.7%   4^th qtr: +1.6%

 

1992:  1^st qtr: +4.5%   2^nd qtr:   +4.3%   3^rd qtr: +4.2%   4^th qtr: +4.3%

As you can see, there was a minimally short recession during the Bush years, which lasted just two quarters (4th qtr 1990, 1st qtr. 1991).  But when Bill Clinton took office, that recession was long gone, and we were in the midst of a robust economy.  During 1992, when Clinton was campaigning against Bush's "recession", all four quarters showed over 4% growth. 

That's a recession?  If Barack Obama could show the exact same level of growth over the next year, he would be running on it. That was not a recession, it was a mini-boom period.

Then, during the Clinton administration, we had the most insane economic house of cards in US history;  the IPO boom, which grossly inflated the value of businesses in this country and which Clinton & Co. took full credit for as if a) it was real and b) he had something to do with it. 

Finally, during the last year of the Clinton administration, we had the inevitable IPO crash, which started in late March, 2000.  By year's end, the NASDAQ had lost 70% of its value, the NYSE had lost over 20%, the growth rate had plummeted from 8% to 0.3% in one quarter on its way down to negative territory, manufacturing activity fell to an 11 year low, gas prices doubled.....and Clinton & Co. then blamed it on George Bush, who, in actuality, inherited the mess he left in January, 2001.  

Oh, just In case you are wondering where our media were during the economy's free-fall, the answer is that most media were happily acquiescing to Clinton and his people, by regurgitating every lie about the economy they pumped out. 

Some economic expert.  Some media.

Look I wish Mr. Clinton well in his efforts.  I mean that with complete sincerity - if he succeeds, it helps us. 

But I do not appreciate having my intelligence insulted by a kiss-up interview of an economic fraud.  And that is what Matt Lauer gave us this morning.

What a joke. 

Ken Berwitz

Steve Chapman is a member of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board - a board that supported Mr. Obama's election in 2008.

But after 2 1/2 years plus of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Chapman thinks he should hang 'em up.  And guess who he  recommends as a viable alternative? 

Excerpted from his blog today:

When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, his slogan was "Morning in America." For Barack Obama, it's more like midnight in a coal mine.

The sputtering economy is about to stall out, unemployment is high, his jobs program may not pass, foreclosures are rampant and the poor guy can't even sneak a cigarette.

 

His approval rating is at its lowest level ever. His party just lost two House elections — one in a district it had held for 88 consecutive years. He's staked his future on the jobs bill, which most Americans don't think would work.

The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, "it's going to be impossible for the president to win." Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: "Panic."

But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he's willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can't be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president's.

It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama's reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.

As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she's been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she's never been accused of being a pushover.

Interesting, no? 

Ok, let's stipulate that a) this is just one man's opinion and b) I admit not knowing who Mr. Chapman supported in 2008.  For all I know he was a Hillary guy even then.

But regardless of how he felt last campaign season, Chapman's points about Barack Obama's depressed status and dismal prospects are certainly valid - as are his points about Hillary Clinton - as far as they go.  (Personally I have grave doubts about Ms. Clinton's ability to win a 2012 presidential election, which I talked about in a blog just last week.) 

But any way you slice it, an editorial board member of a major Chicago daily (where did Mr. Obama's entire political career take place before running for President?)  suggesting that Mr. Obama take a political hike is serious stuff.

Stay tuned.

Ken Berwitz

My wife and I spent a terrific day together yesterday.

We drove to Liberty National Park in New Jersey and boarded a ferry to Ellis Island, where so many immigrants arrived and were processed from 1892 to 1924 (legal ones - what a refreshing change from today).  Then it was on to the Statue of Liberty, before heading back to New Jersey (although there is an excellent argument that the Statue of Liberty is in New Jersey).

The good news was that we spent the day together, and that we saw two of the most important places in our country's long and storied history.

Sadly, however, this New Jerseyan has A lot of bad news to report as well.

-For one, there is the road from the New Jersey Turnpike to Liberty National Park, where you board the ferries.  The signage makes it almost impossible to find the place, and maximizes prospects that you will make a wrong turn on the way (note:  we got it right, so I am not saying this to rationalize any mistake I made).  At one point there is a large sign with "To Ferry" and an arrow pointing right.  But that is to a different ferry.  Further ahead, far less obtrusively, is the sign for the Ellis Island/Statue of Liberty ferry.  I have to believe this causes countless people to make the wrong turn.

-And the road itself is a disaster. 

..Half the distance is comprised of an asphalt surface which, based on its appearance, has not been repaved in decades.  There are patches and uneven spots everywhere, with little other than desolation or commercial structures on either side.  It is an embarrassment to the state of New Jersey; one which is visible to every tourist visiting these sites.

..The other half?  Cobblestones.  Uneven ones which, if you drive more than 20-25 miles per hour, will shake things loose from the car, and maybe even from you.

-Eventually you get to the parking area - or at any rate a place to park, since there is no clear indication of whether it is the only place to do so. 

-Once parked, there are no signs to tell you where to go.  Follow others and hope for the best.

