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.