Ken Berwitz

Speaking with 100% honesty, it is harder and harder to accept what Herman Cain is saying about the sexual harassment charges.

-First he didn't know anything about them.

-Then he had a vague recollection.

-Then he sort of remembered something happened.

-Then he remembered exactly what happened with one of them, but it wasn't sexual.

And that is in less than one day's time.

At the beginning of the day I was resentful that politico.com put out a story like this with no specifics.  But the more Mr. Cain opens his mouth about the charges, the less credible he sounds.

I'm not convinced one way or the other yet.  Let's see where this goes.

Ken Berwitz

They say a picture is as good as 1,000 words. 

Well, take a look at these pictures:  Of the al-qaeda flag flying over Benghazi, Libya.  Then see how many of the 1,000 are curse words:

Change of regime? A trademark Al Qaeda flag was seen flying over Benghazi's courthouse last week

 

Flying high: The Al Qaeda flag, with Arabic writing and a moon design, can be seen flying alongside a Libyan national flag above Benghazi's courthouse

Maybe Hillary Clinton and President Obama would like to strut a little more about their great "victory" in Libya.......

Ken Berwitz

Steven Chu is the Obama administration's Energy Secretary.  He is therefore the one who signed off on that half BILLION dollar loan guarantee to Solyndra, making sure that it was written in a way that when Solyndra went belly-up the big Obama fundraiser behind it would get his $$$ back instead of the taxpayer. 

He also signed off on over a half billion to build $97,000 electric cars that no one but the rich can buy -- in Finland, not in the USA.

And he also signed off on $43 million for Beacon Power Corp.  Here is how that is working out, courtesy of the following excerpt from Ben Geman's article at thehill.com:

Second Energy Department-backed company goes bankrupt

A Massachusetts company that received a $43 million Energy Department loan guarantee last year filed for bankruptcy Sunday, a step certain to fuel criticism of federal green energy financing in the wake of the solar company Solyndra’s collapse.

Beacon Power Corp., which develops energy storage systems, filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

Beacon Power had received a federal loan guarantee to help build an energy storage plant in Stephentown, N.Y., that began operating in January. The Treasury Department’s Federal Financing Bank provided the loan.

Beacon sought bankruptcy protection two days after the White House ordered an independent 60-day evaluation of the Energy Department's loan programs aimed at ensuring effective management and monitoring. 

If, after reading this, you are still wondering why I included Chu in the previous blog?  I can't help you.

Ken Berwitz

kathleen sebelius is the former Governor of Kansas, and the Obama Administration's current Secretary of Health and Human Services.

But, based on what Michelle Malkin has uncovered about her, it seems to me she should be posting bail and awaiting trial instead.

I strongly urge you to read Ms. Malkin's entire column, by clicking here.  But let me give you just a taste of what she has uncovered:

On Monday, a district judge in the Sunflower State suspended court proceedings in a high-profile criminal case against the abortion racketeers of Planned Parenthood. World Magazine, a Christian news publication, reported on new bombshell court filings showing that Kansas health officials “shredded documents related to felony charges the abortion giant faces.” World Magazine reported: “The health department failed to disclose that fact for six years, until it was forced to do so in the current felony case over whether it manufactured client records.”

 

The records are at the heart of the fraud case against Planned Parenthood. Kansas health bureaucrats now shrug that the destruction of these key documents — which they sheepishly admitted had “certain idiosyncrasies” — was “routine.” Who oversaw the agency accused of destroying the evidence six years ago? Sebelius.

 

Former GOP state Attorney General Phill Kline’s investigation turned up massive discrepancies in reported child rape statistics compared to Planned Parenthood and the late late-term abortionist George Tiller’s bogus claims. Planned Parenthood of Overland Park and Tiller together performed abortions on 166 girls aged 14 and under and only reported one each to authorities. So, 164 cases of underage rape or statutory rape went unreported and were not investigated by authorities.

 

Sebelius’ response? A bloody ideological soul mate of Tiller’s, she launched a vengeful witch-hunt against Kline. The state ethics board accused him of lying. The left-wing state Supreme Court Sebelius appointed stymied Kline’s subpoenas and appeals.

 

Kline was cleared of all ethics violations. In fact, for 20 full months, the state’s disciplinary board for lawyers suppressed an internal investigative report concluding there was zero probable cause to justify the ethics complaints.

 

Under Sebelius’ watch as governor, an inspector general also reported that her appointed health policy board had “applied pressure to alter an audit report, restricted access to legal advice and threatened to fire her for meeting independently with legislators,” according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.

 

Like her boss in Washington, Sebelius’ political playbook has a single page: Destroy the messenger.

If Ms. Malkin's charges are true - and, as you can see, they are fully referenced - what a disgusting, corrupt "person" kathleen sebelius is.  What a horrible travesty that she heads HHS. 

But, based on other appointments, such as AG eric holder, energy secretary steven chu, former "green" czar van jones, etc., why would anyone be surprised that she is a valued member of the Obama administration?

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

According to a breathless news flash from US Magazine, Kim Kardashian has had enough of wedded, er, bliss and is filing for divorce from basketball player Kris Humphries.

Evidently it took her 2 1/2 months to realize that that basketball players dribble before they slam dunk, not afterwards....and layups never take more than a few seconds.

I admit this has no relevance at all to politics...but I wanted to get that disgusting, groan-inducing punch line up before someone else beat me to it.

Ken Berwitz

Let's start with the tale of Libya that also includes Hillary worship.

Excerpted from Joby Warrick's loving article in yesterday's Washington Post:

TRIPOLI, Libya — At 5:45 p.m. on March 19, three hours before the official start of the air campaign over Libya, four French Rafale jet fighters streaked across the Mediterranean coastline to attack a column of tanks heading toward the rebel city of Benghazi. The jets quickly obliterated their targets — and in doing so nearly upended the international alliance coming to Benghazi’s rescue.

France’s head start on the air war infuriated Italy’s prime minister, who accused Paris of upstaging NATO. Silvio Berlusconi warned darkly of cutting access to Italian air bases vital to the alliance’s warplanes.

“It nearly broke up the coalition,” said a European diplomat who had a front-row seat to the events and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters between allies. Yet the rift was quickly patched, thanks to a frenzied but largely unseen lobbying effort that kept the coalition from unraveling in its opening hours.

“That,” the diplomat said, “was Hillary.”

Seven months later, with longtime U.S. nemesis Moammar Gaddafi dead and Libya’s onetime rebels now in charge, the coalition air campaign has emerged as a foreign policy success for the Obama administration and its most famous Cabinet member, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What emerges from these accounts is a picture of Clinton using her mixture of political pragmatism and tenacity to referee spats among NATO partners, secure crucial backing from Arab countries and tutor rebels on the fine points of message management.

Clinton, in an interview, acknowledged “periods of anguish and buyer’s remorse” during the seven months of the campaign. But, she said, “we set into motion a policy that was on the right side of history, on the right side of our values, on the right side of our strategic interests in the region.” 

That's nice.

Now let's see the other tale of Libya, which is excerpted from an article published by Agence France Presse - a five day old article, which means that Ms. Warrick and the Washington Post had ample time to know about it:

The announcement that Islamic Sharia law will be the basis of legislation in newly liberated Libya has raised concerns, especially among women, despite Islamists insisting moderation will prevail.

Interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil said on Sunday, during his speech to the nation in Benghazi to formally declare the country's liberation from the ousted regime of Muammar Qadhafi, that Sharia would be Libya's principal law.

 

"Any law that violates Sharia is null and void legally," he said, citing as an example the law on marriage passed during the slain dictator's 42-year tenure that imposed restrictions on polygamy, which is permitted in Islam.

 

"The law of divorce and marriage ... This law is contrary to Sharia and it is stopped," Abdel Jalil said.

 

His comments have provoked criticism and calls for restraint both in Libya and in Europe, amid fears that the Arab Spring may give rise to a potentially intolerant Islamist resurgence.

 

"It's shocking and insulting to state, after thousands of Libyans have paid for freedom with their lives, that the priority of the new leadership is to allow men to marry in secret," said Rim, 40, a Libyan feminist who requested anonymity.

 

"We did not slay Goliath so that we now live under the Inquisition," she told AFP.

 

Adel Rahman al-Shatr, one of the founders of the center-right Party of National Solidarity, launched just last week, said it was premature for the NTC leader to speak about the policies of the new state.

 

"It is a subject that should be discussed with the different political groups and with the Libyan people," he said.

 

"These declarations create feelings of pain and bitterness among women who sacrificed so many martyrs" in the eight-month battle against Qadhafi loyalists, he added.

 

"By abolishing the marriage law, women lose the right to keep the family home if they divorce. It is a disaster for Libyan women."

 

Western leaders also responded swiftly to Abdel Jalil's comments, with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton saying on Monday Libya's introduction of Sharia law must respect human rights and democratic principles.

This is a foreign policy success?  For WOMEN??????.

Hillary Clinton and her boss, Barack Obama, have spent billions of dollars and immeasurable diplomatic capital in Libya.  For what?  To get rid of a murderous tyrant and replace him with shari'a law - i.e. a return to the the middle ages?

From the looks of it, their great accomplishment is that they replaced a rock with a hard place.

And this is before we get to the ties that "the rebels" have with al qaeda - ties that may well make Libya a haven for them, and other like-minded terrorists.

Maybe the Post's Ms. Warrick might have considered that before doing her adoring love-dance for Hillary Clinton.

And maybe Hillary Clinton - that great Secretary of State, and spokesperson for women's rights - should have thought about it for a minute or two as well. 

D'ya think?

Ken Berwitz

Does anything scare our wonderful "neutral" media more than a Black man who proves that Black men can make it in the United States without dependency on the government?

Today, politico.com has made an allegation that Herman Cain was accused of sexually suggestive behavior by "at least two women" while he headed the National Restaurant Association about 20 years ago, each woman left the organization, and there was a settlement of some kind. 

But there is a problem:  namely that politico.com provides no specifics at all. 

-We are not told what "sexually suggestive behavior" means - though I'm sure it does not include physical contact, because if that were the accusation it certainly would have been mentioned;

-We do not know what "at least" two women means.  That wording makes it sound like a total of two women, with "at least" tossed in to make it look worse;,

-We do not know a thing about the women:  what their names are, when and how long they worked at the organization, what specific reasons they had for leaving, whether people other than Herman Cain were also accused or what specific "settlement" was made.  So far, all we have is politico.com's assurance that they exist.

But the lack of any specifics has not stopped this "story" from being blasted all over the media - including a laughable piece on the Today Show this morning which started with Chuck Todd saying  "we need to emphasize that NBC news has not independently confirmed these allegations...".  That, I would think, leaves any intelligent viewer wondering why Today reported it at all - other than as an intentional hit piece on this uncomfortable, inconvenient Black conservative Republican.

Personally, I will not at all be surprised if more women now come forth with stories about Mr. Cain.  And if/when it happens, unless they have specific proof I will not believe them - because there is an obvious component of immediate fame and maybe money in making such an accusation (women also send marriage offers to convicted murderers).  But I would bet body parts that, with or without any evidence, the first few will get immediate media coverage anyway.

One other thing:  The Operation Fast and Furious investigation continues.  The Attorney General of the United States lied to us regarding what he knew about this murderous, catastrophic fiasco and when he knew about it.  The President of the United States claims to not have known a thing about the operation - which was of such a magnitude that it strains all credulity to believe he wasn't fully briefed, and signed off on it, before implementation. 

This, the Today Show and most other of our Accomplice Media have nothing at all to say about.  Why?  Apparently because these two Black men, Barack Obama and eric holder, are to be protected.  They're the "good ones".

But Herman Cain?  The Black man who came from nowhere and got everywhere on his own talents, without anyone giving him a thing?  He must be destroyed.  So let's run with that greatest of Black stereotypes; the sex predator.

Hell, if Black people are allowed to see Herman Cain as a role model, what could happen then?  There could be a whole bunch of other Black men who will say "If Cain can make it without dependency on the government than so can I".

We can't have that, can we?

Ken Berwitz

Did you know that, for the past several days, hamas has rained artillery down on Israel?  Unless you are specifically tuned into this issue, I doubt that you do, because mainstream media certainly won't be telling you.

Excerpted from a news bulletin at Jerusalem World News:

An Ashkelon man was killed and four other residents of southern Israel were wounded when their towns were hit by a barrage of long-range Grad missiles fired from the Gaza Strip Saturday night.

Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack. The terrorist group fired some 20 Grad missiles and mortars, hitting densely populated areas in Ashdod, Ashkelon, and towns across southern Israel. In addition to the casualties, the missiles caused extensive damage to buildings and parked vehicles.

One of the rockets hit an apartment building and ignited cooking gas canisters, setting the nine-storey building on fire.

Islamic Jihad announced that the barrage was in retaliation for an air strike against their organization earlier in the day. In fact, Israel Air Force aircraft had intercepted a squad of terrorists preparing to launch rockets and killed all five of them before they could fire the rockets at Israel.

Lovely.  Israel's choice was to either allow the terrorists to kill Israelis, or to kill the terrorists instead - and then be hit with a retaliation for doing so. 

In other words, either allow Gazans to murder Israelis, or stop them, after which Gazans murder Israelis.  Notice a common thread there?

Let's remember, please, that Islamic Jihad is not some hidden group in hamas-controlled Gaza.  hamas allows it to operate freely and openly.  They are in partnership with each other.

Let's also remember that hamas-controlled Gaza is where Israel just handed over almost 500 prisoners, most of them convicted terrorists, to get back one Israeli soldier (after 5 years of captivity), and promise to release 550 more over the next couple of months.  Is that deal null and void now?  And, if so, does that mean Gaza will accuse Israel of reneging on the agreement? 

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

How?

Oh, one other news item - this one from Ha'aretz:

RIYADH - A Saudi royal offered a $900,000 reward to anyone who captures an Israeli soldier, on Saturday. Prince Khaled bin Talal, the brother of business tycoon Walid bin Talal, told the Saudi-based broadcaster Al Daleel that the captive would then be released in exchange for Arabs held in Israeli prisons.

Khaled's offer comes days after the prominent Saudi cleric, Awad al-Qarni, put $100,000 on the head of every Israeli soldier.

Those are our "friends", the Saudis. 

Do you think President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton will be condemning this obvious Middle East provocation?  If so, I suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.  It's is not important enough, you see.

Hey, it's not like they support building residential housing in Jerusalem, is it? 

Ken Berwitz

That is a terrific question.  I wish I were the one who was asking it but (although my personal ego requires noting that I did say it to my wife) I am not the one who wrote it.  George Will did, in his latest column. 

Here are its last two paragraphs:

Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate. Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.

Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from “data” (although there is precious little to support Romney’s idea that in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants is a powerful magnet for such immigrants) and who believes elections should be about (in Dukakis’s words) “competence,” not “ideology.” But what would President Romney competently do when not pondering ethanol subsidies that he forthrightly says should stop sometime before “forever”? Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?

I used to enjoy reading George Will more than I do now.  He has become too immersed in overly clever, buckleyesque turns of phrase - which makes him seem more imperious than sincere.  But when he has a point, he has a point.  And this is an important one.

As things now stand, if George Romney is nominated and runs against Barack Obama, I will vote for Romney.  I will do so partly out of disgust with the Obama presidency, and partly because Romney has a terrific résumé, (successful businessperson, successfully ran the Olympics, electability, as proven by the fact that he was a Republican Governor of the deep-blue state of Massachusetts, etc.).

But résumés, by themselves, do not motivate voters.  Voters want serious answers to issues that affect their lives.  Can Romney provide them?  I seriously doubt that he can.

Mitt Romney will get my vote primarily because the other option is godawful.  But he does not excite me.  He does not motivate me to cast that ballot.  Not personally, and certainly not issues-wise.  

Mitt Romney has been on both sides of so many issues that I have no idea what his political core is - and doubt that even he does anymore.

Tell the truth:  Do you know anyone who gets excited about Mitt Romney?  From either side?  I have never met even one person who is pining for him to become President.  And the only people I have ever met who seem to hate him, do so out of generic hatred for Republicans in general.  There is nothing personal about it.

My wife - who is a registered Democrat but has voted both ways over the years - makes a very good point about Romney.  She points out that, one after the other, alternative candidates (Bachmann, Perry, now Cain) jump ahead of Romney, but then fall back.  To her, this means that the party really does not want Romney, so it jumps for each alternative that comes along.  She concludes that Republicans better either show voters that they want Romney or find another candidate. If Republicans themselves don't want him, why should anyone else?

She nails it, doesn't she?

But reality is what it is.  In the case of Bachmann and Perry, the more Republicans found out about them, the faster they dropped back in the polls.  With Cain, I suspect that will be true as well, because, despite his remarkable record of achievement in the business and financial world, if ever a man was out of his element, Herman Cain is out of his element as a political candidate.  Gingrich has moved up somewhat but has hit a brick wall.  Santorum has moved up even less.  Paul is at his upper limit.  And Huntsman - who potentially could be a very interesting candidate - is barely on life support.

So unless someone more exciting, and/or dynamic, and/or serious about one set of views pushes forward, it is going to be Romney. 

Yawn.

Let's just hope they never take a picture of him in a tank, wearing an oversized grin and an oversized helmet.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a quote from President Obama's Saturday radio address:

“Now, in this country, we don’t begrudge anyone wealth or success — we encourage it. We celebrate it,” he said. “But America is better off when everyone has had the chance to get ahead — not just those at the top of the income scale. The more Americans who prosper, the more America prospers.”

The response?  Why are you lying to us again?

You are literally building a political campaign on pitting financially successful people against less financially successful people, as if financial success, in and of itself, is something to be ashamed of, to apologize for and to make restitution for.

Yes, Mr. President, you do begrudge people wealth and success.  Because it is the wealthy and successful whom you are specifically attacking and demnizing in your campaign ralli...er, excuse me, your educational speeches and bus tours.

I could not agree more that everyone should have the chance to get ahead.  But who is stopping them? 

If, for example, you want small business owners to get ahead, then why not help them?  Start by demanding an end to the impossible labyrinth of regulations inflicted on businesses that no one can figure out.  Support serious tort reform, so they are no longer ongoingly vulnerable to an army of lawyers, licking their chops at the next opportunity for a class action suit.  Give them a fighting chance.

And if you want family breadwinners, or students coming out of college, or young workers with a few years of experience under their belts to get ahead?  Tell us who and what is stopping them?  Specifics, please.

While I'm waiting for those specifics, let me offer one possible reason it is now harder to get ahead.  It is the ugly unemployment rate which, under your stewardship, jumped from 7.6% to above 10%, and currently sits above 9%. 

When do you admit that the so-called "stimulus package" was a multi-trillion dollar disaster?  Most people know it anyway - read the polls and see where they have moved since the "stimulus package" was enacted.  See how people think you're doing on the overall economy.  Or are your ego and your arrogance so completely obscuring this reality that you are blind to what a large majority of this country sees so clearly?

Is it the ego and arrogance that are causing you to compound the disaster by demanding another $450 billion dollar "stimulus package" (renamed, of course, to boob-bait gullible people into thinking it is something different)?  Why would that work when the first "stimulus package" did not?  Who are you paying off with the money this time?  Didn't your union pals get enough from the first "stimulus package"? 

Or is it the fact that you are, always have been, and apparently always will be, a left wing "community organizer" who produces nothing, but agitates for other people to give you money that you can then redistribute?

Either way, there is - or should be - a chance for everyone in the United States to get ahead. 

All they need is for you to get out of their way.

Ken Berwitz

Would you believe secession?

Hold on to your sides (not your hats, hats don't hurt when you laugh) and watch this video, from dailycaller.com

So there.

I wonder which this genius thinks will come first:  The new Republic of Occupied DC being relieved of the free services being provided by Unoccupied DC (which, not incidentally, includes the land its "citizens" are squatting on), or its admission to the UN.