-It turns out that you have to walk about a quarter of a mile (no exaggeration) to get to the building where you can buy tickets, go through security and get to the ferry. On your right are the remains of, I think, an old train terminal, which is in complete disrepair - it literally looks like it was bombed - and desperately needs to be removed.  Plus, to make things worse, despite hundreds of people boarding each ferry, there are only two security lines - which caused us (and others, I assure you) to miss the 1PM ferry and wait an extra half hour.

Regarding Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty themselves, the physical locations are far more significant than what is inside. 

-Ellis Island promises to be a museum, but there are virtually no exhibits - other than a collection of old suitcases where you enter the building (very interesting, but far from what would qualify it as a museum), and a place where you can pay extra to  search a database for your immigrant relatives (which you don't need Ellis Island for).  Plus, the cafe is a complete ripoff - We went to buy what looked like a 7 or 8 ounce diet coke, and they asked for $3.22.  That is disgraceful.

-The Statue of Liberty may have had more, but we don't know since admission to the pedestal was sold out so we could not get in to see.  I  therefore reserve judgement.  But it was a very nice walk around the Island, and amazing to see the statue close-up from every angle.

On the way back, the signs for the New Jersey Turnpike were dramatically more helpful than the signs to get to the ferry.  Why should that be?

I don't know if Governor Christie or anyone close to him reads this blog.  But, if so, Let me suggest that he pile his wife and children into the family sedan (with security following, of course) and try taking the same drive we did, including the parking and the walk.  I don't care how tight money is, I guarantee he will find funds to do something about it - as he most assuredly should.

Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty should provide a stirring day of pride for the USA, not a reinforcement of negative stereotypes about New Jersey.

Ken Berwitz

Just in case you thought the Green Scandal - Solyndra, Evergreen, Lightways, etc. - could not get any deeper, we have this, excerpted from Kevin Freking's September 15th article for the Associated Press:

The Obama administration is moving to finalize as many as 15 loan guarantees for renewable energy companies before the stimulus program ends on Sept. 30, and Republicans are questioning whether that could lead to more failures like Solyndra Inc., a company that filed for bankruptcy and may leave taxpayers on the hook for a half-billion-dollar loan.

 

The loan guarantees essentially make it easier for the companies to get financing as the government guarantees repayment in the event of default. In Solyndra's case, the loan came from the government itself, but private banks often provide the financing.

 

A spokesman for the Energy Department said the department won't take any shortcuts during the approval process. 

Yep, the Obama administration is not taking any shortcuts to push 15 new loan guarantees to green companies through - which put the onus for failure on we the taxpayers.  Is that in any way credible to you?.

Let me be blunt.  After over 2 1/2 years of Barack Obama's presidency, no one in his or her right mind would believe this.  If there is one thing Mr.Obama has proven, it is that he either lies, or (I'm trying to be charitable here) unintentionally gets things wrong, on just about every issue. 

If you disagree, I assume you think the "stimulus package" lowered unemployment, the country is chafing at the bit to get ObamaCare, all our troops are out of Iraq, Guantanamo is closed, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.  Get the point?

Now let's note that Mr. Obama and his merry crew of Goreosian Greenies have already given loan guarantees and/or are performing obvious political favors for company after company - not just green companies like Solyndra, but others as well, like the broadband supplier Lightsquared, for example - in which a 4 star general may have been asked to change key testimony about Lightsquared's affect on military use of GPS (nothing important there, right?). 

So what do we have here?  A dishonest and/or bunglingly incompetent President assuring us he will not do something that, for all appearances, he is in the process of doing.

This, folks, is the Obama administration in all its "glory".  And it is why I cannot wait for the 2012 elections.

Ken Berwitz

What do you do when you are a left wing President who is increasingly disdained by...the left?

That doesn't seem to have an easy answer.  But President Obama apparently is going to have to come up with one.

According to Ed O'Keefe's article in yesterday's Washington Post (and other articles over past months as well), the hard left is less and less enamored of Mr Obama, and may very actively, very publicly, force him to lurch further to their way of things. 

Read these excerpts from Mr. O'Keefe's article and see for yourself:

Liberal activists and academics displeased with the Obama administration’s handling of several issues popular with progressives say they are seeking candidates willing to mount a primary challenge against President Obama next year.

 

The group, led by consumer advocate Ralph Nader and scholar Cornel West, said it faults Obama for the escalation of military campaigns in Afghanistan and Pakistan, for extending tax cuts first enacted by George W. Bush and for his actions during the recent debt ceiling negotiations.

 

The group said Saturday it is seeking six “recognizable, articulate” candidates who would not mount serious challenges to Obama, but “rigorously debate his policy stands” on issues related to labor, poverty, foreign policy, civil rights and consumer protections.

 

The group’s efforts come as Democrats are growing increasingly pessimistic about the country’s direction. Fewer than three-quarters of Democrats approve of Obama’s job performance, and less than a third believe the nation is headed in the right direction, according to the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll.

 

Nader said Saturday it is “very unlikely” he would challenge Obama, and that he is gauging the interest of former lawmakers and governors, academics, authors and labor leaders.

 

“I just want all these liberal, progressive agendas to be robustly debated. Otherwise, there will be a de facto blackout of their discussion” during next year’s campaign, Nader said.

 

The longtime consumer advocate’s involvement may revive accusations that his third-party presidential candidacy upended Al Gore’s chances of winning the 2000 presidential contest.

 

West’s involvement is notable, because he has repeatedly criticized and questioned Obama’s liberal bona fides, and faults the president for failing to properly address the growing economic plight of African Americans.

 

Barack Obama is a very big problem to the left (not "liberals", Ed:  Ralph Nader and Cornel West are not liberal, they are far left).

On the domestic front, I doubt that any President could have given the far left more.  From him they got the so-called "stimulus package", ObamaCare, a concerted effort to give illegal aliens a path to amnesty, etc. 

On military/foreign policy, however, we have a very different story. 

Candidate Obama promised to have all soldiers home from Iraq in 12 - 16 months (depending on which day he was talking), to close Guantanamo immediately upon taking office, to end a variety of covert activities (e.g. renditions, drone attacks on targets in other sovereign countries,) etc.  But as President, we are still in Iraq, Guantanamo is still open, covert activities obviously continue as they did under President Bush (bye-bye osama).  In addition, Afghanistan has almost four times the number of troops there were when President Bush left office, and there have been far more casualties there under Obama than under Bush - with nothing to show for it.

How does this sit with the far left?  Obviously not very well.

It would be easy to dismiss Ralph Nader as a has-been,  and Cornel West as a never-was whose importance has been astoundingly overinflated by media.  But it isn't that simple.  While both characterizations are, in my opinion, dead-on correct, Mr. Nader and Mr. West still command loads of media attention.   

What if they succeed in getting a couple of high-profile leftists to challenge President Obama and force him into primary debates?  That would put Mr. Obama in the position of either lurching appreciably left to placate the (appreciable)Nader/West wing of his base, or doing battle with them - which would cause Mr. Obama to lose the hardest-left segment, and make even the segment who still will vote for him less likely to donate money and/or campaign on his behalf.

Do you need me to tell you how much Republicans would love for this to happen?

We'll keep an eye out and see how things develop.

Ken Berwitz

Just how bad is the Solyndra scandal?  In the immortal words of Al Jolson, "You ain't seen nuthin' yet".

Andrew McCarthy of National Review has put together a highly informative, highly chilling analysis of the criminality aspect of Solyndra.  Not surprisingly - this being the Obama administratoin - it involves complete disregard for the constitution and other branches of government. 

Here are the first few paragraphs. But please note that you would cheat yourself not to click on the link I've provided and read every word:

The Solyndra Fraud
The solar-energy company was a con game.

The Solyndra debacle is not just Obama-style crony socialism as usual. It is a criminal fraud. That is the theory that would be guiding any competent prosecutor’s office in the investigation of a scheme that cost victims — in this case, American taxpayers — a fortune.

 

Fraud against the United States is one of the most serious felony offenses in the federal penal law. It is even more serious than another apparent Solyndra violation that has captured congressional attention: the Obama administration’s flouting of a statute designed to protect taxpayers.

 

Homing in on one of the several shocking aspects of the Solyndra scandal, lawmakers noted that, a few months before the “clean energy” enterprise went belly-up last week, the Obama Energy Department signed off on a sweetheart deal. In the event of bankruptcy — the destination to which it was screamingly obvious Solyndra was headed despite the president’s injection of $535 million in federal loans — the cozily connected private investors would be given priority over American taxpayers. In other words, when the busted company’s assets were sold off, Obama pals would recoup some of their losses, while you would be left holding the half-billion-dollar bag.

As Andrew Stiles reported here at NRO, Republicans on the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee say this arrangement ran afoul of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This law — compassionate conservatism in green bunting — is a monstrosity, under which Leviathan, which can’t run a post office, uses your money to pick winners and losers in the economy’s energy sector. The idea is cockamamie, but Congress did at least write in a mandate that taxpayers who fund these “investments” must be prioritized over other stakeholders. The idea is to prevent cronies from pushing ahead of the public if things go awry — as they are wont to do when pols fancy themselves venture capitalists.

On the Energy Policy Act, the administration’s malfeasance is significant, but secondary. That’s because the act is not a penal statute. It tells the cabinet officials how to structure these “innovative technology” loans, but it provides no remedy if Congress’s directives are ignored.

The criminal law, by contrast, is not content to assume the good faith of government officials. It targets anyone — from low-level swindlers to top elective officeholders — who attempts to influence the issuance of government loans by making false statements; who engages in schemes to defraud the United States; or who conspires “to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof, in any manner or for any purpose.” The penalties are steep: Fraud in connection with government loans, for example, can be punished by up to 30 years in the slammer.

 The more we know, the worse this stinks. 

And that is before we get to the other "green" companies that appear to have been handed similarly dirty financial arrangements - and which we, the taxpayers, will be soaked for in the end.

The Green Scandal is huge now.  Yet still in its infancy.  But this is one baby that no one - certainly no one in the Obama administration - wants to see grown up. 

Get ready, though.  It's coming.  And even Mr. Obama's disgraceful toady and sock-puppet, Attorney General eric holder, may not be able to prevent people from being fired, fined and jailed for it.