You can't make this stuff up......

Ken Berwitz

How proud MSNBC must be to have martin bashir - a "man" who absolutely revels in racist filth - as an afternoon host.  Here is the latest example, from yesterday's show, during bashir's interview of Democrat operative/MSNBC contributor karen finney:

FINNEY:  "One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy," Finney said. "I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he's a black man who knows his place. I know that's harsh, but that's how it sure seems to me."

 

BASHIR:  "Thank you for spelling that out"

Evidently in the world of MSNBC, since bashir is a leftist aiming his racism at the right, it is just fine.

I have often said that it is amazing how much racism emanates from people who profess to be against racism.  But I'm not sure that applies to MSNBC. 

How can anyone characterize MSNBC as being anti-racist, when it has no problem with overt racial stereotypes like this from racist creeps like bashir and finney?  And that is before we talk about MSNBC giving career racist and anti-Semite al sharpton a daily show as well.

Try to imagine the media outcry if any Fox News personality said something anywhere near as racist about a Black candidate.  Then notice the nonexistence of outrage when left wing racists like martin bashir and karen finney spew it on MSNBC.

If you are wondering just how far "journalism" has fallen in this country, there is your answer.

Ken Berwitz

You can say a lot of things about President Obama.  But you can't say he doesn't have a vivid imagination.

Excerpted from Aliyah Shahid's article in today's New York Daily News:

President Obama in weekly address: Millionaires are  willing to pay higher taxes for my jobs bill 

President Obama says millionaires are ready to dig into their pockets and pay higher taxes.

The commander in chief pushed his $447 billion jobs bill during his weekly radio and internet address on Saturday, which would be paid for by an added tax on Americans who make at least $1 million a year.

These are the same folks who have seen their incomes go up so much, said Obama. I believe this is a contribution they're willing to make.

In this country, we don't begrudge anyone wealth or success, we encourage it, said Obama. But America is better off when everyone has had the chance to get ahead not just those at the top of the income scale.

Analysts say that with 14 million Americans out of work, the economy needs to add about 250,000 jobs a month to bring down the unemployment rate, which has been above 9% in all but two months since May 2009.

Obama insisted time was running on and ripped Republicans for repeatedly blocking votes on his proposal.

Obama's reelection hinges on fixing the U.S. economy. His aides contend GOP lawmakers are trying to torpedo the president's jobs bill to deny him a possible political victory.

Ok.....

Let's start with the obvious.  If millionaires want to pay more in taxes, they can pay more in taxes.  No one stops any millionaire from either voluntarily paying more in taxes than the government asks, or telling his/her tax accountants to forgo the full complement of legal deductions that are available. 

Put another way,  since paying additional taxes is a voluntary activity, every taxpayer who does not pay additional taxes has made a conscious decision not to do so. 

Will someone please tell that to Mr. Obama?  He seems to think - or, more exactly pretends to think - otherwise.

And if you happen to get the President's ear, please inform him that involuntarily raising taxes on millionaires will not fund that $447 billion dollar additional "stimulus package".  It won't even come remotely close to starting to do so.  

So what we are really seeing is not a serious proposal.  What we are really seeing is a ridiculous attempt by President Obama to pit non-millionaires (i.e. the vast majority of voters) against millionaires, by lying to them that this will somehow solve the impossibly bloated budget he has foisted on us for the past three years, which has put us almost 5 trillion dollars more in debt.

Sadly, there are many people out there who will buy into this BS.  Please don't be one of them.

Ken Berwitz

There are many different stories about what happened when police dispersed the "Occupy Oakland" protesters.  And some overtly provocative actions are right in everyone's face - even if much of our "Accomplice media" are immune to seeing and reporting them.

Want some proof?  Then read the following excerpts from James West's eye-witness account for the decidedly left-wing, generally "Occupy"-supportive Mother Jones magazine:

Violence came in waves. Many demonstrators peace-saluted police and called through bullhorns: "This is a peaceful protest! This is a civilian movement!" But from the moment I arrived in Oakland at 10:15 p.m., I saw a visible minority spoiling for conflict.

Xavier Manalo, a 25-year-old tennis instructor holding the forward-most protest banner, admitted there were "rogue elements" in the group but insisted the "pressure of the peaceful will be the deterrent" to the violence.

Manalo was wrong. I saw groups of protestors arguing, not only with the police—who were the constant subject of heckling and catcalls—but with each other. There were calls to retaliate by throwing things like eggs back over the barricade, just as a big group of around 40 people started to chant, "Don't Throw Shit! Don't Throw Shit!"

Time passed and restlessness set in. Another fight broke out in front of me.

No one appeared in control and the group was divided into two groups: the largely peaceful, and a small, visible, determined group of agitators.

At the height of this melee, I saw two men throw bottles at the police. People screamed and scrambled for air ahead of the inevitable: a half-dozen canisters of tear gas—some crackling and echoing off the Rite Aid building.

The breaker: Another bottle was hurled from the crowd and tear gas canisters were

"We're losing if we're losing people," said a 24-year-old protester who said his first name was LaMarr. "It's about to be over soon."

As the protesters filtered away, I spoke with a group of tired cops covered in blue and orange paint—and that wasn't all, said one sergeant who wouldn't give his name. He said they'd also been pelted with glass and vinegar, and one officer claimed to have tasted urine in the mix. So how did tonight compare with others he's seen? He laughed and said, "Well, it's not quite a homicide."

Let me again remind you that this description is from a source highly sympathetic to the (supposed) aims of the "Occupy" movement.  If he saw it, baby, everyone did.

So where are all the media reports telling the true story?

The lesson for protesters, which unfortunately is almost certainly not going to be learned, is that the authorities may abide a political group camping in a public place for a period of time.  But there is a clock ticking, and eventually the alarm is going to go off. 

When police tell them to disperse, they either do so voluntarily or they will be removed involuntarily.  And if they toss bottles and paint, and urine soaked anything, they - not the police, but they - are acting in a violent, inciteful manner.

Now:  Will someone please tell the mainstream media?  When do they learn their lesson?

Ken

I just read a column by townhall.com's Mike Adams - whose opinions I often disagree with.  But this one was worthwhile enough to post copious excerpts from.

Mr. Adams has written about a far left, jihad-supporting "Professor" at Kent State University, named julio pino, and what the University's President, lester lefton, thinks about his behavior.

Read this, and find out what a Kent State education purchases:

Julio Pino is a genocidal anti-Semite who uses his university email account to boast of sodomizing the mothers of his political opponents. But he has the protection of tenure. And he also has the protection of a cowardly administration…

Pino, the unhinged Kent State University history professor, recently shouted "Death to Israel" during a speech by a former Israeli diplomat. The university’s president, Lester Lefton, now says that statementwas “deplorable.” Lefton issued a statement saying Julio Pino had a right to shout "Death to Israel” and disrupt someone else’s speech. That’s good to know because I plan to barge into Julio Pino’s history class next week and shout “Death to Julio Pino!” If the president doesn’t write a letter supporting my right to do so, I plan to barge into his office and shout “Death to President Lefton!”

I can do all this because we all know that shouting other people down and drowning out their protected free speech with threats of violence is also protected free speech. It’s what the Founding Fathers intended. Death to Jefferson! Death to Madison! Kill them all!

President Lefton surprised me when he wrote "We value critical thinking at this university and encourage students to engage with ideas that they find difficult or make them uncomfortable.” Well that’s just great! That must mean that Kent State has no university speech code. And that means we can engage in a little experimentation.

First, I say we go the Kent State diversity center and shout “Death to Africa!” and “Death to San Francisco!” If we have time after lunch, then we can go to the Kent State Women’s Center and shout “Death to Feminism!” If the point is lost on them, then we can ask a more serious question: Why have you not condemned Julio Pino for claiming – with his university email address - that he forcibly sodomized a woman who is a senior citizen?

For the record, President Lefton (see http://www.kent.edu/president/index.cfm), said this about Julio Pino’s most recent outburst: "We hope that our faculty will always model how best to combine passion for one's position with respect for those with whom we disagree. Calling for the destruction of the state from which our guest comes (as do some of our students, faculty and community members) is a grotesque failure to model these values."

Note that Lefton was talking about the “Death to Israel” remarks. Pino’s claims that he forcibly sodomized a senior citizen have yet to be condemned. Kent State officials are still trying to determine whether Pino’s email account was hacked as he claims. By the way, the investigation seems to have been lingering for about 18 months with no conclusion. Maybe that means Pino’s computer wasn’t hacked. Maybe he’s just a sociopath. Maybe Kent State University is just a den of spineless cowards.

The irony of the entire “Death to Israel” episode is that it came after Pino asked the Israeli speaker how he and his government could justify providing aid to countries with “blood money” he says came from the deaths of Palestinian children and babies. The speaker tried to move on after the absurd question. Pino started shouting and then left. He left many wondering “Was this the same Julio Pino who wrote an editorial to the Kent State student newspaper urging Palestinian children to strap bombs to their bodies to kill innocent Jews?” Okay, it really wasn’t irony. It was just blatant hypocrisy from a self-righteous racist.

To the parents of Kent State students:  Enjoy spending your money to provide this kind of "education" to your children.  I'm sure it will make them model citizens you can be proud of.

And to the parents of numerous other colleges and universities in the United States:  Don't think for a minute that your school isn't doing the same thing.  FIND OUT.  And if it is, then SAY SOMETHING.  Sick filth like julio pino can only exist in an atmosphere of support or apathy.

Ken Berwitz

It is being called the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.  So let's see how it is moving.

From Melanie Eversley's piece at USA Today:

Fights are erupting among Occupy Wall Street protesters, so much so that one corner of Zuccotti Park has emerged where protesters say they won't go for fear of their safety, the New York Daily News is reporting.

Police officers also have been warned of "dangerous instruments" being concealed in cardboard tubing, the News says it has been told by unidentified police sources.

"There is a lot of infighting in the park," a police source told the news organization. "There is one part of the park where they won't even go at night."

Meantime, Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, is warning protesters at Zuccotti Park in Manhattan that he will pursue civil suits against anyone who assaults a union member.

"New York's police officers are working around the clock as the already overburdened economy in New York is being drained by 'occupiers' who intentionally and maliciously instigate needless and violent confrontations with the police," the News reports Mullins said in a statement.

 

But protesters tell the News they have been the victims of police brutality, not the other way around.

"We have been brutalized and mass-arrested by the NYPD," said protester Jen Waller, 24, of Brooklyn. "They can threaten us all they want. We've got lawyers, too."

Please tell me you're not surprised by this.

A protest is a march.  A protest is an event.  A protest is a weekend. 

But when a "protest" is an ongoing, orchestrated strategy - which more and more people (I would hope) now understand "Occupy Wall Street" to be - eventually it is going to turn ugly.  Eventually there will be issues between the true believers, the organized forces/strategists behind it, the street people, and the opportunists who always find a way to attach themselves to anything that is giving away free stuff.

It isn't going to get better either.  It's going to get worse. 

And that is why some Democrats, who proudly associated themselves onto this "movement" are now acting like they never heard of it.

Except for Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard professor and far leftist (pardon my redundancy) who is challenging incumbent Republican Scott Brown for the senate in Massachusetts.  With great pride, and superseding egotism, Ms. Warren has declared herself a major wellspring of this "movement".

From her interview, earlier this week, with Samuel P. Jacobs of dailybeast.com:

Elizabeth Warren is running for office in the most high-profile race in the country not involving Barack Obama. It’s a position that calls for some tact. So what does she think about the Occupy Wall Street protests that are roiling the country?

“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” she says. “I support what they do.”

Enjoy wearing that crown of glory, Ms. Warren.  I have a feeling Senator Brown will be among the first on line to thank you for putting it on your head.

Ken Berwitz

Scott Olsen is the Marine Corps veteran, and "Occupy Oakland" protester who was hit in the head by canister, quite possibly thrown by police, and was in critical condition (but seems to be recovering now). 

Let me start by thanking Mr. Olsen for his service to the United States - specifically his two tours of duty, I am told, in Iraq.  Let me also say that he has every right to the beliefs and activities he has engaged in since leaving the corps.  I mean this with 100% sincerity.

But anyone who holds Scott Olsen up as some kind of representative voice of the military is nuts.  Which, not surprisingly, leads me straight to our wonderful "neutral" media.

Excerpted from Kyle Drennen's blog at newsbusters.org:

On Thursday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams proclaimed: "Protesters across the country and a lot of Americans who are sympathetic to this Occupy Wall Street protest movement are tonight rallying around a 24-year-old Iraq war veteran who was seriously injured during a violent confrontation with police in Oakland, California on Tuesday."

On ABC's World News, fill-in anchor George Stephanopoulos echoed that sentiment: "...one young man has become a symbol of their resolve." Correspondent Abbie Boudreau followed by declaring: "With tensions mounting daily, the name Scott Olsen has become a national rallying cry for Occupy Wall Street....injured Tuesday night, as police began firing tear gas during the Oakland crackdown."

The angle Kyle Drennen covers in his blog is that media - without actual proof - have been quick to blame the police for Olsen's injury by a) assuming they tossed the canister that hit him, which is not certain at all, and b) characterizing Olsen only as a "peaceful protester", without noting that he was in the middle of a violent confrontation between his fellow protesters and police. 

Drennen is, of course correct.

Scott Olsen is a victim.  But he is a victim in a situation of his own making.  He was in the middle of a violent uprising in which his pals were ordered to disperse, but disregarded the police and eventually started tossing rocks and bottles at them. What did he think was going to happen?  Did he think the police were going to apologize and run away?

And there is more.

Though mainstream media seem either unaware of, or unwilling, to report this (unwilling is about a 99.9% probability here), Scott Olsen is hardly what you would call a typical military veteran.  In fact he is an avowed enemy of the military.

That's right.  Scott Olsen, Iraq war veteran, is an enemy of the military.  Specifically, he was the creator of a since-taken down web site called ihatethemarinecorps.com, in which he posted profanity-laced attacks on the marines, implied he used drugs while in uniform and indicated one or more marines wanted him kicked out of the service.  Olsen's web site also encouraged other military personnel to anonymously bash away as well.

Go to "Morgen's" blog at verumserum.com and read all about it.

So why aren't media mentioning this?  Do you have any doubt that they would mention negative information about a Tea Partier who was hit in the head and critically injured? 

It is precisely this double standard that caused me to start using the term "Accomplice Media".  What else do you call media that toss neutrality down the drain and overtly take one side over the other?

I hope Scott Olsen makes a complete recovery.  And if/when that happens, I hope he rethinks the company he is keeping these days.

Ken Berwitz

When President Obama had huge majorities in both houses of congress, he passed two huge, signature pieces of legislation:  the so-called "stimulus package" and the Affordable Health Care for America Act, which just about everyone - other than Democrats (more on this later) - calls ObamaCare.

Well, we know how well the "stimulus package" did:  Unemployment jumped higher instead of lower and has stayed there ever since.  But how is ObamaCare doing? 

Well, here is an idea of how the people are reacting to it, via excerpts from Julian Pecquet's article for thehill.com:

Healthcare law's popularity hits new low

Support for Democrats' healthcare reform has hit its lowest point since the law passed in March 2010, says a new monthly poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

After months of split support for the law, 51 percent of respondents to the latest poll had an unfavorable view while only 34 percent had a favorable impression. 

The poor polling numbers all but ensure that the law will be a handicap for many Democrats and the president himself going into the 2012 election. They also suggest that Republicans' constant hammering at the law has been effective: Only 18 percent of respondents now expect that they and their families will be better off thanks to the law, down from 27 percent just last month.

Late last month, Kaiser released its annual report on healthcare premiums showing a 9 percent hike in family premiums this year. Rather than driving premiums down by $2,500, as President Obama promised during the 2008 campaign, the health law is responsible for about one sixth of that increase, according to Kaiser.

And earlier this month, the administration announced that the law's long-term care program was unsustainable and that it was dropping the CLASS Act. The move has infuriated many of the law's supporters, who feel the Department of Health and Human Services hasn't been honest about its intentions.

What does it tell you about the Obama adminstration, when its two highest-profile pieces of legislation - each passed on an entirely partisan basis (i.e. with virtually no support from Republicans) - are disasters that Democrats apparently will have to try to run away from in next year's elections?

It certainly has told Democrats something - as seen in the following excerpt from Jonathan Strong's piece for rollcall.com.  Please pay special attention to the last part, which I have put in bold print:

In the latest battle in the Congressional franking wars, Democrats have been vetoing use of the word “Obamacare” in taxpayer-financed mass mailings, saying it violates rules against using the franking privilege for “personal, partisan or political reasons.”

Their objections are irking Republicans as the calendar advances toward the 2012 elections.

“It’s telling that Democrats are fearful of taking ownership of the president’s signature piece of legislation,” a GOP House aide said. “The White House and Congressional Democrats exhausted all of their political capital and a Congressional majority to move the bill across the finish line and into law. You would think given how much it cost them, that they would embrace the end result and proudly attach the president’s name to it at every opportunity.” 

“You know, if it was popular they’d be all about calling it Obamacare,” another Republican source added.

I don't know who that "Republican source" is, but he/she has got it 100% correct.  ObamaCare is so anathematic to Democrats that they have, in essence, declared it a partisan advantage - for Republicans!

It's going to be quite an election year.....

Ken Berwitz

The number of US congresspeople calling on disgraceful toady, Obama sock-puppet and liar, Attorney General eric holder, to step down just doubled.

Excerpted from Matthew Boyle's piece at dailycaller.com:

Attorney General Eric Holder’s tenure in the Obama administration may be coming to an end. At least eight members of Congress have now called on Holder to resign over the growing Operation Fast and Furious scandal.

Republican Reps. Vicky Hartzler of Missouri, John Mica of Florida, Quico Canseco of Texas and Gus Bilirakis of Florida each told The Daily Caller on Thursday that they believe Holder should step down now. The number of members of Congress calling for Holder to end his career in government because of Fast and Furious is now eight, a number which has doubled in one day.

Previously, Republican Reps. Joe Walsh of Illinois, Raul Labrador of Idaho, Blake Farenthold of Texas and Paul Gosar of Arizona called on Holder to resign.

I wonder how long holder can last.  He has been outed as a liar who falsely claimed not to have known about Operation Fast and Furious when it is unquestionably true that he did. 

holder's defense - lame and dishonest as it is?  That he didn't read any of the memos - at least FIVE of them - that were issued to him the year before.  How pathetic is that? 

And the fact that holder made a speech bragging about the operation (then called Project Gunrunner) in Cuernavaca, Mexico, on April 2, 2009 - two years before he claims he first found out about it?  We're still waiting for an explanation of that one.

I don't know if or when holder will resign.  But since he has been subpoenaed to again testify before congress, and since we now know that he lied about his knowledge of this murderous, scandalous fiasco, it would not shock me if he decided to call it quits before that happens.

Whenever eric holder resigns, it will not be a day too soon. 

Now:  what about his boss?  When did Barack Obama know about Operation Fast and Furious?  When did he ok it?  Will we be hearing another set of lies about that?

Ken Berwitz

This is the kind of stuff you read, and don't believe you are seeing it on the page.

From a tiny little squib in the Associated Press, via the Washington Examiner:

Students, alumni and faculty from historically black Howard University are preparing for a march to support the Occupy Wall Street protests and similar demonstrations in Washington.

Organizers say Friday's march is intended in part to bring more racial diversity to the Wall Street protests. Organizer Talib Karim says the issues raised by the protesters should resonate with African-Americans, who endure poverty and unemployment in greater percentages than the general population.

In other words, there are not enough Black protesters to satisfy the "Occupy" supporters (I can't call this "Occupy Wall Street" because it is in DC).  So they are importing some from Howard University who have nothing to do with the protests, but will now show up anyway. 

It, literally, is The March of the Black People Who Aren't There.   Or, even more accurately, "The March of the Wouldn't Soldiers". 

Then, at the end of the march, the Black marchers will go back to Howard University and the protesters will go back to being too White for the organizers to bear -- which presumably means they will import other Black marchers in the coming days to again create what, in their minds, is the illusion of acceptable diversity.

Ironically, all this really does is highlight just how non-diverse the protesters are. 

According to the 2010 census, Washington DC is 50.7% Black.  If you can't find enough Black protesters there, your protest is not attractive to the Black population -- unless you artificially boom it up with a "march", that is.

Meanwhile, yesterday Wall Street had one of its best days in a long time.  Millions of people - almost none of them within that phony, concocted "1%" slogan - made money because of it. 

Hey, here's a thought:  maybe a few of them are in companies that regained enough of their value to start thinking about hiring. 

Now:  Who will they hire?  People actively looking for a job, or people spending their days camping in a public park and whining about how unfair it is that they are expected to pay the student loans they agreed to?

Could this be more ridiculous?

Ken Berwitz

Maybe President Obama is forgetful.  Maybe he just doesn't know.  Or maybe he is conveniently-on-purpose forgetting, so that he can blame Republicans and Republicans alone while hoping that enough voters are sufficiently dumbed down to not realize it.

What am I talking about?  I'm talking about the fact that, during President Obama's effort to circumvent congress and rule the United States like some kind of yugo chavez wannabe, he keeps telling us he has to act because "we can't wait" for the "Republican Congress" or "Congressional Republicans" to spring into action and pass his agenda.

Did I miss a news flash this morning, or is the Senate still part of congress? 

I ask this question because, the last time I checked, a) it was, and b) Democrats were running it.  That is why Harry Reid (D-NV) is the majority leader, not the minority leader.

Wait, let me check again.........................................:  Yep, it's 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and two independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) who both align with the Democrats. 

So when President Obama attacks a congress in which one house is run by Republicans and the other by Democrats, by attacking Republicans alone, you know that he is full of that stuff you don't want to step in if you're walking through a meadow.

Why would anyone believe a word this man says? 

Ken Berwitz

From the Associated Press, we have this:

Richmond, Va. — The Richmond tea party is demanding a refund of about $10,000 from the city, claiming it unfairly charged them for rallies while allowing the Occupy protesters to use the same space for several weeks for free.

The political organization is sending the city an invoice for the charges incurred for three rallies held in Kanawha Plaza over the past three years. The Occupy protesters have been camped in the plaza since Oct. 15.

Richmond Tea Party spokeswoman Colleen Owens says it's not fair that her group had to pay fees for permits, portable toilets, police presence and emergency personnel. The group also had to purchase a $1 million insurance policy.

Tea party groups across the nation have raised similar concerns since the protests spread from New York earlier this month.

The double standard is breathtaking.

The solution?  That I can tell you in just four words:  ONE SET OF RULES.

Richmond must either hand the Tea Party back that money - with interest - or demand the same payments, insurance, etec. from these hard leftists and their useful idiots as they did of the Tea Party.

It is just that simple.

Ken Berwitz

J Street is a self-proclaimed "Pro-Israel" group that seems to oppose pretty much everything Israel does to protect itself while justifying and rationalizing pretty much everything Palestinian Arabs do to annihilate it.

george soros is a self-loathing Jew (by ancestry only, I assure you) and convicted inside trader,who collaborated with the nazis as a teenager and bankrolls just about every far-left cause known to mankind.

Talk  about a match made in hell.

For years, J Street has stated in various ways that it is not funded by george soros.  That was always very hard to believe.

And, it turns out, with good reason - because we now learn soros most certainly has funded J Street, to the tune of $750,000 dollars - that we know of so far.

Excerpted from an October 25th article by Gil Shefler for the Jerusalem Post:

Amid accusations of misleading the public, J-Street website reveals George Soros has donated money to organization.

US Jewish billionaire investor George Soros, who is known for his support of leftwing causes and occasional criticism of Israel, is a major J Street donor, it emerged on Friday.

Tax forms obtained by The Washington Times’ Eli Lake revealed that over the past three years, the Budapest-born Holocaust survivor and finance guru has given $750,000 to the organization.

The revelation was followed by accusations that the advocacy group, which sees itself as a left-wing alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, had mislead the public about its relationship with the philanthropist.

For years J Street had repeatedly denied having any connection with Soros.

Under a section called “Myths and facts” on J Street’s Web site, the organization posted a statement that seemingly implies it never received money from Soros.

“George Soros did not found J Street. In fact, George Soros very publicly stated his decision not to be engaged in J Street when it was launched – precisely out of fear that his involvement would be used against the organization,” the J Street statement read. “J Street’s executive director has stated many times that he would in fact be very pleased to have funding from Mr. Soros and the offer remains open to him to be a funder should he wish to support the effort.”

Earlier this year in an interview with Moment magazine, J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami denied receiving funds from Soros.

“We got tagged as having his support, without the benefit of actually getting funded!” Ben- Ami was quoted as saying.

Do any words come to mind when you read this?  Here are two that I thought of:  Liars and frauds.

J Street's claim to support Israel has, in my opinion, always been farcical.  Now it turns out that - despite its best efforts to con people into thinking otherwise,  the organization is bankrolled by george soros.  

Why would anyone - other than maybe hezbollah or hamas - take this bunch of left wing bozos seriously - or believe a word they say about anything?

Ken Berwitz

“I saw nussing!”:  Sgt. Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes

“I know nussing”:  Sec. Napolitano, from Homeland Security

Here is a 6:21 minute video of Rep. Jason Chaffetz questionning Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on the Operation Fast and Furious catastrophe. 

Watch and listen, as Ms. Napolitano makes an absolute idiot of herself by repeatedly, humiliatingly, telling Rep. Chaffetz that, like the comically ridiculous Sgt. Schultz, she doesn't know a thing about it:

Can you believe Janet Napolitano is in charge of our country's homeland security?  Based on this incredible debacle, I wouldn't put her in charge of security at a circus popcorn stand.

Anyone not infuriated by the impossibly disgusting spectacle of Secretary Napolitano claiming to know nothing at all about an operation that has been in the news for A YEAR and has taken the lives of people she is responsible for, is incapable of being infuriated by anything.

If  homeland security means anything at all to us, Janet Napolitano must immediately be fired and replaced.  She is either the most incompetent clown I have ever seen, or a flat-out liar, willing to make herself out as an incompetent clown to protect her boss. 

Either way, for the sake and safety of US citizens,  get rid of her.  Now. 

If I want to watch Bozo the clown, I'll put on the appropriate cable station.

Ken Berwitz

Watching Ed Schultz's show is a little like watching a three-legged chicken.  It is bizarre and repulsive, but it definitely grabs your attention.

Here is the latest example of what I am talking about, from yesterday's "Ed Show" (which MSNBC is so enthralled with that it was just moved to the 8:00PM time slot, in direct competition with ratings king Bill O'Reilly).  First there is a clip of Paul Ryan's comments about the Obama "American Jobs Act".   Next there is Schultz's raised-voice opinion of it.  Finally, there is commentary from that noted member of the intelligentsia, former congressperson Alan Grayson:

First we have Ryan's statement:

RYAN:  Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were the hallmarks to his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign, by preying on the emotions of fear, envy and resentment.  This has the potential to be just as damaging as his misguided policies.  Sowing social unrest and class resentment makes America weaker, not stronger.  He’s going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up strawmen and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments, as he tries to build support for punitive tax hikes on job creators.

As you can see, Paul Ryan accuses President Obama of "sowing social unrest and class resentment" so he can "build support for punitive tax hikes on job creators". 

You might agree or disagree with Rep. Ryan, but I would like to think that most people would consider this well within the parameters of acceptable political discourse.  

But not Ed Schultz or Alan Grayson.  This is what they had to say about it (the bold print/underlined words are there because Schultz raised his voice when he said them):

SCHULTZ:  I mean it’s outrageous what that guy just said.  He is inciting civil war, that’s what he’s doing.  You take his comments and you dissect him and you see exactly what they mean.  It’s almost as if the Republicans want violence to take place in our society. 

GRAYSON:  I mean for Paul Ryan or any Republican to talk about this, to talk about the president inciting the politics of division is much like O.J. saying that he’s going to devote his life to finding the real killer.  They're the real killers.

Huh?  Did Schultz and Grayson actually say that?  Yes they did.

Schultz is saying in, so many words, that if Rep. Ryan accuses President Obama of fomenting class warfare he is inciting civil war.  I can't even call this nutty, because it doesn't have the logic to qualify for nuttiness. 

And Grayson?  This is a guy who was so out of this world that he went from winning his congressional seat in 2008 with 52% of the vote, to losing it in 2010 by the stunning margin of 38% to 56%.  One of the main reasons for Grayson being dumped so decisively was his penchant for making absolutely idiotic comments.  And comparing Paul Ryan's critique of President Obama to a murderer is as good an example as you are likely to find.

The 8:00PM - 10:00PM time period is what I call prime time within prime time.  It is where a news network would feature what it considers to be its very best talent. 

And, at 8:00PM, this is what MSNBC features. 

Holy excrement.

Ken Berwitz

Remember when the Tea Party movement was accused of being "White", not diverse at all?  Remember that pictures of, and statements of support from, Black Tea Party members were brushed aside to further that claim?

Well, read this, excerpted from Mia Watkins' piece at the Daily Caller, and see what you think:

The Occupy D.C. protesters crowding McPherson Square say they represent the “99 percent of Americans” who aren’t the most wealthy. But their racial composition isn’t a mirror of the 99 percent of Americans they claim to represent.

 

A majority of the protesters in the nation’s capital are white, a fact that both black and white activists have noted.

 

Tate Jawdat, a white woman who has been “occupying” the square for a little more than a week, said she doesn’t see enough color in the crowd.

 

“The occupation is very white and the committees are largely run by white men,” she told The Daily Caller. “Not a lot is going to change if the committees are run by white men.”

 

McPherson Square protesters have even formed a People of Color Committee to address the lack of diversity in their movement.

 

This week the committee hosted members of Occupy The Hood to discuss race relations in protest groups nationwide.

Hmmmmmmm....

Tell you what:  Let me give you the single best answer to any charge that the "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) protests - in D.C. and elsewhere - are vastly White in nature:  of course they are.  The country is vastly White.  There is something like 7 times as many Whites in the USA as Blacks.  So to make anything of the fact that Whites predominate among the protests is ridiculous.

I willingly offer this explanation to the OWS protesters, and have no problem with them using it any time they care to.

But I have a question to ask  - not to OWS protesters, but to the Accomplice Media, which have been so instrumental in nurturing and building this "movement":   Isn't this what could, and should, have been said about the Tea Party movement?  Maybe even more so for the Tea Party movement than OWS protesters?

Based on decades-long voting patterns, the vast majority of Black voters reject the aims of the Tea Party movement - i.e. less government involvement in our everyday lives and less government spending.  Again based on those voting patterns, I would guesstimate the percentage of Tea Party support among Blacks in the 10% - 15% range - and that may be overly generous. 

So how many Black Tea Party supporters does that translate into?  Well, Blacks comprise about 14% of the US population, so 10% - 15% comes to less than 2% inicidence of Blacks who might show their support at a Tea Party rally.  That certainly explains the low percentage of Black participation.

Now, what percentage of Black people would support the stated aims of the OWS protesters - i.e. less "corporate greed" and more funding being distributed to people of lesser means?  Based again on decades-long voting patterns, I would guesstimate that a large majority of Black people support those objectives.   Let's be (gasp!) conservative, and put it at 2/3.

Since Blacks comprise about 14% of the US population, therefore, 2/3 support means that about 9% - 10% of an OWS protest might be expected to consist of Black participants - roughly 6 times as many as you would find at a Tea Party rally.

Are there that many Black people out there for the OWS rallies?  

If there are not, then I suggest the people who are so quick to push out charges of racism should think long and hard about which movement, is, in fact, the more racist one.

If there are, then the two movements equate in their level of "racism" or "non-racism", and what should have been said about one, should be said about the other.

That's a little something for the Accomplice Media to think about - and to reject, as they almost certainly will.

Journalists?  Yeah, right. 

Ken Berwitz

I hope this does not surprise you.

It turns out that a lot of the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd in Manhattan's Zuccotti Park is comprised of rent-a-protesters, paid by ACORN.

Excerpted from Jana Winter's article at foxnews.com (who did you think would be reporting this?  MSNBC???):

The former New York office for ACORN, the disbanded community activist group, is playing a key role in the self-proclaimed “leaderless” Occupy Wall Street movement, organizing “guerrilla” protest events and hiring door-to-door canvassers to collect money under the banner of various causes while spending it on protest-related activities, sources tell FoxNews.com.

 

The former director of New York ACORN, Jon Kest, and his top aides are now busy working at protest events for New York Communities for Change (NYCC). That organization was created in late 2009 when some ACORN offices disbanded and reorganized under new names after undercover video exposes prompted Congress to cut off federal funds. 

 

NYCC’s connection to ACORN isn’t a tenuous one: It works from the former ACORN offices in Brooklyn, uses old ACORN office stationery, employs much of the old ACORN staff and, according to several sources, engages in some of the old organization’s controversial techniques to raise money, interest and awareness for the protests.

 

Sources said NYCC has hired about 100 former ACORN-affiliated staff members from other cities – paying some of them $100 a day - to attend and support Occupy Wall Street. Dozens of New York homeless people recruited from shelters are also being paid to support the protests, at the rate of $10 an hour, the sources said.

Yes, Virginia, there still is an ACORN.  Just as I (and anyone else with a functioning cerebrum) expected, all the organization did was change a name or two and continue operating exactly as it did before.

But now, in addition to providing those fraudulent "voters" the New York Times can't seem to find, ACORN's new incarnation is also mobilizing "protesters" from among the homeless, for $10 an hour. 

What a deal!  $10 an hour - well above minimum wage - to hang around a public park.  Isn't that what a lot of them did before the "Occupy Wall Street" protests? 

I mean, let's face it:  idly hanging around a public park is not what you'd call taxing in the effort category.  And, come to think of it, maybe I shouldn't be using the word "taxing" at all, since I doubt the rent-a-protesters will be filing tax forms detailing their line of "work" any time soon.

By the way, do you hear President Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, or any of those other "We heart you, protesters" Democrats talking up the movement anymore?  I mentioned a couple of days ago that they were backing off.  And their attempts to disengage are even more obvious now.  I also notice that this coincides with the police routing protesters in city after city, because they are little more than a loud, angry, very annoying public nuisance.

Unless Republicans are tone-dead beyond belief (which history tells us is more than a little possible), count on them to hang the "Occupy Wall Street" albatross around Democrats' necks every way they can, throughout next year's campaign season. 

As well they should.

Ken Berwitz

A week ago, I blogged about an exchange between Vice President Joe Biden and Human Events editor Jason Mattera, in which Mattera challenged Biden on his shameless attempt to connect rejection of the administration's "American Jobs Act" with a rise in women being raped.

Biden - not surprisingly - came out looking ridiculous.  And - also not surprisingly - he didn't like it, as he made clear by his threatening tone and gestures directed at Mattera. 

And now Biden is demanding that Mattera be investigated.  I swear I'm not making this up.  He really is.

Evidently Vice President Biden has become so used to media deferring to him, no matter how ridiculous his comments and actions are, that he perceives a tough question or two as some kind of affront to journalistic ethics.

Here are the particulars, excerpted from Human Events writer John Hayward's understandably sarcastic piece: 

“Don’t screw around with me!” barked flustered Vice President Joe Biden​ during his now-famous encounter with HUMAN EVENTS editor Jason Mattera.  It looks like the White House wants to put some muscle behind that threat.  The Dear Leaders do not like impertinent questions.

 

Coincidentally, FactCheck.org weighed in today with the latest proof that Joe Biden is a liar.  They’re not a conservative site, so it pains them to drop such a heavy hammer on the Vice President’s distortions: 

 

As we wrote earlier, we are not minimizing the crime problem in Flint. It is real. And we are not taking sides in the long-running discussion among criminologists about what effect police staffing levels have on crime. But the vice president misrepresented the extent of the city’s crime problem — flagrantly so, in the case of rapes. He also ignored the fact that crime this year is down, based on the city’s own crime figures, despite cuts in the police force and in direct contradiction with his larger point that Flint’s staffing cuts resulted in rising crime.

 

But catching an Obama Administration official playing fast and loose with the truth is hardly news.  What’s news is the extent of Biden’s sheer cowardice, as the Vice President ran to the Senate and complained about having to answer a question the White House didn’t write for him in advance.

 

As reported by Alexander Bolton at The Hill:

 

Joe Biden’s office has complained to the Senate press gallery about a confrontation the vice president had with a conservative journalist last week on Capitol Hill. 

 

Biden aides asked whether Senate rules were broken in the wake of the contentious exchange between the vice president and the reporter. 

 

Jason Mattera, who works for Human Events, a conservative magazine, used a pretext to catch Biden off guard in a Senate hallway and grill him on claims the vice president has made about jobs legislation.

 

Biden’s office has also contacted the standing committee of correspondents, which oversees the gallery, regarding whether Mattera broke the rules by ambushing him. 

resident’s bill.”

I have one minor carp with Mr. Hayward's account:  it's not just FactCheck.org. 

The Washington Post, certainly no enemy of the Obama administration, checked the accuracy of Mr. Biden's claims, concluded they were "absurd", and gave Biden a rating of "four pinnochios" - which the Post defines as "a whopper".  In other words, Biden either was completely ignorant of what he was talking about or was just plain lying.

Personally, while I do not minimize Mr. Biden's capacity for the former, I believe it clearly was the latter.

To sum up:   We have an accredited member of the media asking the Vice President of the United States to explain his statistics.  We have the Vice President of the United States, either through ignorance or intentional deceit, in an angry, aggressive tone, completely misrepresenting those statistics.  And now we have the Vice President of the United States demanding an investigation of the journalist for daring to ask for the explanation.

Is that chilling enough for you? 

Would it be fair to say that it could act as a significant deterrent for any other member of the media who think about asking Mr. Biden (or Mr. Obama) a challenging question?

Isn't this something that mainstream media - which could be directly affected - should be screaming about today?  Well, where are the screams? 

Do you doubt for a second that, if this were Vice President Dick Cheney, the screams would already be deafening? 

This is what happens when there is an "Accomplice Media", largely operating as a partisan arm of the administration in power.  How do you like it?

Ken Berwitz

I, and others, have been writing about this for over a year.  And now it truly is on the brink.

Here is a series of links, provided by www.drudgereport.com, which give us latest news on just how close the European Union, and the Euro, are to ending in disaster:

DOOM: Fears euro summit could miss final deal...
'Unknown territory'...
No bet on disaster...
Finance ministers cancel meeting...
Berlusconi fights to save coalition; Gov't on brink of collapse...
Greenspan: European Union Doomed to Fail...
Japanese yen jumps to new postwar high...

If this were to happen, world economies would take a huge hit (very much including ours).  And the scary part is that it looks virtually inevitable.

Stay tuned....and be afraid.

Ken Berwitz

Since the New York Times has told us that "there is almost no voter fraud in America", I thought I'd show you (and the Times) another example of this virtually nonexistent phenomenon.  Please pay special attention to the last part, which I have put in bold print.

Excerpted from Eric Shawn's article for Fox News - San Francisco:

Shocking voter fraud allegations are rocking the mayor's race in San Francisco. District Attorney George Gascon has launched an investigation and demands are growing for federal authorities to move in. 

 

One campaign official fears the election could be stolen if nothing is done.

 

Supporters of incumbent Mayor Ed Lee, who is running for a full four-year term next month, are accused of illegally handling vote-by-mail ballots.

 

Witnesses say workers for the group, SF Neighbor Alliance, set up a makeshift sidewalk voting site in the city's Chinatown and accuse it of illegally casting absentee ballots for elderly Chinese voters. 