Ken Berwitz

Chicago does not have to wait for the unwanted ObamaCare program to go through the courts.  Its new Mayor, former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, has decided to force his version of it down Chicagoans' throats right now.

Excerpted from a report at NBC-Chicago:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is giving city workers an important health choice: enroll in a new wellness plan, expected to be unveiled Friday, or pay a higher premium. 

 

The price if they don't enroll: $50 a month.

 

"We will help you be a good steward for your health," Emanuel said Friday, "but if you choose not to, you'll pay that price and that is the price you'll have to pay."

 

The mayor believes the program will help cut the annual $500 million bill for health care for city employees.

 

"We are going to implement a citywide wellness plan for city employees," Emanuel confirmed at a recent press conference, "because health care costs for the city are being driven by 10 percent a year, and we're not seeing revenue grow that way."

 

Most city unions have signed on to the agreement, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, except the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents more than 10,000 city employees.

 

"You can't ask the taxpayers to pay for a healthcare problem that you can manage and do a good job," Emanuel said. "You can do that with cholesterol, you can do that through diabetes, you can do that through smoking, through heart, blood pressure. Every one of those is manageable."

I'm glad that Rahm Emanuel is so concerned with the health and well being of city workers - so much so that he is forcing them to take Orahmacare, or be penalized $600 for daring to prefer an alternative health plan. It's nice to see a politician take so strong a stand.

But I have a few questions:

-Why would anyone in his or her right mind believe the city of Chicago is sincerely, nonpolitically, going to provide quality health care - not a crony system with politicians and politicians' pals/donors/fundraisers being steered to where the money is?  When does that ever happen in Chicago (or just about anywhere else)?

-Why would anyone in his or her right mind believe Orahmacare would be run competently and efficiently, without massive screwups, boondoggles and waste?  When does that ever happen in Chicago (or just about anywhere else)?

-Why would anyone in his or her right mind believe the cost of Orahmacare, a government-run program, is going to come in anywhere near where Mayor Emanuel claims?  When does that ever happen in Chicago (or just about anywhere else)?

-When does any government program, health care or otherwise, run better than it runs in the private sector?

-Who gave Rahm Emanuel the power to tell city workers they have to do it his way or be punished by a crushing $600 a year fine?  

Give me satisfactory answers to those questions and I will consider supporting Orahmacare.  If not, I suggest that someone stand up to this mayor, who seems determined to impose his will upon the masses, like some kind of tinhorn dictator -- i.e. like his former boss in Washington DC.

Ken Berwitz

Art:  From the great movie Casablanca, after Captain Renault is told to create an excuse for closing down Rick's:

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.

(BS) Art(istry):  Far-from-great Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), House Energy and Commerce chair when the Solyndra deal was cooked up, trying to create a way to separate himself and his party from the huge scandal it has become:

“Taxpayers have over $500 million at risk as a result of Solyndra’s bankruptcy.  We need to understand what happened and how we can avoid future losses.” 

No need to blog any further than this.  I assume you get the point.

Ken Berwitz

We've all heard the slogan "Buy American".  But, in an effort to put itself ahead of GM and Chrysler, the Ford Motor Company apparently has expanded it to "Buy Solvent America"

Here's how, via Paul Bedard's piece at usnews.com (which, due to how short it is, I am posting in its entirety.  Mr. Bedard can, of course, post anything of mine he cares to):

America is still fighting over President Obama's costly bailout of Chrysler and General Motors. Especially the owners of Ford, the only member of Detroit's "Big Three" who rejected the government dole and emerged perfectly healthy.

In its most political ad in the so-called "Drive One" ads where real drivers are thrust before cameras to explain why they picked Ford, a real Ford F-150 pick-up driver is featured.

His name is Chris. After he sits down the "reporters" bark "Chris, Chris." One asks him to explain why "was buying American important to you."

 

 

Sitting and looking sincere and serious, Chris says: "I wasn't going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government. I was going to buy from a manufacturer that's standing on their own: win, lose, or draw. That's what America is about is taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta' pick yourself up and go back to work. Ford is that company for me."

A Ford spokeswoman confirmed that Chris is an actual Ford owner and that those are his real words (the ad series is all unscripted).

According to a government report, taxpayers will lose $14 billion in the bailout.

Now that is an interesting way to sell cars. 

In advertising, you quickly learn that uniqueness can be a very strong selling point.  Thus the fact that Ford is alone among major US automakers in not taking bailout money - otherwise known as taxpayer dollars - may well be a big winner for them:  especially given the horrendous condition of our economy and the negative/getting-even-worse perception of President Obama's economic policies.  Time will tell.

In the short run, however, this campaign is sure to generate commentary on the cable news networks.  Let's see what they have to say about it.

Ken Berwitz

I was just reading through Noel Shepperd's blog at newsbusters.org (a site that is worth checking every day), and came upon this genuinely astonishing information, excerpted below:

As the scandal involving failed solar panel company Solyndra and President Obama grows, the prime time programs at the so-called "news network" known as MSNBC continue to ignore it.