 

The witnesses claim cell-phone videos show workers telling voters to vote for Lee, filling out ballots for the voters and even using a stencil to hide the names of rival candidates so the voters could only chose one -- Lee.

 

They also say that the completed ballots were stuffed in plastic bags, which is prohibited by state election law.

 

One of videos was shot by Adam Keigwin, a campaign official for State Sen. Leland Yee, one of Lee's opponents.

"Individuals were marking ballots for elderly voters. They would literally mark the ballot, seal it, and put it in bags behind them. There are so many violations there, almost too numerous to mention," he said.

 

"It is about our democracy and whether we are going to protect the integrity of the vote. I saw hundreds of voters come and drop off their ballots and have them filled out or being filled out with a stencil," he told Fox News. "That was just in a 45-minute period and that's just one incident that's happening. What else is happening out there? It's certainly potentially, in a very close election like what we're expecting on November 8th, this could end up being an election that is stolen."

 

The U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco is reviewing the case. But John Arntz, the director of the San Francisco City and County Department of Elections, has said that he doesn't think there is a clear cut case of voter fraud because, among other reasons, the site was not a sanctioned polling place involving election workers.

 

"There's nothing that I saw that is a clear violation of the election code. I mean, on its face, it doesn't look real good," Arntz said.

Don't you love that reaction from the US Attorney's office?  It isn't voter fraud because it didn't occur at a sanctioned polling place -- but "I mean, on its face, it doesn't look real good".

That's right, Mr. Arntz.  When hundreds - maybe thousands and thousands (who knows how long this has been going on and how many locations it is taking place) of overtly fraudulent ballots are created, to be handed in as absentee ballots, it "doesn't look real good" .  Congratulations on your amazing analytical abilities.

Maybe Arntz moonlights as a political writer for the New York Times. He certainly would fit right in.

To paraphrase Yenta the matchmaker from Fiddler on the Roof, the way Arntz defines voter fraud, and the way the Times ignores it, it's a perfect match.

I will post additional instances of voter fraud as they become known - and you can bet on it happening. 

Then, who knows?  Maybe one day in the future, the New York Times will rediscover its integrity and write an editorial titled "The Myth of the Myth of Voting Fraud". 

I won't hold my breath waiting.

Ken Berwitz

If there are three words almost guaranteed to haunt President Obama throughout next year's election campaign, they are "recipe for success".

Here is what Mr. Obama said last night on Jay Leno's Tonight Show, excerpted from Jim Kuhnhenn's article for the Associated Press:

Laying out an argument for his emerging foreign policy doctrine, Obama distinguished the U.S. steps in Libya from the invasion and nine-year war in Iraq. He argued that by building a broad international alliance of European and Arab nations against Gadhafi, the United States saved American lives and money and achieved its goal.

"Not a single U.S. troop was on the ground," he said. "Not a single U.S. troop was killed or injured, and that, I think, is a recipe for success in the future."

Let's see:

-President Obama initially indicated our involvement would be for "a matter of days".  It turned into 8 months;

-During those extra 7 months and 3+ weeks, much of Libya's infrastructure was decimated.  That is what happens when you bomb from the air;

-Libya's dictator, moamar qaddafi, was hunted down, apparently sodomized with some kind of tubular object - I have chosen not to offer readers the video - beaten, killed, and put in a supermarket meat refrigerator.  (Not that this especially troubles me, given what qaddafi was and what he did, but it is hardly a "recipe for success");

-Now Libya's "transitional" (maybe permanent, who can tell) head of state has informed us that Libya will operate under shari'a law, and all laws that, among other things, gave women at least minimal rights are summarily null and void. 

- And with numbers of different factions fighting for power, including factions that are openly in bed with al qaeda,  the prospects that Libya will quickly descend into chaos and violence are excellent.  

That's some helluva "recipe for success".

If Libya peacefully (peace being a relative term here) transitions into something that remotely resembles a democracy, President Obama will be right - and will be the luckiest man on the face of the earth.  Don't bet on it happening. 

But if that's not the way things go, and chaos and violence overcome Libya, President Obama will not be lucky at all.  He will be subject to the consequences of his Libya policy.  That, you might want to make a bet on. 

And I guarantee that, if this happens, the Republican presidential nominee, whomever he/she is, will be reminding us all of that "recipe for success" line right up to election day.

Ken Berwitz

Other than Joe Biden - the king of them all - I do not remember the last time one person has been such a prolific source of dim-bulb comments than Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whom Democrats - incredibly - have appointed, and kept on, as Chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Here is her latest, excerpted from Geneva Sands-Sadowitz's article at thehill.com:

Wasserman Schultz blasts Perry's flat tax plan as 'definition of insanity'

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wassserman Schultz slammed Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry's tax plan, saying his flat tax proposal would benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle class and increase the deficit.

"My reaction to Rick Perry's new/old plan is that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result," said Wasserman Schultz on MSNBC Tuesday.

"This is not a new idea, this is not something that's proposed for the first time. A flat tax has been introduced in the past and it's been rejected because it blows a hole in the deficit," she added.

Wassserman Schultz, a congresswoman from Florida, said she believes Perry's plan will exclusively benefit the wealthiest Americans without helping the middle class.  (NOTE:  Wasserman Schultz actually said the plan will almost exclusively benefit the wealthiest, most fortunate Americans)

"This proposal not only does nothing for them, it just leaves them out in the cold and focuses on the same trickle down economics," said Wasserman Schultz in reference to Americans making between $50,000 and $500,000 a year.

She told MSNBC her constituents are not concerned about dividends, capital gains, or estate taxes, but rather their annual income. (NOTE:  the video clip accompanying this report does not mention estate taxes)

Unbelievable?  Nope, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. 

-First, we have the language.  Associating Governor Perry's proposal with insanity is repulsive and stupid.  Since Wasserman Schultz is a Democrat, I don't expect the media to condemn her disgusting incivility and overheated rhetoric the way they would if it were a Republican blasting, say, President Obama's ideas on taxes.  But that doesn't change what it is.

-Second, there is nothing insane about the idea of a flat tax.  If a flat tax is done well (i.e. eliminating just about every deduction/loophole/etc.), it could be a major benefit to this country.  Its basic premise is that the more money someone makes, the more in taxes he/she pays.  Is that insanity to you?

-Third, how does eliminating loopholes for the rich cause the plan to almost exclusively benefit the rich?  Let me know when you figure that one out - especially since, if this article is accurate, she seems to be defining "middle class" as ranging from $50,000 to $500,000.  Maybe Ms. Wasserman Schultz better have a sit-down with the President, because his current version of "middle class" tops out at $200,000.

-Fourth, can anyone seriously believe that Wasserman Schultz's south Florida constituents are not concerned about dividends or capital gains?   Take a look at where her district is.  Do you have any idea how many elderly people live there?  How many live at least in part on dividends, and stocks which generate capital gain income?  The number is huge.  Maybe Wasserman Schultz ought to keep that in mind before shooting her mouth off.

I usually end my writeups on Debbie Wasserman Schultz by saying "not for nothing do I call her dim bulb Debbie".  But I have a feeling that you don't need me to say it this time because, while reading her comments, you've probably said it multiple times on your own already.

Ken Berwitz

My sister just sent me a compilation of very funny bumper stickers for Herman Cain.

I don't care if you like or dislike Mr. Cain, you're likely to get a kick out of them - especially the last one.

Enjoy:

Ken Berwitz

Ok, I admit that bible quotation is not entirely accurate. 

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 is correct.  But given Turkey's behavior regarding Israel, I decided to add my own #9.

Excerpted from an article at Ha'aretz:

For the first time since a massive earthquake struck Turkey's east, Ankara has asked Israel for aid on Tuesday, after rejecting several offers by top Israeli officials in the last two days.

 

On Monday, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan rejected an aid offer by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a phone conversation between the two leaders, representing the second such rejection since a 7.2 magnitude quake struck Turkey.

 

On Sunday, despite the frantic search and rescue efforts, Turkey turned down Israel's offer, as well as similar offers from several other countries.

 

However, Israeli officials indicated on Tuesday that Turkish officials have indeed issued an official request for aid, saying that the Turkish Foreign Ministry asked that Israel send portable structures to be used as temporary housing for those who lost their homes in the quake.

 

Speaking to Haaretz on Monday, several Turks expressed frustration for earthquake relief efforts, with one man saying “there are simply not enough professionals.“

 

"They work without careful handling. I do not understand why more international crews have not arrived. The Israelis have an excellent rescue team, why isn’t [Prime Minister] Erdogan allowing them to come?”

I wonder how many innocent Turkish victims have needlessly died while Prime Minister Erdogan "proved" to the Muslim world that he could reject Israel's offer of help.  It sure does take a big man to do that!

Now, days later, he comes crawling.  And Israel - which, under the circumstances, would have every right to tell him to get lost, or to wait for a few of the Muslim countries he was busy impressing to send rescue crews (which is to say until hell freezes over) - instead will immediately do everything it can to help.

There is a lesson in there somewhere.  I wonder if Erdogan is capable of learning it.

Ken Berwitz

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen had no problem condemning the largely fantasized "racism" of Tea Partiers last year.  But finding anti-Semitism in the "Occupy Wall Street" protests is a very different story.  His column in yesterday's Post sneered that there is virtually none at all in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

Here are his first three paragraphs:

Reckless Jew that I am, I muscled my way into the Occupy Wall Street encampment in Lower Manhattan despite multiple reports of virulent and conceivably lethal anti-Semitism. Projecting an unvarnished Semitism, I circled the place, encountering nothing and no one to suggest bigotry — not a sign, not a book and not even the guy who some weeks ago held up a placard with the instruction to Google the phrase “Zionists control Wall St.” Google “nut case” instead.

 

This was my second visit to the Occupy Wall Street site and the second time my keen reporter’s eye has failed to detect even a hint of the anti-Semitism that had been trumpeted by certain right-wing Web sites and bloggers, most prominently Bill Kristol. He is a founder of the Emergency Committee for Israel, which has been running cable TV ads alleging a virtual hate rally at the Occupy Wall Street site and calling on President Obama and other important Democrats to denounce what is — as it happens — not happening there. The commercial ran on Fox News the very day I was at the site.

 

Kristol’s cri de wolf (a French term of my own invention) was taken up by Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post’s conservative blogger, who noted the Kristol group’s “eye-popping ad.” Citing an article from Israel Today that linked a single statement by someone named Patricia McAllister in Los Angeles with some vitriol on the American Nazi Party’s Web site and a reference to the editor of Adbusters, she fashioned a veritable pogrom out of pretty close to thin air and demanded, “Where is the outrage?” I have a better question: Where are the anti-Semites?

As regular readers know, for weeks I have put up videos of individuals shouting anti-semitic filth, and of sign after sign attacking Jews for "controlling Wall Street"****.  I have also posted a statement supporting the "Occupy Wall Street" protests from the nazi party.  Evidently Mr. Cohen does not think this adds up to much.

So maybe if he sees an 8:45 minute combination of overt Jew hatred, and strong support for the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, from david duke - arguably this country's most recognizable anti-Semite/White supremacist - he might deign to reconsider:

CLICK HERE TO SEE DAVID DUKE VIDEO

If I told you that a movement had the strong backing of nazis and White supremacists, with both groups making it clear that Jew hatred was the reason for their support, would you conclude that the movement just might have an anti-Semitic tinge to it?  Evidently, for Richard Cohen, the answer is "No, what are you talking about?".

Well, here is a line from "Blowin' In the Wind" - written by Bob Dylan,  another one of those hated Jews - which, these days, makes me think a lot about Mr. Cohen:

“How many times can a man turn his head, and pretend that he just doesn’t see?”

How many, Richard?

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

UPDATE:  Here is another example I just pulled from newsbusters.org.  Watch the video, Richard, and see if you can detect a slight hint of anti-Semitism:

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

****For the record, while Jews don't "control" Wall Street, it is true that a very large number of Jews are in finance.  As a very large number are in medicine, science, the arts, etc.  And the point is what?

Ken Berwitz

We already have seen post-Mubarak Egypt lurch headlong into islamic fundamentalism.

Well, Egypt isn't the only one. 

Here, excerpted from an article at Agence France Presse, is the latest news about the "Arab Spring":

TRIPOLI — The announcement that Islamic sharia law will be the basis of legislation in newly liberated Libya has raised concerns, especially among women, despite Islamists insisting moderation will prevail.

Interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil said on Sunday, during his speech to the nation in Benghazi to formally declare the country's liberation from the ousted regime of Moammer Kadhafi, that sharia would be Libya's principal law.

"Any law that violates sharia is null and void legally," he said, citing as an example the law on marriage passed during the slain dictator's 42-year tenure that imposed restrictions on polygamy, which is permitted in Islam.

"The law of divorce and marriage... This law is contrary to sharia and it is stopped," Abdel Jalil said.

His comments have provoked criticism and calls for restraint both in Libya and in Europe, amid fears that the Arab Spring may give rise to a potentially intolerant Islamist resurgence.

This is an "Arab Spring"? 

No, it is an Arab Winter.  And when the groundhog poked its head out in Egypt, then in Libya, it saw a dark, ominous shadow and jumped right back into the hole.

Sadly, there is plenty more of the bitter Arab Winter to go.

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I put up a video of Natasha Lennard, the freelance reporter the New York Times used to cover the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, participating in a panel discussion with the organizers and offering her insights into who would participate and why. 

This, quite obviously, disqualified Ms. Lennard as an objective reporter of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests - and, if the Times had done its homework at all, would have disqualified her right from the start, because there is a high probability that all of the previous reports were compromised by her partisanship.

Well, The Times has responded.  Here is the statement from Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy:

This freelancer, Natasha Lennard, has not been involved in our coverage of Occupy Wall Street in recent days, and we have no plans to use her for future coverage. We have reviewed the past stories to which she contributed and have not found any reasons for concern over that reporting.

 

All our journalists, staff or freelance, are expected to adhere to our ethical rules and journalistic standards, and to avoid doing anything that could call into question the impartiality of their work for The Times.

Translation:  We haven't found any reason to be concerned over Natasha Lennard's stories and we expect all of our journalists, staff or freelance, to adhere to our rules and standards.  But we aren't specifically stating that Natasha Lennard did adhere to our rules and standards, and we're dumping her like the chicken bones from last night's dinner.

So bye-bye Natasha Lennard.  You didn't do a thing wrong, honest.  But don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

As the late columnist Hariet Van Horne would say, that has about as much sincerity as a Christmas card from a bank.

Ken Berwitz

To hear some benighted (at best) media people tell it, President Obama's sudden announcement that all US troops would be out of Iraq by the end of the year is a sterling victory for him, and for the United States.

Is it?

Read this excerpt from today's excellent editorial in the Washington Times and decide for yourself:

During the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama proposed a withdrawal timeline with all troops out by the summer of 2010. “As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in,” he wrote in the New York Times. “We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began.” That promised timeline went by the wayside, and the plan Mr. Obama wound up executing was not his own but George W. Bush‘s. The end-of-2011 withdrawal deadline was established in the Status of Forces Agreement agreed to by America and Iraq in November 2008, before Mr. Obama took office.

 

The Obama administration tried to extend the U.S. commitment beyond the deadline. The White House pressed Baghdad to allow about 6,000 American troops to stay in the country for training, intelligence and air-support missions, but Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pushed back against U.S. negotiators and demanded that the original timeline be honored. Mr. Obama got none of the things he was negotiating for. It wasn’t a foreign-policy triumph but a comprehensive diplomatic failure. “It is a strange way to declare victory,” a Defense Department official told The Washington Times, “after negotiating for months and getting nothing.”

 

Retired Army Gen. John M. Keane warned that the pullout plan is “an absolute disaster” that chiefly benefits Iran. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said, “No one, most particularly Iran, should miscalculate about our continuing commitment to and with the Iraqis going forward.” Iran, however, cannot be blamed for seeking to fill the vacuum left by failed U.S. diplomacy. In any case, it is the Iraqis who lack commitment. “It all seems ignoble,” an Iraq combat veteran told The Times. “Really, we just leave? No advisory role, no friendship? It’s like the Iraqis said, ‘Don’t let the door hit you on the way out,’ and we’re letting them do that.” Many members of the military are concerned that this rush for the exit will endanger the progress they sacrificed so much to achieve.

Let's review:

-President Obama did not fulfill his pledge on troop withdrawal from Iraq.  He blew that by over a year.  The pledge he fulfilled was from President Bush - who indicated the withdrawal would not be unilateral, it would be contingent on circumstances at that time;

-President Obama's negotiations with the government of Iraq were a complete bust.  We got nothing we asked for;

-We are leaving in a way that will give Iran maximum opportunity to take advantage of the situation and strengthen its hand in that region.

Maybe in the magical, mystical world of Obama that is a victory.  But not in my world.

How about yours?

Ken Berwitz

Two weeks ago, the New York Times published one of the more ridiculous editorials of recent history, titled "The Myth of Voter Fraud", in which it claimed that voter IDs are not necessary in the United States because voter fraud is virtually nonexistent

The Times' source for this conclusion (other than maybe Harry Potter's magic wand) was the Brennan Center for Justice - a leftward, soros-funded entity operating out of New York University - which (don't be drinking anything when you read this) claims to be "nonpartisan". 

Yeah, right.  And John Lewis just joined the Tea Party movement.

In any event,  I wrote a pretty scathing rebuttal to the Times' editorial then, and assumed that was the end of it, at least for a while.  But, today, Neil Munro of dailycaller.com has a highly illuminating piece on this subject which brings it right back to the front burner. 

Here are a few key excerpts:

Former Dem. congressman makes U-turn on voter ID laws, says ballot fraud common

Fraudulent voting by imaginary voters, not racist obstacles to the ballot box, is the most disturbing and common form of voter suppression facing people of all races, says former Alabama congressman Artur Davis, an African-American Democrat.

“I’ve changed my mind on voter ID laws — I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one — and I wish I had gotten it right when I was in political office,” Davis wrote in an October 17 op-ed published in the Montgomery Advertiser.

“The truth is that the most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community, at least in Alabama, is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.”

Davis had particular scorn for “voting the names of the dead, and the nonexistent, and the too-mentally-impaired to function,” which he wrote “cancels out the votes of citizens who are exercising their rights.”

Davis’s surprising turn on the issue comes as the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress ramp up pressure on voter-identification laws. Several states have passed laws this year requiring voters to to show identification before casting their ballots. Those states include Alabama and Wisconsin, South Carolina, Texas and Kansas.

GOP leaders say voter ID laws are needed to combat fraudulent voting, but liberal lawmakers typically oppose them.

Democratic groups pushing to invalidate voter ID laws have ignored Davis’s defection from their party line. The Brennan Center for Law and Justice, for example, has not commented on Davis’s admissions. Neither Common Cause nor the National Council of La Raza has mentioned it on their websites.

The silence isn’t surprising, Gessler said, because the left’s opposition to voter ID laws is driven by expectations of partisan advantage, not concerns about honest voting.

Ken Berwitz

Suppose there was a newspaper that has a reputation - ok, thinks it still has a reputation - for objective reporting. 

And suppose it turned out that the reporter it assigned to cover the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters was, in fact, a strategist for the protesters, and apparently in sympathy with its (not inconsiderable) anarchist faction.?  What would you do then?

Well, the New York Times has a chance to provide the answer to this question.  Because the reporter it has assigned to the "Occupy Wall Steet" protests, Natasha Lennard, is just as described above.

Doubt me?  Then watch this video, uncovered by Lee Stranahan of biggovernment.com, showing the strategy session.  And listen to Ms. Lennard, acting not as a reporter, but as a panel member, offering her insights.  Ms. Lennard's comments start at about 1:30, and are transcribed below, complete with her bad language:

Transcription:

Well, that’s what I don’t know. Let’s experiment. But I do think there are a few conditions that disallow for, for that are at play now. So if we can address those, maybe it can be a more open possibility. The state of the square now, I know a lot of people who would be sitting on this side if you want to call it a side, which is problematic, definitely not definitive, yes, would not speak at the park. Because being an outright anti-authoritarian or an anarchist is not really something that people like to be live streamed across the world with a fucking police pen around you.  So there is a silencing that’s sort of gone on without much addressing, because to address it would be to out oneself. So if you’re talking–and this also addresses the question of escalation; it’s like–yes, there are a lot of people talking about many different ideas. Do they all want all of those ideas live streamed to the entire world on the assumption that everything is permitted and legal, when it quite clearly isn’t? So there is already a tendency in the park that means backing away from anti-authoritarian tendencies that don’t fall into pre-existing permitted institutional structures, or that can’t be coded by them. So I think there’s a problem with the way the park operates now that doesn’t allow for this kind of coming together.

So?  What do you do?  Do you keep Ms. Lennard on, knowing that she is not a reporter but a participant, or fire her on the spot?  Do you apologize to your readers for having an advocate act as a supposedly objective reporter?

I guess we'll find out in the next 24 hours.

Ken Berwitz

Joe Biden, yesterday, on CNN's "State of the Union":

“Nobody can look you in the eye and tell you that the recovery act and that stimulus did not create jobs and did not do very good things for the economy”

The so-called "stimulus package" cost $787 billion dollars.  When it was enacted, unemployment was at 8.1%.  After enactment, unemployment jumped over 10% and is now at 9.1%.  While many public sector (i.e. nonproductive) jobs were created, the overall data from the US Dept. of Labor show that the economy has lost about 2.5 million jobs.

Not for nothing do I call him Jackass Joe.  And anytime he wants me to look him in the eye I will do so, recite those numbers, and dare him to look me in the eye and say they are not true.

Ken Berwitz

I don't usually repost material from previous blogs this fast, but in this case I think it may be necessary.

This morning, The Today Show's Matt Lauer began his segment on President Obama by gushing:  "After a series of foreign policy victories, President Obama is hitting the road to sell his plan to help turn around the struggling economy...". 

It figures that Today - part of the NBC policy of No Bad Coverage for President Obama, would report that he has had a series of foreign policy victories as if it were fact rather than opinion. 

Here, from just one day ago, is my take on this:

In the past few days I have been hearing and reading about President Obama's "string of successes" in foreign policy.  So I thought I would list them out.  They consist of:

 

-The removal of Hosni Mubarak, which has enabled the Muslim brotherhood and other shari'a law groups to lurch Egypt toward Islamic state status (this is a success?)?;

 

-The killing of osama bin laden (using intelligence gained from sources Obama is on record as being against. (this is a great success, but how is it Obama's success?);

 

-The deposing, and now killing, of moammar qaddafi, on behalf of "rebels", who seem to have an affinity for both al qaeda and shari'a law - which go hand in hand (is this a success?  qaddafi's removal is great, but I'll wait to see what replaces him);

 

-The declaration that all troops will leave Iraq by 2011, fulfilling a promise to the Iraqi people (er, that promise - contingent on the circumstances in Iraq at that time - was made by George Bush, not Barack Obama).

 

If those are successes of the Obama administration I confess to having a very different view of what the word means.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Lauer's paean to the great "victories" of Barack Obama has not persuaded me otherwise.

Incidentally, on the local version of Today (Today New York) which precedes Lauer & Co., one of the talking heads provided a feelgood report about Libya, telling us that the current "head of state" (who knows for how long or whether he'll wind up in a supermarket meat refrigerator too) has promised a democracy, based on shari'a law.

I heard that and wondered how it could be said with a straight face.  Shari'a law is the absolute antithesis of democracy.  Shari'a law almost always means strict, unwavering obeisance to the koran. 

According to Abed Awad, a US-based shari'a law expert:

Sharia is more than simply “law” in the prescriptive sense. It is also a methodology through which a jurist engages the religious texts to ascertain divine will. As a jurist-made law, the outcome of this process of ascertaining divine will is called fiqh (positive law), which is the moral and legal anchor of a Muslim’s total existence. Sharia governs every aspect of an observant Muslim’s life. 

Does that sound democratic to you?  I didn't think so. 

If the NBC talking head thinks shari'a law is such a great experiment in democracy, I urge him to move his family to Libya immediately and bask in the glow of this wonderful system.

As for President Obama, I have a very strange feeling that it won't take him long to forget he, or anyone else in his re-election campaign, treated Libya like a "foreign policy victory".

Ken Berwitz

The world has a new dictator - one who has decided he knows what is right and therefore it is irrelevant'n'immaterial to go through the elected legislative bodies that are supposed to be writing the laws he intends to unilaterally create and enforce.

From Reuters - and please pay special attention to the last two paragraphs, which I have put in bold print:

President Barack Obama this week will announce a series of actions to help the economy that will not require congressional approval, including an initiative to make it easier for homeowners to refinance their mortgages, according to a White House official.

The actions come as Obama is facing resistance from Republicans to a $447 billion jobs package he has urged Congress to pass.

The first of the initiatives will be unveiled during Obama's three-day trip to western states beginning Monday.

He will discuss the changes in mortgage rules at a stop in Nevada, which has one of the hardest-hit housing markets in the country.

The Obama administration has been working with the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to find ways to make it easier for borrowers to switch to cheaper loans even if they have little to no equity in their homes.

The FHFA intends to loosen the terms of the two-year-old Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), which helps borrowers who have been making mortgage payments on time but who have not been able to refinance as their home values have dropped.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the changes should boost refinancing because they will let banks avoid the risk of any "buy-back" on a HARP mortgage as long as borrowers have made their last six mortgage payments and they prove that they have a job or another source of passive income.

They are also set to reduce loan fees that Fannie and Freddie charge and waive fees on borrowers that refinance into loans with shorter terms, the Journal said.

Pricing details won't be published until mid-November, and lenders could begin refinancing loans under the retooled program as soon as December 1, the newspaper reported, citing federal officials. Loans that exceed the current limit of 125 percent of the property's value won't be able to participate until early next year, the report said.

In Denver Wednesday, Obama will announce a student loan initiative.

"The only way we can truly attack our economic challenges is with bold, bipartisan action in Congress," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told The New York Times.

"The president will continue to pressure Congressional Republicans to put country before party and pass the American Jobs Act, but he believes we cannot wait, so he will act where they won't."

Translation:  President Obama has decided that he does not like the way congress - not one or another of his unvetted, unelected "czars", but the elected congress - is doing things.  So he is simply going to circumvent congress and run the country himself. 

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cringe when reading those last two paragraphs, which tell us we need bipartisan action in congress, but if President Obama doesn't like what congress is doing he will just ignore it and do whatever he wants. 

This is the Obama concept of bipartisanship, folks.  How do you like it? 

To those who like what President Obama is doing:  how will you like it when the next President, maybe someone whose positions are unacceptable to you, decides to use this as a precedent to ignore the elected congress and act on his/her agenda?  Will that be ok with you too?  Remember; what goes around comes around.

And you may not even have to wait that long.  If our "Accomplice Media" let Mr. Obama get away with this - which, based on past experience, would not surprise me in the least - I suggest you sit back and think about what other powers Barack Obama is going to usurp, if he is allowed to, and whether the new elements of his dictatorship will be as palatable to you as these are. 

Remember when media used to rail about the horrors of an "imperial presidency"?  Well, where are they now?

Ken Berwitz

With a tip of my (nonexistent) hat to the late, great Jimmy Cannon, who used to write columns like this for the pre-Rupert-Murdoch New York Post, here is my latest edition of "nobody asked me, but...".

Nobody asked me but.....

-If you just want to take a walk, see the sights, have a moderately priced meal and generally spend an enjoyable day, there is no better city in the country than New York;

-In our area, some planning genius has come up with what he/she thinks is a new, improved way to enter a strip mall.  Instead of the entrance being at the beginning of the mall it is at the end, so you have drive past all the stores before you can get in.  Not only is this inefficient (unless you are going to the very last store, in which case it is break-even) but, if you miss the entrance, you don't have the fail-safe of getting in at the end, because you already are at the end.  You have to u-turn, go past the mall in the opposite direction, u-turn again, and start all over.  Is that as imbecilic to you as it is to me?

-I notice that Debbie Wasserman Schultz does not seem as available to the press now as she was months ago, when she first became chairperson of the Democratic National Committee.  I have to believe this is because she made so many dumb comments in so short a period of time that party leaders told her to put a sock in it for a while.  If so, they made a wise move.

-I asked my friend and co-worker Adriana what her biggest pet peeve was.  She had no clear "winner", but here are her top three:  People who talk with food in their mouths, people who pass gas in confined areas and people who neglect to say things like "please" and "thank you" when they should.  Therefore, if you happen to be in an elevator with Adriana, and you are eating food, and you pass gas, and before swallowing the mouthful of food you say something like "pull my finger" instead of "please excuse me", you probably won't be making much of a hit with her.

-When I drive from central New Jersey to Queens, the most direct route to where I'm going is the Belt Parkway east and the Van Wyck Expressway north.  If there is a worse combination of roads in the United States, I have yet to experience it.  And I hope I never do.

-Why do women always seem to want company when they go to a restaurant bathroom and men always want to go by themselves?  I have never in my life heard a man say to another man "I'm going to the bathroom, come with me". But women do this all the time.  Being of the penile gender, I can only speculate on the reasons... and can't come up with a good one.

-Bobby Slayton is the funniest dirty comedian in America.  And this is coming from someone who rarely finds dirty comedians funny at all.

-Our newspaper deliverer no longer tosses the New York Times up the driveway.  Now it is at the very bottom, and often is as much as 10 feet off to the side, which means I have to take a mini-hike to get it.  For years I have over-tipped because of where the paper was left.  But not this year.  It occurs to me that maybe it is a new delivery person.  If so, I miss the last one.

-Does Joe Biden really think that Democrats would make him their Presidential candidate in 2016?  He's kidding, right?

-The funniest line yet about "Occupy Wall Street" protesters:  On a radio show, someone (can't remember who) said "this is the first occupation a lot of them have had for years".

-But the single funniest line of the week came from Bill O'Reilly, while speaking of what "the rebels" did with moamar qaddafi's body.  He said "they put it in a supermarket meat refrigerator.......on sale".  The first part is actually true (what a fitting ending for qaddafi).  But the "on sale" line caused me to spontaneously bust out laughing.

-Speaking again of the protesters, anyone who can't see that their "occupation" has been co-opted by the far left - probably started by the far-left in the first place - is either obtuse beyond belief, or blind to reality.

-You know that phony "crabmeat" they sell in the supermarket?  Straight from the plastic package, it is awful.  But if you mash it up, then add some Miracle Whip, dijon mustard, and a little pepper, it's not half bad. 

-In that connection, forget about Grey Poupon.  It costs twice as much as most alternative dijon mustards and isn't as good as most of them either.  Trader Joe's and Food Emporium are both much cheaper and much better - and they are far from the only ones I could say that about.

Ken Berwitz

There is a fascinating article at politico.com today, in which writers Alex Isenstadt and David Catanese analyze why Democrats, who did so poorly in last year's election, are out-fundraising Republicans. 

When I saw the headline, "Why Dems are winning the money war", I assumed it would be talking about what Republicans have been doing wrong.

But I wasn't even close.

Here, according to Mr.Isenstadt and Mr. Catanese, are the three main reasons:

-Republican attempts (some successful, some not) to reduce spending means fewer big-money donors, because those donors are not getting the goodies they want from elected officials.

-Due to the Republican victory last year, Nancy Pelosi, a prolific fundraiser, is no longer speaker of the house and now has much more time to raise money for her party;

-Many first term Republicans cannot donate from their individual warchests, because they are especially vulnerable when running for re-election the first time.  (Generally, after congresspeople win two or three times, they become "safe" and are more able to share the wealth).

In other words.....

-Republicans are doing something about runaway spending, which results in them getting less money from the special interests who want that money spent on their issues;

-Republicans cleaned Democrats' clocks in the 2010 election and won a house majority, which unleashed Nancy Pelosi on the fundraising circuit, and

-Also because of the clock-cleaning, dozens of first-term Republican congresspeople need their funds for first-time re-election campaigns.

The article goes on to describe how glum Republicans are, and how elated Democrats are, over the fundraising disparity. 

Me?  I think about the reasons, and conclude that Democrats are not doing nearly as well as Mr. Isenstadt and Mr. Catanese make out, and Republicans are not doing nearly as badly. 

Personally, I would have titled the article "Are Dems winning the money war and losing the election battle?"

Ken Berwitz

Congratulations to Bobby Jindal, who won re-election as Govenor of Louisiana yesterday.

The way Louisiana's gubernatorial election works, there is a "primary" in which any qualified candidate of any party can run.  If someone gets more than 50% of the vote he/she wins election.  If not, the candidates with the two highest totals have a runnoff to determine the winner.

In Mr. Jindal's case, this was no issue at all.  He is so popular that no high profile opponents dared to go up against him.  Jindal wound up with about 66% of the vote against 8 lesser opponents, none of whom even got to double digits - the most lopsided victory in the 36 years since Louisiana went to its "primary" system.

Apart from the victory itself, Mr. Jindal's success highlights an important point which should be made here.  

Louisiana is a deep south state, and Bobby Jindal is a dark-skinned man who started life as Piyush Jindal (it is still his legal name).  His family immigrated to the United States from Punjab, India.  Mr. Jindal was raised as a Hindu.  He converted to Catholicism when he was in high school. 

And he won as a Republican, with massive Republican support.

Bobby Jindal's huge victory, therefore, may come as quite a shock to the intolerant hypocrites who sneer out the stereotyped insult that Republicans, as a group, are racist and xenophobic. 

I suggest they find the nearest mirror, take a good look in it, and think long and hard about what they see.

Ken Berwitz

In the past few days I have been hearing and reading about President Obama's "string of successes" in foreign policy.  So I thought I would list them out.  They consist of:

-The removal of Hosni Mubarak, which has enabled the Muslim brotherhood and other shari'a law groups to lurch Egypt toward Islamic state status (this is a success?)?;

-The killing of osama bin laden (using intelligence gained from sources Obama is on record as being against. (this is a great success, but how is it Obama's success?);

-The deposing, and now killing, of moammar qaddafi, on behalf of "rebels", who seem to have an affinity for both al qaeda and shari'a law - which go hand in hand (is this a success?  qaddafi's removal is great, but I'll wait to see what replaces him);

-The declaration that all troops will leave Iraq by 2011, fulfilling a promise to the Iraqi people (er, that promise - contingent on the circumstances in Iraq at that time - was made by George Bush, not Barack Obama).

If those are successes of the Obama administration I confess to having a very different view of what the word means.

And now we have this, excerpted from an article at Reuters:

ISLAMABAD — Afghanistan would support Pakistan in case of military conflict between Pakistan and the United States, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in an interview to a private Pakistani TV channel broadcast on Saturday.

 

The remarks were in sharp contrast to recent tension between the two neighbors over cross-border raids, and Afghan accusations that Pakistan was involved in killing the chief Afghan peace envoy, former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani, by a suicide bomber on September 20.

 

"God forbid, If ever there is a war between Pakistan and America, Afghanistan will side with Pakistan," he said in the interview to Geo television.

 

"If Pakistan is attacked and if the people of Pakistan needs Afghanistan's help, Afghanistan will be there with you."

As I and others, have written many times, Afghanistan consists of a few ugly "cities" (which would be national disgraces in most countries) and vast stretches of desolate, bare, mountainous terrain that no government could ever control.  The only way of "ruling" Afghanistan is keeping a military presence in Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar-I-Sharif, and maybe a couple of other "cities" in an effort to keep the taliban out (which never works completely anyway).

President Bush understood this, which is why he removed the taliban from Afghanistan's "big" cities and closed bin laden's training camps there with less than 10,000 troops.  Even after seven years, when Barack Obama became President, Bush had more or less kept things that way deploying less than 30,000 troops. 

It was Barack Obama, who told us what a "necessary war" Afghanistan was, and upped the number of troops to near 100,000. 

The result?  We have suffered far more casualties there in less than three years of Obama than in over seven years during the Bush administration, while the taliban has gotten stronger, not weaker.

And what of hamid karzai, the thoroughly corrupt "head of state" our troop presence keeps in office?  Read that excerpt again and see.  He is telling us in so many words that he is our enemy, not our friend.

That's some helluva string of successes in foreign policy.

Oh, one other thing.  Let's not forget that this is the same hamid karzai who sat with Secretary of State Hillary Cllinton just last week, yukking it up as she insulted Republican presidential contender Herman Cain to him. 

Hillary Clinton is pathetic.  And so is anyone who thinks Barack Obama is a foreign policy success.

Ken Berwitz

According to an article at Al Arabiya news:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Thursday expressed anger over the death of Muammar Qaddafi, calling it an “outrage” and saying the ousted Libyan strongman was a “martyr.”

chavez thinks qaddafi is a martyr?  That's nice. 

I don't wish the same kind of "martyrdom" on chavez.  But I wouldn't lose any sleep if it happened.

Ken Berwitz

Rep. Darrell Issa, Chairman of the Committee of Oversight and Government Reform, and Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, have had enough of the stonewalling and general obfuscation regarding the Operation Fast and Furious (F&F) scandal, also known as Project Gunrunner and Project Gunwalker. 

They have sent this letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, demanding answers, and demanding the key documents the Obama administration appear intent on withholding from their investigation.  I urge you in strongest terms to use that link and read it.

Now a few questions:

-Why do you suppose the Obama administration is withholding these documents? 

-What do you suppose the disgraceful toady and Obama sock-puppet of an Attorney General, eric holder, has to hide? 

-Why do you think holder overtly lied to investigators when he claimed not knowing about Operation Fast and Furious until a few weeks before his testimony in May, 201l?  Do you buy his explanation that he didn't know about the five memos specirfically detailing how F&F was going that he received in July of 2010?  Do you believe that he forgot that he bragged about assigning 100 law enforcement agents to this operation during a conference in Cuernavaca, Mexico on April 2, 2009? 

If you believe holder, you must conclude he is an impossibly incompetent idiot. 

If you do not believe holder, you must conclude that he is a liar, covering up his incompetent idiocy.  

Help me out here;  which of these two is the good one?

And is there any doubt that holder's boss, President Obama was briefed on, and ok'ed, an operation of this magnitude?  When do we get the truth from him?

The Operation Fast and Furious scandal is not going away.  But how I wish the people who gave it the go-ahead would.  As soon as possible.

Ken Berwitz

It is not rare that a major newspaper publishes a hit piece on a Republican

But it is very rare that the hit piece is so thoroughly discredited so quickly.

On Thursday, The Washington Post published a front page article by staff writer Manuel Roig-Franzia, which "exposed" that Florida Senator Marco Rubio "embellished" the story of his parents being Cuban exiles.

The problem?  there was no fact to expose, and the story is a land-fill's worth of garbage.

Ok, let's look at the specifics.  First we have the article itself, which started with this:

During his rise to political prominence, Sen. Marco Rubio frequently repeated a compelling version of his family’s history that had special resonance in South Florida. He was the “son of exiles,” he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after “a thug,” Fidel Castro, took power.

 

But a review of documents — including naturalization papers and other official records — reveals that the Florida Republican’s account embellishes the facts. The documents show that Rubio’s parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence more than two-and-a-half years before Castro’s forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year’s Day 1959.

That doesn't look very good, does it?  The accusation makes Rubio look like, at best, someone who grossly exaggerates his family history for political opportunism or, at worst, a flat-out liar.

But, as you might expect, there is a tad more to the story.

First we have the Miami Herald - hardly a bastion of right wing politics - blowing the Roig-Franzia story to smithereens:

The Washington Post just released this interesting story headlined "Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show." The paper flagged a clear inaccuracy in his official Senate biography that states the Senator's parents "came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover.”