Despite the announcement of the Solyndra bankruptcy on August 31, "Hardball," "PoliticsNation," "The Last Word," "The Rachel Maddow Show," and "The Ed Show" have not done one single report on the subject.

Not one.

This scandal is so big for so many reasons (e.g. the White House was directly involved in facilitating a $535 million dollar loan to Solyndra even after being warned the company was in grave danger of folding, the key investor, george kaiser, is a major-league donor, and bundler, for President Obama, etc.) that even mainstream media venues which are usually quite happy to cover for President Obama have given it major story status.

But, if Mr. Shepperd is correct (and it is an excellent bet that he is), not one prime time show on MSNBC has even reported the existence of this scandal, let alone President Obama's direct involvement, or the half-billion dollars-plus that taxpayers have been soaked for.

In other words, anyone who relies on MSNBC for their news would be asking the questions in this blog's title.

Every time I convince myself that MSNBC can't sink any lower, I find out that I am wrong. 

Ken Berwitz

About ten years ago, one of the hottest occupations around was that of web site designer.  The internet had exploded, everyone needed a web site, and no one had one.  A good web site person could make a fortune. 

Then, eventually, pretty much everyone had their web site, and all they needed was occasional maintenance.  Not surprisingly, therefore the web site design business dropped like a rock off a cliff.

With that in mind, let's talk about unions. 

There was a time when unions were an absolute imperative for working people.  Without them, a worker would never ever get a fair shake from a company.  Overtime?  Paid vacations?  Not even a wistful dream.  Reality was seeing a sign at the work site saying "If you don't come in Sunday, don't come in Monday". 

Things are dramatically better for the working man now, and unions are almost 100% the reason.  Let's never forget that; let's never forget the immense contribution they have provided to our society - and, in many cases, still provide to this day.

That said, however, the parallel between unions and those web site designer seem pretty obvious, doesn't it? 

Today, unions operate in a multitude of areas where workers, far from being downtrodden, oppressed and abused, are at the elite end of the spectrum - making appreciably more money with better benefits and larger pensions than most others.  Not surprisingly, therefore, a great many of them would be happy to dump the union they belong to and save the dues - assuming they were legally able to do so. 

This brings us to the following excerpt from an article by Tom Gantert of michigancapitolconfidential.com:

As a teacher in the Grand Ledge Public Schools and a former teachers union president, John Ellsworth says the various education reforms coming from Michigan’s Republican-led government are “despicable.” He thinks the much-talked about “right-to-teach” legislation for public school employees, which would make joining a teachers union voluntary, is part of “a continued attack” blaming teachers for school woes.

Yet, even Ellsworth says he would drop his Michigan Education Association membership if right-to-work for teachers became a reality.

“Yes. I think I would,” Ellsworth said.

Depending upon what districts would be willing to offer to teachers who declined union representation, Ellsworth estimated that somewhere between 10 percent and 40 percent of teachers would bolt from the MEA.

The reason? He says some don’t think they are getting real value from the $90 per month in union dues he says they pay.

Currently, right-to-work laws, which make it illegal to force workers to join a union as a conditon of employment, exist in 22 states.  The article, however, speaks to what would happen if a state without such laws - i.e. a state with involuntary union membership - enacted them.  What would it mean?

Well, if John Ellsworth is any indicator (and I strongly suspect he is), it would mean that - just as the success of web site designers caused them ton contract in number and changed how they functioned - so would right-to-work laws change how unions are structured and how they would function. 

Look at it this way:  Mr. Ellsworth is a big proponent of unions who hates Republicans for pushing this legislation:  if he would bug out, who wouldn't?

This is not to say that right-to-work laws would mean the end of unions per se.  But they would mean the end of unions as we now know them - especially the very large unions which wield the most power. 

Dues would certainly have to be lower, which means fewer of those big, luxurious offices and fewer of those fatcat union suits living off the backs of their members.  And unions would have to "sell" their services to prospective members in ways that would make paying even the reduced dues attractive.  

How they would do this, I do not know.  I'm no expert in the field.  But if Mr. Ellsworth is right, they sure as shootin' better find out.  Or they are SOL - until the pendulum shifts and the workers in quesiton are behind, instead of ahead of, the eight ball again.

Ken Berwitz

Pyrite is an iron sulfide.  It is often called “fool’s gold”, because, though of  very low value compared to gold itself,  it looks a lot like gold and often fooled prospectors into thinking they had the real thing.

I was reminded of pyrite while looking at an article, written by John McCormick for bloomberg.com, which I linked to from www.drudgereport.com.  The article tells us that many voters have "buyer's remorse" over Barack Obama, and now are more favorably disposed toward Hillary Clinton.

Here are the first three paragraphs:

The most popular national political figure in America today is one who was rejected by her own party three years ago: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans hold a favorable view of her and one-third are suffering a form of buyer’s remorse, saying the U.S. would be better off now if she had become president in 2008 instead of Barack Obama.

The finding in the latest Bloomberg National Poll shows a higher level of wishful thinking about a Hillary Clinton presidency than when a similar question was asked in July 2010. Then, a quarter of Americans held such a view.

On its face, that would make a very compelling case for Hillary Clinton to resign as Secretary of State - where she has been more or less politically anonymous for the past 2 1/2 years - and challenge Barack Obama for the 2012 Democrat presidential nomination.

But are things really as they seem?  I think not.

Barack Obama, at least at this moment (in politics all things are subject to change) is a fast-fading star. 

-His poll numbers are not good;

-his two signature legislative actions are both hurting him with voters (the so-called "stimulus package" is considered a budget-busting failure and most people do not want ObamaCare);

-his foreign policy is avidly disliked by many, and

-he has a number of major scandals on the horizon (Operation Fast and Furious, the Green scandal, etc.) that could blow up at any time.

It stands to reason that an incumbent with this much negative baggage is going to cause a lot of his supporters to wish they had voted for someone else.

In 2008, that someone else was Hillary Clinton.  Therefore, the favorability towards Ms. Clinton is most likely due to a combination of:

-Anti-Obama sentiment (i.e. wishing that they had voted for whomever ran against Mr. Obama last time around, not specifically Hillary Clinton) and

-the fact that, since she has largely been out of the political limelight all this time, her negatives - the ones that caused her to lose what seemed like a sure nomination to Mr. Obama in 2008, have been relegated to the back burner.  

Put another way, absence really does make the heart grow fonder.

But what if Ms. Clinton decided to take the plunge and challenge Mr. Obama?  Then that all reverses.

The problems with Ms. Clinton -the ones that caused her to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2008 - will be front and center again.  We will be reminded of her polarizing personality, how much she is despised by so many people, her serial lying about her background, we will again be treated to that consummately phony "delighted surprise" smile she uses at every campaign event, etc. etc. etc. 

And, most importantly, to upend Barack Obama in 2012 means aggressively working toward, and succeeding in, getting rid of a Black President.  Just how do you think that would play among Black voters, over 90% of whom usually vote Democrat? 

I'm not claiming they will vote Republican.  That is a pipe dream.  But do you think they will come out in the numbers necessary for Ms. Clinton to win a national election - after pushing President Obama down the stairs?  Not a chance.

Like I said, Ms. Clinton is pyrite.  Fool's gold. 

If you are a Republican, you should be rooting for her to succeed.

Ken Berwitz

Years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously coined the phrase "Defining Deviancy Down".  Today we have Chris Matthews defining hopeless partisanship down.  Lower and lower and lower.

How else do you explain the comments he makes, almost every day; each one seemingly designed to make him look worse than the day before?

Take Matthews' latest descent, from tonight's broadcast, which involves his reaction to a corny anecdote Texas Governor/Presidential candidate Rick Perry told an audience about his college career:

Here is Perry's anecdote:

"So I got my Webster's out and I just looked up the word convocation so I would make sure I kind of understood what I was walking into here. I actually went to college to be a veterinarian and the dean of the veterinary school advised me that I actually wanted to be an animal science major. He said, "Son, I'm looking at your transcript. You want to be an animal science major." So, you know, the fact of the matter is, four semesters of organic chemistry made a pilot out of me."

And here is what Matthews had to say about it:

"Is it a qualification that you can claim this lack of knowledge as some strength? Bachmann does it. He does it, they all do it. It's a clamoring attempt to identify with regular people by acting like you're stupider than they are."

Let's see what we've got:

-First off, Perry didn't claim lack of knowledge is a strong point:  he did nothing other than tell a self-deprecating little story about his college days.

-Then we have Matthews' projecting his fraudulent claim about Perry to every other Republican candidate (i.e. you've seen one, you've seen 'em all);

-And his finishing touch is to claim every Republican is trying to identify with regular people by out-stupiding them -- in other words, "regular people" (like you and me) are stupid, and Republicans are trying to ingratiate themselves to these stupid people by showing they are even more stupid. 

How's that for smug, arrogant elitism?

FYI, Chris Matthews has been hosting one form or another of "Hardball" since 1997 - first on CNBC, then on MSNBC.  And, after 14 years, his ratings remain at or near the bottom of the pack.  Maybe commentary like this is what keeps him there.

On the other hand, given where MSNBC has sunk, this same commentary just might guarantee him a lifetime job.

Ken Berwitz

This very short blog consists of a verbatim quote from Dr. Ivar Giaever, the world-renowned, Nobel Prize-winning Physicist, in Tuesday's email explaining his resignation from the American Physical Society (APS):

“Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming):

 

APS: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’

 

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period."

 

Any questions?

Ken Berwitz

In the fascinating movie "Once Upon A Time In America", Noodles Aaronson (played by Robert DeNiro) says "You can always tell the winners from the starting gate", and Fat Mo (played by Larry Rapp) says "I would have bet everything I had on you".  Aaronson tells him "You would have lost".

Joe McGinniss, who has written a mega-hit piece on Sarah Palin called "The Rogue", has managed to reverse this conversation.

"You can always tell the the losers from the starting gate"  "I would have bet everything I had on you"   "You would have won".

Joe McGinniss is the hard left author who has written several best selling books over the past 40 years.  But the sense I get is that "The Rogue" demonstrates his best days are far behind him. 