That's false. Rubio's parents came to the US before then, in 1956. They remained in the US after Castro took over in 1959. They returned to Cuba for brief stints early on, before the country devolved into Soviet-style totalitarianism.

But the top of the story suggests Rubio himself has given this "dramatic account:" that "he was the son of exiles, he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after 'a thug,' Fidel Castro, took power." (Update note: The story struck the word "dramatic").

However, the story doesn't cite one speech where Rubio actually said that. 

To back up the lead, the Washington Post excerpts from a 2006 address in the Florida House where Rubio said “in January of 1959 a thug named Fidel Castro took power in Cuba and countless Cubans were forced to flee... Today your children and grandchildren are the secretary of commerce of the United States and multiple members of Congress...and soon, even speaker of the Florida House.”

The catch: If you listen to the speech, Rubio isn't just talking about those who specifically fled Cuba after Castro took power. He doesn't say that his parents fled Cuba. Instead, he was talking about "a community of exiles." That is: He was talking about all the Cubans who live in Miami.

The Herald piece continues on, and does accuse Rubio of "sloppiness" in his account of how and when his parents came to the United States, but its message is clear:  i.e. the Post is full of beans (more exactly what happens after you eat them). 

And then there is Senator Rubio's statement, issued after the Roig-Franzia hit piece:

“To suggest my family’s story is embellished for political gain is outrageous.  The dates I have given regarding my family’s history have always been based on my parents’ recollections of events that occurred over 55 years ago and which were relayed to me by them more than two decades after they happened.  I was not made aware of the exact dates until very recently.
 
“What’s important is that the essential facts of my family’s story are completely accurate.  My parents are from Cuba. After arriving in the United States, they had always hoped to one day return to Cuba if things improved and traveled there several times.  In 1961, my mother and older siblings did in fact return to Cuba while my father stayed behind wrapping up the family’s matters in the U.S.  After just a few weeks living there, she fully realized the true nature of the direction Castro was taking Cuba and returned to the United States one month later, never to return.
 
“They were exiled from the home country they tried to return to because they did not want to live under communism. That is an undisputed fact and to suggest otherwise is outrageous.”

Will the Washington Post offer a retraction?  Will it penalize or fire Manuel Roig-Franzia?  I doubt either will happen.

But since the Post is so interested in the backgrounds of prominent political figures, maybe it would like to do a front page article on the fact that expert after expert has debunked the authenticity of President Obama's "original birth certificate, demonstrating that it is a computer generated, layered fraud.  And the one person who Obama & Co. dredged up to counter those charges, Jean Claude Tremblay (same name as the late hockey player, interestingly enough) denied he did any such thing.

Nope, better to stick with this ridiculous attempt to zing Marco Rubio.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a 2 1/2 minute comparison of the Tea Party and "Occupy Wall Street" protesters, put together by minnesotamajority.com.  Take a look and see how you think each group makes out - and how President Obama makes out when he equates the two:

Do you think this might find its way into next year's presidential campaign?....

Ken Berwitz

You have to ask yourself why.  Why are Democrats so fearful that people might be required to present a valid ID in order to vote?  And why do they think Black people are so incapable that it is a hardship for them to get one?

Read this excerpt from an Associated Press article about South Carolina's new voter ID law and see for yourself:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina’s new voter photo identification law appears to be disproportionately affecting minority voters in one of the state’s largest counties and black precincts elsewhere, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

For instance, nearly half the voters who cast ballots at a historically black college in Columbia lack state-issued photo identification and could face problems voting in next year’s presidential election, according to the analysis of precinct-level data provided by the state Election Commission.

In surrounding Richland County, the state’s second-most populous county, the percentage of minority voters without the IDs is also higher than what it is statewide. The same is true for majority-black Orangeburg County.

“This is electoral genocide,” state Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian said. “This is disenfranchising huge groups of people who don’t have the money to go get an ID card.”

Wow, that ID card must cost a lot of money if it is "disenfranchising huge groups of people who don't have the money" to get it.  Right?

Well, here is what it takes, straight from South Carolina's DMV web site:

Who is Eligible?

Any South Carolina resident age five or older can apply for a state identification card. All ID cards are valid for five years.

You will need to apply for your first ID card in person at your local Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office. Take the completed Form 447 (available with the free Adobe Reader), proper identification, and the $5 fee.

In other words, the Associated Press, and especially Democrat Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian, have their underwear in a knot over Black people's ability to fill out a simple form and pay $5 for an ID that is valid for 5 years.

Harpootlian is literally saying that "huge groups of people" cannot afford one dollar a year for an ID card.  That is what he is calling "electoral genocide". 

People who would say something like this are so full of crap that just calling them liars actually elevates their status.

Can anyone seriously look you in the eye and tell you that huge groups of Black people will not be able to afford one dollar a year for a valid ID? 

I hope the answer is no.  Because people who would say that are not only making absolute imbeciles of themselves, they are also demonstrating so complete a level of condescension toward Black people that they should be in sensitivity training for the rest of their natural lives.

The answer, of course, is that with virtually no exceptions, OF COURSE Black people can afford to get a voter ID in South Carolina.  Therefore, the cost has nothing to do with what's really going on here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The only people who fear voter ID laws are people who want to make it easier for illegal votes to be cast. 

Period, end of story.

Ken Berwitz

This one goes straight to the "you can't make this stuff up" file.

Excerpted from an article in the Houston Chronicle:

Only in Texas: Dallas police are on the lookout for a man who could face assault charges for throwing a frozen armadillo at a 57-year-old woman near Dallas.

The woman, My Fox Dallas-Fort Worth reports, met the man in a parking lot to purchase the armadillo carcass, which she planned to eat.

During a fight over its price, he hit her with the animal in the leg and the chest, leaving bruises on her body.

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas law prohibits the sale of live armadillos, but a few Texans still go after their meat.

I say any woman tough enough to eat an armadillo carcass is tough enough to withstand being assaulted by a frozen one.

All things considered, she's pretty lucky.  They could have been haggling over a frozen porcupine.

I'll stop there, because every other bad joke I can think of is in such poor taste that I don't want to post them.  But, in case you want to add your own, I will tell you that at least two of the jokes I refuse to put up involve the woman misunderstanding, and thinking it was an armadildo.  If you want to work with that, be my guest.

Ken Berwitz

Let's hit both sides of the country.

First we have this excerpt from Josh Saul's article in  today's New York Post:

Angry Manhattan residents lambast Zuccotti Park protesters

 

Infuriated lower Manhattan residents went ballistic on Zuccotti Park protesters at a chaotic Community Board 1 meeting tonight while blasting politicians for allowing the siege to continue without any end in sight.

 

"They are defecating on our doorsteps," fumed Catherine Hughes, a member of Community Board 1 and a stay at home mom who has the misfortune of living one block from the chaos. "A lot of people are very frustrated. A lot of people are concerned about the safety of our kids."

 

Fed up homeowners said that they've been subjected to insults and harassment as they trek to their jobs each morning. "The protesters taunt people who are on their way to work," said James Fernandez, 51, whose apartment overlooks the park. 

Ken Berwitz

Yawn.  Another day, another billion dollars to "Green" companies bankrolled by big-time Obama bundlers. 

This time the company names are Fisker and Tesla.  And - I am elated to say - the reporting is being done by a major venue:  ABC News.

Want some particulars?  Ok, here are a few key excerpts from the article at abcnews.com, written by Matthew Mosk, Brian Ross and Ronnie Greene:

Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland

 

With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work.

Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department's $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the job of assembling the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car has been outsourced to Finland.

"There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle," the car company's founder and namesake told ABC News. "They don't exist here."

"We're not in the business of failing; we're in the business of winning. So we make the right decision for the business," Fisker said. "That's why we went to Finland."

The loan to Fisker is part of a $1 billion bet the Energy Department has made in two politically connected California-based electric carmakers producing sporty -- and pricey -- cutting-edge autos. Fisker Automotive, backed by a powerhouse venture capital firm whose partners include former Vice President Al Gore, predicts it will eventually be churning out tens of thousands of electric sports sedans at the shuttered GM factory it bought in Delaware. And Tesla Motors, whose prime backers include PayPal mogul Elon Musk and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, says it will do the same in a massive facility tooling up in Silicon Valley.

An investigation by ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity's iWatch News that will air on "Good Morning America" found that the DOE's bet carries risks for taxpayers, has raised concern among industry observers and government auditors, and adds to questions about the way billions of dollars in loans for smart cars and green energy companies have been awarded. Fisker is more than a year behind rolling out its $97,000 luxury vehicle bankrolled in part with DOE money. While more are promised soon, just 40 of its Karma cars (below) have been manufactured and only two delivered to customers' driveways, including one to movie star Leonardo DiCaprio. Tesla's SEC filings reveal the start-up has lost money every quarter. And while its federal funding is intended to help it mass produce a new $57,400 Model S sedan, the company has no experience in a project so vast.

Chelsea Sexton, a 20-year veteran of the electric car movement and an outspoken advocate for alternative fuel vehicles, said she can plainly see the risks, even though her husband works for Tesla.

"None of us with any experience in the industry think there's any sort of guarantee they'll make it," Sexton said of Tesla. "It looks pretty good right now, they're building out their plant, things seem to be on track, so we're all encouraged. But you know, we watched GM and Chrysler go bankrupt."

Tesla and Fisker stand in rare company in securing the ATVM loans. To date, records show, more than 95 percent of applicants are still awaiting approval or have been rejected from the loan pool.

Between them, Fisker, at $529 million, and Tesla, at $465 million, have secured nearly $1 billion to jump-start production of their cars. Combined, the companies have already drawn down more than $300 million, Federal Financing Bank records show.

Both companies have political heavyweights behind them. One of Fisker's biggest financial supporters, records show, is the California venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. The firm financially supports numerous green-tech firms, records show.

 

Kleiner Perkins partner John Doerr, a California billionaire who made a fortune investing in Google, hosted President Obama at a February dinner for high-tech executives at his secluded estate south of San Francisco. Doerr and Kleiner Perkins executives have contributed more than $1 million to federal political causes and campaigns over the last two decades, primarily supporting Democrats. Doerr serves on Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Doerr has not replied to interview requests since March.

Former Vice President Al Gore is another Kleiner Perkins senior partner. Gore could not be reached for comment.

"Their major venture investor is Kleiner Perkins, who has Al Gore as a partner and is certainly politically connected in general," said industry observer Sexton. "Whether that played a role or not is up to the DOE to explain."

Tesla brings political pull, as well. A former Tesla board member, Steve Westly, is an Obama bundler who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the president in 2008 and for his 2012 re-election campaign. His Westly Group was also a financial supporter of Tesla Motors until Tesla went public in 2010, and Westly continues to back the company. Westly has declined interview requests since February, but has appeared in multiple conferences, forums and TV interviews publicly praising Tesla Motors.

Tesla's founder and CEO, Elon Musk, is a hearty political contributor who has primarily backed Democrats, including Obama. According to published reports, another Tesla investor is Nick Pritzker, a donor to Obama and a cousin of Penny Pritzker, the national finance chair of Obama's 2008 campaign.

A billion dollars of taxpayer money - half of it to build $97,000 cars almost no one can afford, in Finland - which shuts out the US worker - and all of it to companies heavily backed by big-time Obama contributors.

I don't give a damn how much you love Barack Obama.  You can smell this political payoff a mile away. 

I can just hear the conversation:  "Keep that money coming and you'll get multiples back - not from me, but from the taxpayers.  You get yours.  I get mine.  And the saps paying the freight?  Don't worry, they'll never be the wiser.  Who is going to blow the whistle on me?  Mainstream media?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA"

Well, to its credit, ABC News is blowing a whistle.  And to their eternal shame and discredit, most other members of the Accomplice Media have done little or nothing to tell the public about this huge, and still growing, scandal. 

Maybe ABC will shame them into acting like they still are journalists.  We'll see.

Ken Berwitz

This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with great coffee - which is far more enjoyable and, certainly in the mornings, is far more important.

In my (and my wife's, and most people we know's) opinion, Zabar's is the best appetizing and specialty food store in New York - which means, it is probably the best appetizing and specialty food store anywhere.  And their coffee, which they roast themselves, is about the best we have ever had.

There is nothing like the store itself, which located at 80th Street and Broadway on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.  But if you can't get there, they have a terrific web site to order from, often with special deals that make it even better.

This is the story of one of them.

On Monday, at about 10:45PM, I ordered Zabar's coffee on line. 

As noted above, Zabar's has just about the best coffee you can buy (in my opinion anyway).  In-store, the price for most of their varieties is only $7.98 per lb., ground to your taste.

When ordering online, the bad news is that they bump the price up $2, to $9.98 a lb.  But the good news is that if you order four pounds at a time, they don't charge any shipping.  And since I live outside of New York (less than an hour, but for tax purposes a miss is as good as a mile), I don't pay New York's 8.75% tax either.  So the total comes to $39.92. for the four pounds shipped to our door - about what I would have to pay for the coffee they sell in those plastic bins at the supermarket, which doesn't even begin to compare.

On Tuesday, however, I looked on the web site and saw that they were running a special deal.  If you bought the four pounds of coffee, they kicked in a half pound of their most popular blend, two pieces of rugelach (an absolutely delicious pastry), one of their signature coffee mugs, and a coffee scoop.

So I called up and told the very nice person on the other end of the phone that I missed the deal by less than an hour and a half, and would certainly have waited if I had known.  She gave me a bit of a fight.  But eventually "as a courtesy", she allowed me to get the deal along with my coffee.

How fast is the "free shipping"?  Well, it came today.  And when I opened the box, even before brewing any of it, the aroma alone put me in an advanced state of caffeinated orgasm.

Why am I mentioning this on a political blog?  No reason at all, other than I thought you might like to know.

Ok, back to politics.

Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from a Reuters article, published by the Jerusalem Post:

Freed would-be suicide bomber tells kids to be like her

 

GAZA - A would-be Palestinian suicide bomber freed by Israel in the prisoner swap for soldier Gilad Schalit told cheering schoolchildren in the Gaza Strip the day after her release on Wednesday she hoped they would follow her example.

"I hope you will walk the same path we took and God willing, we will see some of you as martyrs," Wafa al-Biss told dozens of children who came to her home in the northern Gaza Strip.

 

Biss was traveling to Beersheba's Soroka hospital for medical treatment in 2005 when Israeli soldiers at the Erez border crossing noticed she was walking strangely. They found 10 kilograms (22 lbs) of explosives had been sewn into her underwear.

 

A member of al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, an offshoot of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party, Biss was sentenced to a 12-year term for planning to blow herself up.

After she spoke, the children cheered and waved Palestinian flags and chanted: "We will give souls and blood to redeem the prisoners. We will give souls and blood for you, Palestine."

Biss said she had planned to blow herself up at the checkpoint but her detonator malfunctioned.

 

"Unfortunately, the button did not work at the last minute before I was to be martyred," Biss told Reuters.

These are the people the world demands that Israel negotiate a peace with.

How?

Ken Berwitz

What do you think the media reaction would have been if a Republican Secretary of State sat down in front of cameras with a foreign head of state - a thoroughly corrupt one at that - to sarcastically insult a Democrat presidential candidate - a Black one at that?

While you are thinking of 1,000 different condemnations, 100 different ways of saying "racist" and dozens of panel discussions on the morning shows and network news skewering that Secretary of State, let me show you this excerpt from today's article by Kirit Radia of abcnews.com:

During a photo op at the top of their meeting in Kabul, Afghan President Hamid Karzai asked Clinton about Cain’s comment earlier this month that he probably won’t know the name of the leader of “Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.”

“He’s a former pizza company owner,” Clinton told Karzai of Cain.

“Is he that,” Karzai replied.

“Oh yeah, he started something called Godfather pizza,” Clinton said.

“Yes, I see, I see,” Karzai said.

Clinton then turned to U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker and mocked Cain.

“The president was saying he saw a news clip about how Mr. Cain had said, ‘I don’t even know the names of all these presidents of all these countries,’ you know, like, whatever,” she said, mimicking the candidate dismissively.

“That wasn’t right, but anyway, that’s how politics are,” Karzai said diplomatically.

This is a Secretary of State?  Someone entrusted with handling our international diplomacy?  God help us.  Please.

Not only was Hillary Clinton snide, snarky, obnoxious and in unbelievably bad taste, but she wasn't even accurate.  Godfather's Pizza started in 1973.  Herman Cain was appointed by parent company Pillsbury to run the then-troubled company in 1986.  He turned it around and made it profitable - no surprise, since just about everything this man has ever been involved with was the better for it. 

By contrast, the only turning around Hillary Clinton has ever done has been changing her story after being caught in lies.  And the only thing Hillary Clinton ever caused to be profitable was Hillary Clinton.

And if she thinks that Godfather Pizza is the only item on Mr. Cain's résumé, she better read it - and be sure to do so on a thick carpet, to cushion the blow when she faints with envy.    

Hillary Clinton is about the last person on earth to be insulting a man as accomplished as Herman Cain

And about the last person on earth President Obama should have made Secretary of State.

Ken Berwitz

Hapless Harry Reid.  About the worst thing you can do to hurt this man is to quote him.

Here are his exact words, spoken yesterday on the floor of the senate:

“The massive layoffs we’ve had in America today have, of course, they’re rooted again in the last administration.  And it’s very clear, that private sector jobs have been doing just fine.  It’s the public sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers.  And that’s what this legislation is all about.  And it’s unfortunate my friend, the Republican leader, is complaining about that”

Let's try to parse this:

-It is now almost three years since George Bush was President, and almost five years since Republicans lost control of both houses of congress to the Democrats (Republicans took back the house this year, but the senate and Presidency still are on the Democrat side).  The only people who believe "the massive layoffs we've had in America today" are Bush's fault are the hopelessly partisan, and the hopelessly ignorant.  Which certainly means Mr. Reid was playing to his core audience;

-It is very clear that private sector jobs are doing fine?  Then how come there are 2.5 million less of them since President Obama took office?

-It's the public sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers?  Then how come federal employees alone are up 13.5% since Mr. Obama became President? 

-That's what this legislation is all about?  Then, as my mother used to say (maybe she still does, I'll ask her) the legislation is bass ackwards.

-It's unforunate the Republican leader is complaining about that?  No, Harry, it is fortunate that one of you two are working on more than a half-cylinder.

Omigod.  This man is senate majority leader.  He is not only one of only 100 senators, but he is in charge of the majority in that body.

We're in more trouble than we thought we were.

Ken Berwitz

Evidently the reports are true.  moammar qaddafi is dead.

May he rot in hell.

Ken Berwitz

This is an installment of "Jackass Joe strikes again" that I tried not to write. 

As asinine as Vice President Joe Biden sounded the other day, when he tied the Obama administration's so-called "American Jobs Act" to rape, I decided to let it go.  There are just so many times you can call the man who is a heartbeat away from being commander in chief of the armed forces a jackass.

But he has now repeated the charge, even more directly, so I have to call him out on it.

Two days ago, while speaking at the UPenn, Biden said:

"...the other thing I've heard from my friends who oppose this, this whole jobs bill and this, is this is just temporary.  Well, let me tell you, it's not temporary when that 911 call comes in and a woman's being raped if a cop shows up in time to prevent the rape, it's not temporary to that woman"

Let's forget the mangled grammar, and the fact that if a 911 call comes in while a rape is in progress the rape cannot possibly be prevented.  Let's restrict this to Mr. Biden's ludicrous-beyond-belief claim that there is a tie-in between the latest $450 billion dollar "stimulus package" and rape statistics. 

First, a simple fact:  there is nothing whatsoever that prevents municipalities, cities and states from hiring as many police officers as are needed.  They decide how to allocate their money, and if the decision is to spend resources needed for law enforcement on something else, they are the ones who should be held to account. 

The ugly ploy being attempted by Obama/Biden is to somehow convince you that all money spent on everything but law enforcement is sacrosanct, so the only way to get sufficient law enforcement money is through additional spending - which, of course, is why we should piss $450 billion more dollars away after pissing away $787 billion in the first "stimulus package". 

Could that be more ridiculous?

Anyone who deals with a family budget knows that, when you don't have enough for everything, you prioritize.  But career politicians like Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, who do nothing but spend other people's money they did not earn, seem unable to grasp this seemingly obvious concept.

In any event, yesterday, the day after Mr. Biden made that comment, Jason Mattera of Human Events approached him and asked if he regretted doing so.  Watch the video below and you will first hear audio of Biden's original comment (the one transcribed above), then hear Mr. Biden claim he didn't say it - while poking his finger at Mr. Mattera and threateningly saying "don't screw around with me"  - and then, just seconds later, hear him completely reverse field and specifically tie defeat of the bill to rape, plus murder and other crimes as well.

Could that possibly have happened?  Could the man who is first in line to the presidency directly contradict what he said the day before and then immediately contradict his contradiction?  Well, here's the video.  Watch, listen, and cringe:

There it is. 

Unbelievable?  No, just the Vice President of the United States being himself.

Not for nothing do I call him Jackass Joe.

Ken Berwitz

It is being reported - still without full confirmation - that moammar qaddafi is dead. 

Regardless of what we think of "the rebels" and what Libya will become under the rule of whichever faction eventually takes control, any day a murdering subhuman scumbag like this dies is a great day.

Let's hope the reports are true.

Ken Berwitz

Sometimes I think I could write a blog exclusively about the, er, "quality" of editorial content in the New York Times (and, yes, before you say it, "editorial content" very often defines its news section as well).

Today we are talking about illegal immigration, and the effect Alabama's new, very tough immigration laws are having on their illegal population, which is estimated at well over 100,000.

Here is what the Times has to say about it in rust, and what I have to say about what the Times has to say about it in blue.

It’s What They Asked For You got that right

 

Alabama’s new anti-immigrant law, the nation’s harshest, went into effect last month (a few provisions have been temporarily blocked in federal court), and it is already reaping a bitter harvest of dislocation and fear. Hispanic homes are emptying, businesses are closing, employers are wondering where their workers have gone. Parents who have not yet figured out where to go are lying low and keeping children home from school.  Translation:  illegals are no longer able to function with 100% freedom in the place they do not have a legal right to be.

To the law’s architects and supporters, this is excellent news. “You’re encouraging people to comply with the law on their own,” said Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state, who has a side career of drafting extremist immigration legislation for states and cities, notoriously in Arizona and now in Alabama.  Notorious?  Maybe in the Times’ editorial offices.  In the real world, a lot of people are cheering.

Alabama’s law is the biggest test yet for “attrition through enforcement,” a strategy espoused by Mr. Kobach and others to drive away large numbers of illegal immigrants without the hassle and expense of a police-state roundup. All you have to do, they say, is make life hard enough and immigrants will leave on their own. In such a scheme, panic and fear are a plus; suffering is the point.  Suffering?  Isn’t that why illegals leave Mexico?  I keep waiting for the Times to publish a series of editorials condemning Mexico, a rich country, for making living conditions so intolerable that something like 10% of its entire population (about 12 million nationally) would rather live in the shadows, illegally, in the USA than live openly as citizens of their own country.  If the Times wants to address suffering, maybe that’s the place it should start.

The pain isn’t felt just by the undocumented. Legal immigrants and native-born Alabamans who happen to be or look Hispanic are now far more vulnerable to officially sanctioned harassment. Many of those children being kept home from school by frightened parents are born and bred Americans.  Sure.  People who can prove their legal citizenship are scared of being deported.  That’s right up there with the Times’ contention that there is virtually no voter fraud in the United States.  I sometimes wonder if this bunch snorts smack cocaine before they start writing.

The problems do not stop there. Farmers are already worrying that with the exodus, crops will go unpicked. Like much of the rest of the country, Alabama needs immigrant labor, because too many native-born citizens lack the skill, the stamina and the willingness to work in the fields — even in a time of steep unemployment.  Then how about an editorial supporting legal entry of Mexican nationals on temporary work permits?  It would resolve the problem you describe without ignoring immigration laws.  I guess this solution is too logical for you.

The new law has also added frustrating layers of paperwork for Alabamans who must now prove legal status when enrolling schoolchildren, signing leases and interacting with government. Oh dear.  You mean people have to demonstrate they’re legal to get services that only legals are entitled to?  Heaven forefend.  After the law went into effect, the lines at the Department of Motor Vehicles in Birmingham grew so long that officials had to bring in portable toilets.   Yes.  That is true.  Getting things right after ignoring them for years and years is going to create a short-term rush there.  I’m supposed to be concerned that doing so requires porta-potties for a few days?  Waaahhhhh.

Alabama’s reputation has also taken a huge hit just when it is trying to lure international businesses. No matter how officials may try to tempt foreign automakers, say, with low taxes and wages, the state is already infamous as a regional capital of xenophobia.  Brilliant.  I’m sure international businesses are outraged that legal Alabamans will be hired to work in the factories they build in Alabama.  I’ll just bet there will be an international boycott any day now.

If Alabama succeeds in driving out all of its estimated 120,000 unauthorized immigrants, restrictionists will surely cheer. They will have only 49 states and 11 million more people to go.  And the sooner the better.  What part of THEY ARE ILLEGAL does the Times have a problem understanding?

There is another more humane and realistic path in which immigrants could earn the right to stay — if Congress would accept its responsibility and move ahead with serious immigration reform. America’s history shows that assimilation works better than deportation — for everyone. It sure does.  And it has, for the many, many Mexican nationals who have come here legally, whom I welcome with open arms.  If first-generation immigrants don’t all learn English, their children and grandchildren invariably do. They may be poor, but their children grow up to be productive citizen taxpayers. Don’t you just love when a so-called “liberal” paper overtly stereotypes ethnic groups?  If a public figure said “Jews are cheap”, Irish are drunks” or “Blacks are lazy” the Times would immediately - and correctly - call that person out as a bigoted jerk.  But here we have the Times telling us all Mexicans learn English and their children will grow up to be productive citizen taxpayers – i.e. exactly the same “you’ve seen one, you’ve seen ‘em all” stereotype - and that is supposed to be just fine.  The hypocrisy is breathtaking.  Unless, of course, you frighten and oppress them, and forbid them to work, live and go to school.   For the umpteenth time, it is not oppression to expect people to be here legally, just frighteningly obtuse of the Times not to understand as much.

Other states that are tempted to follow should look at what is happening in Alabama.  On that, I couldn’t agree more.  Nobody is winning there.  On that, I couldn’t agree less.  Every job that a legal Alabaman now has access to is a win.  Every job that pays someone legally, with full tax deductions, instead of under the table with no taxes deducted, is a win.  Etc. etc. etc. 

Now, where is that editorial condemning Mexico for the way it treats its people?  I’ll wait …………………zzzzzzzzz

Having written this, let me concede that illegal immigration is far from a black and white issue.  There are children who, through no actions of their own, have grown up in the United States and know no other life.  Some situations do transcend the strictest interpretation of the law, and a combination of fairness and common sense should cause us to find ways of making allowances. 

Nope, it is not me who sees this in strictly black and white terms.  It is the members of the New York Times editorial board. 

They are a joke.

Ken Berwitz

Please take a look at this report from massresistance.com, which describes the "Occupy Boston" part of these protests - complete with pictures of signs, the literature being distributed, etc.  Then see if you agree with our wonderful "neutral" media that it represents a cross-section of the country, just plain folks like you and me (with the caveat that, although I am not 100% certain of what the reference to "the homosexual issue" means, I'm pretty certain I could have lived without it).  That aside, excellent job:

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE "OCCUPY BOSTON" PART OF THE PROTESTS

Ken Berwitz

For weeks now we have been told that the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters are filling Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan.

But how big is Zuccotti Park, and how many people would it take to fill it?

Well here is a street view of the park.  Let's take a look-see:

Wait a minute.  That's it?  That's all of Zuccotti Park? 

In point of fact, Zuccotti Park is one city block long, and one short block wide.  Less than a single acre.

How many people could fit into Zuccotti Park and fill it up?  Maybe a few hundred - or less, if you consider how much room is taken up by those permanent flower boxes, the trees, the tents put up by protesters, etc.

This is the whole big deal with "Occupy Wall Street", that our Accomplice Media has blown up so far, for so long?

Is "Occupy Wall Street" the cindy sheehan of protests?  i.e. without the media, there is little or nothing there?

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

Ken Berwitz

With thanks to Michelle Malkin, from whose blog I pulled this, here is a table showing where President Obama promised that unemployment would be once the so-called "stimulus package" was passed (over 2 1/2 years ago), and where it actually went:

Any questions?.

Ken Berwitz

In case you still have any doubt that Democrats have made a mistake of epic proportion in backing the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters, look at this chart from gallup.com:

Is that enough to convince you?  What, there are still one or two stragglers?  Ok, how about this one:

Holy excrement!   

You would, of course, expect a vast majority of Republicans to put most blame for our ecnomic problems on the federal government (read that as Obama & Co.).  But so do a vast majority of independents - you know, the people who decide elections.  And, incredibly, even 44% of the people who support the Occupy Wall Street" protests think the federal government is more to blame.

When I see political blunders of this magnitude, I usually assume they have been made by Republicans - and I usually am right in that assumption.  But not this time.

If Democrats are trying to blow an election, this is an excellent strategy.  Otherwise?  They better consider a quick change of course.  Roughly about 180 degrees worth.

Ken Berwitz

Suppose you are, say, the majority leader of the Democrat-controlled senate.  And suppose you are overseeing massive government deficits with no end in sight.  What do you do?

Here's an idea:  what if you ignore your constitutional duties and offer no budget?  Then no one can criticize your budget ideas because they don't exist, and at the same time you can attack the other party for its  budget ideas. 

Wow, that's great what a scam!!!  And all you need is for an Accomplice Media to look the other way, by keeping most of its readers/viewers/listeners in the dark about the fact that it is happening.

With this in mind, here are the key excerpts of an editorial from yesterday's Investors Business Daily. See what you think of it:

Dems' 900 Days Of Irresponsibility

Budget: Over the weekend, Senate Democrats passed a dubious milestone — going 900 days without fulfilling their legal obligation to pass a budget. Worse is the fact that this gross dereliction of duty has gone largely unnoticed.

You have to go all the way back to April 29, 2009 — just three months after President Obama took the oath of office — to find the last time Senate Democrats managed to discharge their legal obligation to produce a budget plan.

That's right — legal obligation. It says right in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that the Senate must produce a budget resolution by April of each year.

Instead, all the country has gotten from Senate Democrats are excuses.

So, without any budget plan to guide them, here's what Congress managed to do in the 29 months since the Senate last passed a plan:

• Spent a total of $8.5 trillion.

• Ran up monthly deficits totaling $2.6 trillion.

• Added $3.6 trillion to the national debt — a stunning 32% increase.

Now it's the middle of October, with the debt deal done months ago, and there's still no Senate plan anywhere in sight. What's Reid's new excuse?

Turns out, he doesn't have to make one up, since the debt deal Obama signed in August lets the Senate off the budget hook for another two years.

According to a Democratic Policy and Communications Center memo obtained by Commentary magazine in August, "One important but overlooked element of the bipartisan debt limit compromise is that it ... in effect, 'deems' a budget resolution passed for each of the next two fiscal years."

This, the memo says, "significantly reduces the chances of a sequel to last spring's government shutdown drama."

But what it really does is let Democrats continue to play political games with the budget, attacking serious, credible GOP proposals without ever having to offer anything concrete of their own.

Earlier this year, Obama said that "families across this country understand what it takes to manage a budget," and that "it's time Washington acted as responsibly as our families do."

He's right. Except that it's members of his own party who refuse to act like responsible adults.

Is it my imagination, or would this information be of some importance to voters?  And if it would be, why have so many in our wonderful "neutral" media not been screaming about it for all this time?

The answer, of course, is because, for the most part, we do not have a neutral media.  We have an Accomplice Media.  And guess which side they are acting as accomplices for?

How can these people even pretend they are journalists?

Ken Berwitz

Timothy Noah, writing for The New Republic, has chastised veteran political polling maven Doug Schoen for what he considers Mr. Schoen's misrepresentation of popular support for the Tea Party movement and negative reaction to the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. 

Here is the key part of Mr. Noah's analysis:

Doug Schoen looks at the Tea Party and he finds "the most powerful and extraordinary phenomenon in recent American political history." The political elite ignore them at their peril.

Doug Schoen looks at Occupy Wall Street and he finds a group with "values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people." The political elite embrace them at their peril.

A new Time poll shows that that 54 percent of respondents have a view of Occupy Wall Street that is "very or somewhat favorable," and that 27 percent of respondents have a view of the Tea Party that is "very or somewhat favorable." Yet Schoen, a pollster, would have President Obama court the group that a majority of people dislike and shun the group that a majority of people like.

That looks perfectly reasonable, doesn't it?  Except for one thing:  some of us might actually look at Time Magazine's data - like, for example, me.

Here are the questions, and responses, Mr. Noah bases his analysis on:

TEA PARTY QUESTION:  ON ANOTHER ISSUE, IS YOUR OPINION OF THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE TEA PARTY TO HAVE AN OPINION? 

VERY FAVORABLE 8%

 

SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 19%

 

SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 9%

 

VERY UNFAVORABLE 24%

 

DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 39%

 

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1% 

OCCUPY WALL STREET QUESTION:  IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION? 

VERY FAVORABLE 25%

 

SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 29%

 

SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 10%

 

VERY UNFAVORABLE 13%

 

DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 23%

 

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1% 

Notice any difference? 

The Tea Party question is entirely generic.  "Is your opinion of the Tea Party....".  This, of course, comes after two years of relentlessly negative media coverage of the Tea Party movement.

The "Occupy Wall Street" question is not generic at all.  The Time poll first "educates" respondents by telling them that the protests are against favoring the rich, bank bailouts and the influence of money in our political system - every one of which is guaranteed to elicit sympathetic feelings on the part of just about all people - me included.  Only then does it ask for a favorable/unfavorable evaluation.  (And this, of course, is on the heels of a month-long media lovefest for the protests.)

This is supposed to be comparative? 

Ok, let's have some fun.  Let's suppose this were reversed.  Suppose the Tea Party question said, for example:

IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING AROUND THE COUNTRY TO DEMAND LESS GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO OUR LIVES AND THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP RAISING THE DEFICIT BY SPENDING MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE.  IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS......

How do you suppose the Tea Party would have made out with this question?  A lot better?  Well, that is how the "Occupy Wall Street" question was asked.

But let's not stop there.  Suppose the "Occupy Wall Street" question was:

IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO DEMAND AND END TO THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM, AND THAT PEOPLE WHO EARN MONEY MUST GIVE MORE OF IT TO PEOPLE WHO EARN LITTLE OR NOTHING, EVEN IF THEY ARE CAPABLE OF WORKING.  IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS…

Do you think the "Occupy Wall Street" protests would get the same high ratings if Time framed the question in this negative way, instead of in the positive way they actually did frame it?  I didn't think so.

Bottom line:  Time created a push poll that was meant to downplay the Tea Party and elevate the "Occupy Wall Street" protests.  Shame on them.

And The New Republic's Timothy Noah, due either to ignorance of how phony this poll was, or dislike of the Tea Party people, or sympathy for the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters or some combination thereof, wrote an article that pretended Time's push poll was legitimate.  Shame on him.

Tell you what, Mr. Noah.  In 2010, largely because of the Tea Party movement, Republicans had one of the most successful elections in this country's history, gaining 63 house seats 6 senate seats and 5 governorships.  If the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters get results similar to those in 2012, be sure to let me know how right you were and how wrong I was.

I'll wait. But I don't expect to hear from you. 

Oh, just one other thing:  in case you wonder why I am so skeptical of political polling - not just the Time poll but political polling in general - look at this question/answer, also from the Time poll:

AS YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER 2012. AT THIS POINT, WOULD YOU SAY YOU’LL DEFINITELY NOT VOTE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, PROBABLY NOT VOTE, MAY OR MAY NOT VOTE DEPENDING UPON HOW YOU FEEL AT THE TIME, PROBABLY VOTE, OR DEFINITELY VOTE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

BASE: REGISTERED TO VOTE / NOT REQUIRED (904)

DEFINITELY NOT VOTE 2%

PROBABLY NOT VOTE 1%

MAY OR MAY NOT VOTE 7%

PROBABLY VOTE 6%

DEFINITELY VOTE 84%

DON’T KNOW/NO ANSWER *

Let's assume that just half of the people who say they will probably vote and 3/7ths of those who say they "may or may not vote" actually do.  Add it to the "definitely vote" group and you come to 90% of voters going to the polls next election day. 

Has there ever been an election with anywhere near that kind of turnout?  Nope.  Not even close.

I rest my case.

Ken Berwitz

This is as short as I can make it:

-Romney:  A big winner.  Not only did he handle tough, questions, but he showed that he can take the big hits and give back every bit as much as he gets.  This should dispel any thought that Romney is incapable of being more than a whitebread corporate type, without any fire in his belly.  I expect his numbers to go up.

-Perry - Another debate disaster.  Months ago, when all I knew about Perry was his generic résumé, I thought he would be an extremely formidable candidate.  But after that Christians-only political prayer event in August, and his debate performances, it is clear to me that he is an empty suit with a full ego.  Bye-bye, Rick.

-Cain - He had his meteoric rise.  And this debate should be the start of his rapid descent back to earth.  None of the other candidates liked Cain's 9-9-9 plan, and they expressed what sounded like very valid reasons for rejecting it.  Cain's remarkable business and financial background, should make him a strong Republican asset in the coming election.  But not as a presidential nominee. 

-Gingrich - Brilliant, visionary, but so demonized by the media and so flawed in his personal life that I can't see it happening.  Of all the things Gingrich said last night - and there were a number to choose from - my favorite was in the final minute when he took a dump on Anderson Cooper's head for how he ran the debate.  More on this later.

-Bachmann - Her surge is ended and she's going nowhere.  But she did get an endorsement from Wayne Newton yesterday (seriously).  Somehow I doubt that will create a massive resurgence for her prospects.

-Santorum: Smart, engaging, combative and going nowhere.

-Paul:  Has a relatively small cadre of unshakable loyalists who love everything he says and couldn't care less about his ugly, flawed history of votes on civil rights and Israel, or the support given to him by White supremacists.  They are all he has and all he's going to get.

And finally....

Cooper:  Anderson Cooper ran a debate geared to have Republicans fight among each other, while their common target, Barack Obama, remained largely exempt from scrutiny, thus above the fray.  That is what Newt Gingrich called him out on at the end of the debate, and Mr. Gingrich was 100% correct in doing so.

Cooper's performance was disgracefully anti-Republican and pro-Democrat.  Then again, if you expected anything else from a CNN personality, you have to start paying more attention.

Ken Berwitz

I congratulate the New York Times editorial board on their latest commentary about Israel and Palestinian Arabs.  They have truly outdone themselves.

Here is the editorial, in rust, with my comments in blue.

We share the joy of Israelis over the release of Sgt. First Class Gilad Shalit, who was held by Hamas for five years. We will leave it to the Israeli people to debate whether the deal — which includes the release of more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners — will make their country safer or lead to more violence or more abductions of Israeli soldiers or other citizens.  I couldn’t agree more.  Would that the editorial had stopped right here.  But it doesn’t.

We are already concerned that the deal will further thwart an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, the only real guarantee of lasting security for both sides.  I agree with this too, though not, I assure you, for the same reasons the Times does.  I am worried that unleashing 1,027 convicted terrorists is certainly cause for concern on Israel’s part.  By contrast, releasing one 19 year old soldier who was captured while on a routine patrol isn’t going to make hamas lose any sleep at all.