McGinniss, you may remember, is the guy who rented a house next door to the Palin home in Wasilla, Alaska while writing the book, and assured anyone who would listen that it wasn't to spy on them.  I would guess that, oh, maybe 35 or 40 people in America believed him.  Shame on them for being so gullible.

In any event, the book is coming out next week.  And today I note that it has one very predictable supporter and one very surprising detractor.

On the predictably supportive side we have NBC's Today Show. 

Today, which never seems able to stuff enough Sarah Palin-bashing into its lineup, gave McGinniss almost 7 minutes of air time this morning - after teasing the segment for almost an hour by talking about how controversial and possibly unfounded his charges against Ms. Palin and her family are.  You might ask why, if this was the case, Today would air any segment of any length on the book.  My answer is, please reread the first sentence of this paragraph.

Not surprisingly, McGinniss used the expansive length of time Today afforded him to attack Ms. Palin every way he could think of.  Today did not, however, favor viewers with anyone to rebut his charges, which include Sarah Palin and her husband being drug users, Ms. Palin being a racist, Ms. Palin having an affair with Glen Rice, a Black basketball player (yeah, I know he said she was a racist...you try and figure that one out), Ms. Palin being a lousy mother who uses her children as props, Ms. Palin being disliked most by the people who know her best, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam. 

To his credit, however, Mr. McGinniss did refrain from also accusing her of the Lindbergh kidnapping and the assassination of President William McKinley.

On the very surprising detractor side, there is a book review of The Rogue from Janet Maslin of the New York Times.  Maslin does not like this book, because it deals in petty BS and unfounded charges from anonymous sources.  That is certainly fair enough; but how surprising to read it in a NY Times book review!  Here is a taste of what Ms Maslin has to say:

Mr. McGinniss explains that he was shocked, just shocked, at the angry response his presence in Wasilla provoked. But “The Rogue” makes the Palins’ widely publicized anger understandable, even to readers who might have defended his right to set up shop in their neighborhood and soak up the local color. Although most of “The Rogue” is dated, petty and easily available to anyone with Internet access, Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources like “one resident” and “a friend.”

And these stories need not be consistent. “The Rogue” suggests that Todd Palin and the young Sarah Heath took drugs. It also says that she lacked boyfriends and was a racist. And it includes this: “A friend says, ‘Sarah and her sisters had a fetish for black guys for a while.’  ” Mr. McGinniss did in 2011 make a phone call to the former N.B.A. basketball player Glen Rice, who is black, and prompted him to acknowledge having fond memories of Sarah Heath. While Mr. Rice avoids specifics and uses the words “respectful” and “a sweetheart,” Mr. McGinniss eggs him on with the kind of flagrantly leading question he seems to have habitually asked. In Mr. Rice’s case: “So you never had the feeling she felt bad about having sex with a black guy?”

Bottom line?  There are enough Sarah Palin haters (do in no small part to aiders and abettors like The Today Show) for "The Rogue" to probably sell a bunch of copies in a short period of time.  Then, most likely, it will quickly sink into obscurity. 

Mr. McGinniss's loser status, however, will linger for a long long time.

Ken Berwitz

This level of corruption in this administration is sickening.  A cesspool.  And it appears to be getting worse by the day.

Read the following excerpts from Eli Lake's article at (the usually left-friendly) dailybeast.com and see for yourself (the bold print is mine):

The four-star Air Force general who oversees Air Force Space Command walked into a highly secured room on Capitol Hill a week ago to give a classified briefing to lawmakers and staff, and dropped a surprise. Pressed by members, Gen. William Shelton said the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to a company tied to a large Democratic donor.

 

The episode —confirmed by The Daily Beast in interviews with administration officials and the chairman of a congressional oversight committee —is the latest in a string of incidents that have given Republicans sudden fodder for questions about whether the Obama administration is politically interfering in routine government matters that affect donors or fundraisers. Already, the FBI and a House committee are investigating a federal loan guarantee to a now failed solar firm called Solyndra that is tied to a large Obama fundraiser.

 

Now the Pentagon has been raising concerns about a new wireless project by a satellite broadband company in Virginia called LightSquared, whose majority owner is an investment fund run by Democratic donor Philip Falcone.

That corrupt enough for you?

I wish I could say that the corruption which appears to be so rife in this administration is a surprise.  But I would be lying.  We elected a Chicago machine politician to the presidency, and he appointed a disgraceful toady of a sock-puppet, eric holder, as this country's Attorney General.  So why would we expect anything but corruption? 

Truthfully, the most interesting part of this story is its source.  Suddenly, in just the past week or two, some of the "accomplice media", which, in my view, have diligently protected Obama & Co. for the past 2 1/2 years, are finally doing what they are supposed to to:  report the news about this administration, not cover it up.

And the more this administration's actions are reported, the dirtier they are likely to be - as seen in this story, and recent reports on Solyndra/the Green Scandal, and recent reports on the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, and so on and so on.

It's about damn time.  But, that said, better late than never.

Personally, I do not believe the Obama administration can stand up to serious scrutiny.  And there is now at least a glimmer of hope that media will subject it to just that between now and next election day.

If so, to paraphrase Bette Davis's classic line, "Strap on your seat belts.  It's going to be a bumpy 14 months"

AKA "All About Barack"

Ken Berwitz

“We had a president of the United States that recently was speaking at National Council of La Raza who said during his speech, ‘There are those who simply wish me to bypass Congress when it comes to immigration,’ and many in the audience clapped, saying, ‘Yup, bypass Congress…’

“He said, ‘But I can’t bypass Congress,’ and people in the audience said, ‘Yes you can,’ and you want to know something? They were right -- he could and he did, and I want to thank the President of the United States, and I want to thank all of those that work at the White House for issuing new guidance when it comes to deportations”

Those words were stated by Rep. luis gutierrez (D-IL) on Monday, in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute.

For the record, The United States Supreme Court has specifically ruled that it is unconstitutional for the President of the United States to supersede congress and make, or define, immigration law. (Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 (1976))

Therefore, luis gutierrez is thanking President Obama for trashing the constitution by taking on powers he absolutely, unequivocally does not have.  And President Obama deserves gutierrez's thanks, because that is exactly what he did. 

Has there ever been a President who has acted in contravention of the constitution more often than President Obama - with our "accomplice media" looking the other way as he does it?

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough. 

Ken Berwitz

Every time I read another article about Solyndra, the "green" company whose major success was to scam the US taxpayer out of over half a billion (not million, billion) dollars - with the enthusiastic blessing of Barack Obama and his administration - I learn that, as bad as I thought this scandal was, it was even worse.

Here are excerpts from Michael Barone's latest column at townhall.com.  See for yourself -- and please pay special attention to the part I have put in bold print:

Solyndra was the first company to receive a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy as part of the 2009 stimulus package. This wasn't small potatoes. The loan guarantee was for $535 million.

It was, Vice President Biden said, "exactly what the Recovery Act was all about." Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winner, said it would help "spark a new revolution that will put Americans to work." It was part of the Obama administration's program to create so-called "green jobs," which we were told were the key to future economic growth.

Obama paid a visit to Solyndra on a trip to California in May 2010. "It is here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter, more prosperous future," he said. Hailing the green jobs loan guarantee program, he went on, "We can see the positive impacts right here at Solyndra."

Unfortunately, there were other things going on at Solyndra for those with eyes to see. As my Washington Examiner colleague David Freddoso reported, an audit of the company performed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers two months before Obama's visit noted that the firm had accumulated losses of $558 million in its five years of existence.

One of the original investors in Solyndra was Oklahoma billionaire George Kaiser, who was also a major contributor to Obama's 2008 campaign. In early 2011, Kaiser and other investors provided an additional $75 million in financing to Solyndra. They did so on condition, approved by the Energy Department, that they receive priority over previous creditors, including the government.

On Aug. 31, while Obama was vacationing on Martha's Vineyard, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy. On Sept. 8, the day of Obama's "American Jobs Act" speech to a joint session of Congress, FBI agents conducted searches of Solyndra's headquarters and the homes of the firm's CEO and founder. Newspaper accounts speculate that the government may wind up losing the whole $535 million.

The scandal is still going on. The Energy Department has been busy handing out more loan guarantees in the past few weeks -- $150 million to 1366 Technologies of Lexington, Mass. (73 percent for Obama in 2008), 80 percent of $344 million to Solar City of San Mateo, Calif. (72 percent for Obama in 2008). Will one of them be the next Solyndra?

The real scandal is the "green jobs" loan guarantee program itself. And the ones getting scammed are American taxpayers.

Got that?  Solyndra was a fiscal disaster.  Obama & Co. knew it - but tossed $535 million dollars into the company anyway. 

Then we have george kaiser, a big-time donor to, and $$$ bundler for, Barack Obama.  kaiser was given the chance to put $75 million in, on condition that he and his pals got priority over other creditors, including the US taxpayer.

This means that if there are $75 million dollars worth of assets (which it is an excellent bet there are), Obama-pal kaiser is out nothing.  Zilch.  Nada.  Not one red cent.  He could only make money, not lose it.

But you, Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer?  You aren't as "lucky" as Obama pal kaiser.  You are out of over a half billion dollars.

And that's not all.  As Mr. Barone tells us, this scandal continues to grow.  Mr. Obama's left wing, environmental-wacko energy secretary is sinking more hundreds of millions of dollars into companies just like Solyndra - evidently, with the blessing (did you expect otherwise) of Barack Obama.

Would it be asking too much to stop these loans from being dispensed until full audits are made of the companies' viability?  Or are there other Obama pals involved - which apparently means the money will flow regardless of whether these companies can succeed?

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the lead story headline, and sub-head, in this morning's New York Times:

Islamists’ Growing Sway

Raises Questions for Libya

_________________

Repressed by Qaddafi, Hard-Liners Emerge

as Best-Organized Political Faction

And here are my questions for the Times.

Where the hell were you guys for the half-year that we have been bombing on behalf of the people your headline is talking about? 

I know the Times' news and editorial staffs are not comprised of impossibly incompetent people, so how could you not have seen this coming?  

Why did you ignore the "rebel" leader who, while we bombed on his behalf, told the L