Now that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has compromised with Hamas, we fear that to prove his toughness he will be even less willing to make the necessary compromises to restart negotiations. And we fear that the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah faction, who were cut out of the swap altogether, will be further weakened.  This may be the single most idiotic part of any Times editorial about Israel I have ever seen – and that is no small feat.  Israel didn’t “COMPROMISE” with hamas, Israel gave up over 1,000 terrorists because it valued an individual Israeli life.  Can anyone at the Times’ editorial board be so completely insane that they think this applies to a negotiation of land and security?  Do they think Israel is willing to give up 1,027 acres of land for every 1 acre it keeps?  What is wrong with these people. 

And when does the Times ever expect Palestinian Arabs to “make the necessary compromises to restart negotiations”?  When has the Times ever expected Palestinian Arabs to make any compromises for anything?  How many times is Israel supposed to give tangible assets to Palestinian Arabs, get nothing in return, and then have mindless editorialists demand that they give up more tangible assets or they, not Palestinian Arabs, are somehow subverting this nonexistent "peace process"? 

Both Mr. Netanyahu and Hamas were looking for a political win after Mr. Abbas grabbed the international spotlight — and saw his popularity soar — when he asked the United Nations last month to grant his undefined country full membership.   Abbas’ popularity soared because, in a world dominated by Israel haters, he did something that was perceived as putting the wood to Israel.  Little wonder that the almost 60 Muslim countries would applaud Abbas for it.  And little wonder that the self-hating Jews at the Times would be similarly enthralled.

Mr. Netanyahu twisted himself in an ideological knot to get this deal. Only five months ago, he wanted to cut off tax remittances to the Palestinian Authority and urged the United States to halt aid because Mr. Abbas tried to forge a unity government with Hamas, which controls Gaza.  Has anyone at the editorial board of the NY Times ever read the hamas charter?  Does anyone there have even the remotest idea of what unifying with hamas means?  I suggest they (and you) google “hamas charter” and READ it.  A small sampling:  You will find in the charter's preface, even before the introduction, its commitment to eliminating Israel in its entirety.  At the end of article 7 you will find its commitment to killing all Jews, not just Israelis.  In article 8 you will find the hamas mission statement, which says that “Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.”  And at the beginning of article 13 you will find its absolute, unconditional rejection of all peace talks, because they would mean allowing any land at all for the state of Israel.  What part of this does the Times not understand?

 

One has to ask: If Mr. Netanyahu can negotiate with Hamas — which shoots rockets at Israel, refuses to recognize Israel’s existence and, on Tuesday, vowed to take even more hostages — why won’t he negotiate seriously with the Palestinian Authority, which Israel relies on to help keep the peace in the West Bank?  Again, this idiocy.  Giving hamas over 1,000 of its terrorists to get one Israeli soldier back is not equivalent to negotiating land.  And fatah is every bit as committed to Israel's annihilation as hamas is; the only difference is that hamas says it in English as well as Arabic.  Did you notice the logo on fatah's document demanding sovereignty?  Did you notice it had an outline of the entire land area of Israel?  Can you possibly be this dense?

Mr. Netanyahu’s backers claim that his coalition is so fragile that he can’t make the compromises needed to help revive peace negotiations. But he was strong enough to go against the grief-stricken families of those Israelis killed by the Palestinian prisoners he just freed. “I know that the price is very heavy for you,” he wrote to them. Why can’t he make a similarly impassioned appeal for a settlement freeze for the sake of Israel’s security?  Oh, I see.  In other words, “negotiations” means another instance where Israel gives something to Palestinian Arabs for nothing in return.  Brilliant.  Look at how wonderfully that has worked out so far.

The United States and its partners should keep trying to get negotiations going. Mr. Abbas should see the prisoner swap for what it is — a challenge to his authority and credibility. The best way to bolster his standing is by leading his people in the creation of a Palestinian state, through negotiations. As for Mr. Netanyahu, we saw on Tuesday that the problem is not that he can’t compromise and make tough choices. It’s that he won’t. That won’t make Israel safer.   There you go.  The grand ending:  Abbas is making mistakes, but it is Netanyahu’s intransigence that is causing the problem. 

I again congrulate the New York Times editorial board.  It is nothing if not consistent.  It has not given Israel anything but the back of its hand in the past, and it is giving Israel nothing but the back of its hand here.

Let me conclude by expressing my fervent wish that its members collectively go eff themselves.

Ken Berwitz

In a remarkable exchange, which probably will be played over and over again during the coming days, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry just went at each other on illegal immigration.

I won't try to recreate the comments each made, I'll wait for transcripts and video. 

However, Rick Perry not only managed to sound like a ridiculous loudmouth, but enabled Mitt Romney to show that he can go toe to toe with a ridiculous loudmouth and make him look like what he is.

I wouldn't be surprised if this gives Romney a much-needed surge, and puts Perry in a permanent second-tier position.

As a note of disclosure, I far prefer Mitt Romney to Rick Perry.  I assure you, however, that it is not my preference for Romney driving this analysis.  Perry's self-destructive comments speak eloquently for themselves.

Ken Berwitz

Terminal President:  hugo chavez is dying. 

Yeah, I know we all are, but I mean that he is dying quickly.  He has cancer and his doctor until a few months ago, Salvador Navarrete, thinks he will be gone within 2 years. 

Personally, I hope that his estimate is enormously generous.

Terminal Presidential Candidacy:  Leopoldo Lopez was one of the major candidates to be running against chavez in next year's Presidential election.  But the chavez-stacked Venezuelan supreme court has disqualified him from the race because of "corruption".  The problem?  The charges are being filed by the chavez government and there has been no trial, let alone a verdict.

Terminal Democracy:  Lamentably, the termination of Mr. Lopez's candidacy is another proof that Venezuela's democracy is also in a terminal status.  Today's Venezuela is whatever dictator chavez says it is. 

And please do not feed me any BS about chavez being an elected head of state.  He once was elected, that is true.  But since then, chavez has assured his continuance as head of state by systematically intimidating, and closing down, virtually all print and broadcast media whcih dared to criticize him.

However, there is hope.  Maybe cancer and whatever else chavez is afflicted with will take him down sooner rather than later.  Then there might be free elections and Venezuelan democracy again.

One successful termination, leading to the end of two others?  That is certainly something to hope for.

Ken Berwitz

Don't you just love when other people provide facts to back up your position?

Here is what I had to say, just yesterday, about President Obama and his fellow Democrats supporting the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters:

 ...President Obama and many other key Democrats have spent the last week casting their lot with this bunch - making comments of understanding and support for them.  Maybe it is the "community organizer" coming out in Mr. Obama - which, after all, is the one thing he has real experience in.  Or maybe it is just his innate hard-left essence.

Either way, it is a political blunder of monumental proportions. 

Even people who may agree with some of the beliefs and aims of the protesters (me among them), do not like who the protesters are and how they are behaving. 

Now we move one day forward, to polling expert Doug Schoen's findings from today's Wall Street Journal.  Read this key excerpt and see if you find any commonality with what I said the day before:

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party.

Exactamundo.

I wonder how long it will take Obama & Co. to realize this is a disaster-in-progress for them, and drop it like a hot potato. 

I also wonder how long it will take media to forget that they supported this motley crew, in an effort to again protect Obama & Co. from being held to account for their actions. Based on past experience, I estimate it at about 2 seconds flat.

Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from Neil Munro's piece at dailycaller.com:

A white progressive who organized Occupy Wall Street (OWS) excluded white allies from a critical meeting with New York’s Local 1199 union, which has since thrown its enormous resources behind the media-magnified protest.

 

The local, which has up to 350,000 members, is part of the Service Employees Union International (SEIU). It invited the one of the leading OWS organizers to a Sept. 30 meeting after the organizers sought its support.

 

The protester invited to the Sept. 30 meeting was Jesse Myerson, a white male who describes himself as an “independent journalist and activist.”

 

In an email to the other organizers, he asked for a second organizer to accompany him to the meeting, but he specifically barred white activists.

 

“I am meeting the 1199 executive council tomorrow to try and convince them to come out for us. It’s in midtown and I *need* someone to be with me, and that person needs not to be white,” he wrote in a Sept. 29 evening email. “This will mean the difference, I bet,” said Myerson.

 

None of the other progressive organizers on Myerson’s list objected to Myerson’s racial discrimination.

 

Myerson quickly accepted an offer from someone named Mae. She described herself as “Puerto Rican, a single mom, and gen x, so I fit into a lot of ‘unexpected’ boxes for the OWS movement if you need to pimp out any of that.” Mea’s e-mail name is ‘grimwomyn.’

 

The next day, Myerson announced the organizers got the union’s support. “Today, 1199, the largest local union in the country, voted unanimously to support us … The 1199 press team is working with us on media roll-out and agreed that I should break the story tomorrow on ‘Up with Chris Hayes’ on MSNBC (big platform, very pro-labor host, &c.) — tune in and then let’s play this up big,” he said.

Try to imagine the media reaction if a major Tea Party organizer included and excluded representatives by race.  Here's how:  remember the media accusations of racism even when they didn't do it, then multiply that by 10X or more, and you'll start getting close.

But "Occupy Wall Street" people can overtly pick and choose their representatives by race, with no problem at all.  The Accomplice Media, mustering all the integrity of a referee at a professional wrestling show, will look the other way on their behalf.

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

Ken Berwitz

What a bittersweet event this is.

After 5 years of being held by the terrorist group hamas, Gilad Shalit - who was just 25 years old in August - has been released to Israel.  In exchange, Israel has released 1,027 Palestinian Arab prisoners, most of them terrorists and at least some convicted murderers.

I am enormously happy that Mr. Shalit is now free - though I wonder what condition, especially mental condition, he is in and whether he can ever return to normalcy.

But I am appalled that the terrorist, murderous scum exchanged for him is now free to return to their terrorism and murder. 

Here, via an excerpt from today's article in the Washington Post, is how Israel and Palestinian Arabs reacted:

While Israeli officials offered a subdued homecoming ceremony for Shalit, out of respect for relatives of those killed in attacks involving the Palestinians who were being freed, Hamas leaders organized a triumphant reception for the group of prisoners Israel agreed to release.

The first busloads of released Palestinian prisoners, including women, crossed the border into Egypt around the same time Shalit was released. The Palestinians were taken to Gaza and the West Bank, where jubilant crowds awaited them, and to a few other locations.

In Gaza, buses transporting the freed prisoners arrived around midday. Crowds of Hamas fighters, including some of the men who kidnapped Shalit in 2006, were among the well-wishers.

Are you surprised?  I would hope not.

In an earlier post, I called this an uneven exchange, because Gilad Shalit - who, when captured, was a 19 year old doing nothing but patrolling a border area - is worth far more than 1,000 or even 10,000 terrorists.  I stand by that. 

Needless to say, this is a highly controversial event in Israel - one which, literally, has the potential to bring down the Netanyahu government.  But if it does, hamas and hezbollah be warned:  a new government, formed due to a backlash against releasing your terrorist operatives, is likely to be more hardline than the Netanyahu government was.

I will continue to monitor the situation in Israel and report back as new information becomes available.

Ken Berwitz

Since the previous blog showed what a bunch of phoney-baloney hypocrites celebrities can be when it comes to left wing causes, I thought I'd show you how the New York Times - which supposedly is a venture in neutral journalism - is helping out.

In today's edition the "Letters to the Editor" section has a heading of "What Main Street Thinks About 'Occupy Wall Street'".  Under it are three letters.

Before showing them to you, let me give you the latest polling (USA Today/Gallup poll, just out), which indicates that, after a month of our "Accomplice Media" relentlessly promoting "Occupy Wall Street", it has about the same level of support - low-mid 20's - as the "Tea Party" movement, which has been ongoingly trashed by these same media for two years. 

That doesn't bode very well, does it?

In any event, given the above data you would expect that the three letters to the editor printed by the Times would at the very least, reflect a mix of opinions about it.  But that is only if you choose to forget this is the New York Times we're dealing with. 

Here are the letters.  See if you notice a lean in any particular direction:

To the Editor:

In “In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated” (Business Day, Oct. 15), the views of “one longtime money manager” are summarized as follows:

“He added that he was disappointed that members of Congress from New York, especially Senator Charles E. Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, had not come out swinging for an industry that donates heavily to their campaigns. ‘They need to understand who their constituency is,’ he said.”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, tells you everything you need to know about why I, and so many other people on Main Street, strongly support the Occupy Wall Street movement.

We want our elected officials to belong to us, not to wealthy campaign donors. We want economic and regulatory policies to be determined by what’s good for the country, not by those who can spend the most obscene quantities of cash to buy the politicians and the media.

GRANT PETTY
Fitchburg, Wis., Oct. 15, 2011

 

To the Editor:

I disagree with a bank executive’s assertion that “it’s not a middle-class uprising.” Who’s unsophisticated here?

I am an upper-middle-class health professional with a master’s degree, and I fully support Occupy Wall Street. Currently I have to work more than 60 hours a week, but if I had greater availability I would certainly be pounding the pavement with the protesters.

I strongly feel that the majority of the American middle class supports the ideals and goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

DAVID ILSON
Rockville Centre, N.Y., Oct. 15, 2011

 

To the Editor:

In lucidly explaining the plethora of reasons people are joining the Occupy Wall Street protests, Nicholas D. Kristof goes on to say there’s a “dollop of envy” in those who are protesting (“America’s ‘Primal Scream,’ ” column, Oct. 16).

Envy of the high compensation of others is not the reason behind the protests. Rather, it is outrage, weariness and frustration toward those with the financial and political means who persistently manipulate the system in their favor, at the expense of and on the backs of the majority.

The majority simply wants a fair, level, democratic playing field rather than an unjust plutocracy.

SUSAN RICCI
New York, Oct. 16, 2011

Three letters, three statements of sympathy and support for "Occupy Wall Street". 

Gee whiz, if you didn't know better you would almost think that the New York Times is spinning its coverage in their favor.

But put that out of your mind.  The New York Times is a reputable journalistic venue that never would spin its coverage in favor of one side over the other.  Right?  I mean, right?

I wonder how much money the Times-owning Sulzberger family made last year.  I wonder if they realize that these protests are, in fact, against people just like them.  Evidently, as long as they are willing accomplices to the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, they're off the hook.  But, as the family surely knows, they better not ever give both sides of the story. 

Do they still wonder why people call them biased?

Ken Berwitz

I doubt you would find it surprising that a hard-left event like "Occupy Wall Street" would attract the "see, I'm just like you" Hollywood crowd.  So I thought you might like some specifics to go with your (entirely correct) perception.

Here, pulled from a very interesting and worthwhile article by Tim Ross, writing for the incongruently named hollywoodrepublican.com, is a list of some really rich celebrities - who, I assure you, have tax accountants hard at work making sure to preserve that wealth - and their shows of support:

#1 Yoko Ono Net Worth – $500 million.
Tweeted: “I love #OccupyWallStreet. As John said, “One hero cannot do it. Each one of us have to be heroes.” And you are. Thank you. love, yoko.”

#2 Russell Simmons Net Worth – $325 million
The founder of a high fee credit card company called UniRush Financial Services visited the protests with Kanye West 

#3 George Clooney Net Worth – $160 million
Says he also supports the movement against corporate greed, but admits he needs to educate himself more about the specifics.

#4 Samuel L. Jackson Net Worth – $160 million
While on “The View,” the 62-year-old Pulp Fiction star said: “I’m really glad when I look at those kids on Wall Street and I think, ‘Finally, someone got up and did something’. We used to be on the streets in the ’60s.”

#5 Sean Penn Net Worth – $150 million
Speaking on “Piers Morgan Tonight,” he says, “It resonates a great deal and in many ways. I applaud the spirit of what’s happening now on Wall Street. I hope that increased organisation can come to it.

#6 Jane Fonda – $120 million

#7 (tie) Roseanne Barr Net Worth – $80 million
Tweeted: “The working class of this country were destroyed by wall street as the middle class was encouragd 2 jeer at them& call them lazy #goesaround.”

#7 (tie) Deepak Chopra Net Worth – $80 million

#9 Kanye West Net Worth – $70 million
Arrived to the protests in $1,000 jeans and a $300,000 car.

#10 Alec Baldwin Net Worth – $65 million
Also the spokesperson for Capital One credit card 

Nice.

I've only shown Tim's top 10.  But there are plenty more.  So I urge you to go to his site and see the others are, along with his analysis of the difference between reality and what the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters are spewing.

What phonies.  What frauds.

Ken Berwitz

About 53% of  US citizens pay income taxes.  Therefore I am a racist.

Does that seem confusing to you?  Well, maybe it will help to understand that this is the opinion of a regular "contributor" at MSNBC.

Excerpted from an article at realclearpolitics.com:

MSNBC race relations commentator extraordinare Melissa Harris Perry explains it is racist when Michele Bachmann points out only 53% of Americans pay federal income tax and says we all need to pay.

"What that is meant to imply is that there is a whole group that is dependent," Harris Perry analyzed.

Harris Perry says that 53% talk is just codeword for the "2011 version of the welfare queen."

See?  You mention the fact that 53% pay income taxes - and you're a racist.  It couldn't be simpler.  Someone with an IQ of 35 would understand it perfectly. 

The problem is that most people with an IQ above 35 would think it is a pile of BS.

Incidentally, in the same segment Ms. Perry went on to say that the word "crime" is a metaphor for Black people.  I swear, she really did.  Her exact words:  "You can just say crime, and crime is sufficient to evoke (racism)".   

Click here and watch/listen to Perry, along with the rest of the panel who all appear to agree fully about the "53% taxpayers is racism" absurdity.  We don't know how they felt about the "crime is racism" line because it is said at the very end of the clip - but I think we can guess.

How could this possibly be presented as serious, intelligent discourse?  Well, let me remind you again that it was aired on MSNBC.

In the words of Shrek,when he found out Fiona was an ogre: "That explains a lot"

Ken Berwitz

I apologize to readers for missing this blog, from October 11th, which shows what may well be the real reason "Occupy Wall Street" protesters have been allowed to take over Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan and stay there ever since, and for the forseeable future.

As you may know, city after city is getting rid of the camps/tent cities put together by "Occupy Wall Street" protesters, because they are a public nuisance and a royal pain in the rectum.  These include (but are by no means restricted to) the notably Democrat cities of Boston, Chicago, Denver and most recently, Seattle.

So how come the New York protesters seem permanently in place there - thus depriving the everyday people who used to go to Zuccotti Park from doing so?

Well, read this blog by Robert Johnson of businessinsider.com, and you will have your answer.  It is too short to excerpt, so I am showing the entire piece (Mr. Johnson, of course, can use anything of mine he cares to).  The bold print is mine.

Here's The Real Reason Why The Occupy Wall Street Protesters Aren't Getting Kicked Out Of Zuccotti Park

Robert Johnson

Coming on the heels of the Solyndra debacle, the Obama administration has just approved a $168.9 million loan guarantee for the Granite Reliable wind farm project owned by Brookfield Asset Management (BAM).

Among its many holdings BAM owns Brookfield Renewable Power, which owns the Granite Reliable and it also owns Brookfield Office Properties, whose holdings include the now famous Zuccotti Park.

The Department of Energy finalized the loan guarantee less than a week after Occupy Wall Street protesters took to Zuccotti Park, and with the Obama administration's Tuesday endorsement of the protests, rumors are starting to circulate that this could be the reason Brookfield is allowing protesters to remain on its property.

Got that?  The Obama administration gives a 168.9 million dollar loan guarantee to Zuccotti Park's parent company, and less than a week later the "Occupy Wall Street" protest is centered there, with the parent company allowing it permanent residence there. - and President Obama giving it an effusive endorsement.

Is that clear enough for you?  Could it reek worse?

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement in Zuccotti Park is about as spontaneous as the earth's orbit around the sun. 

And, since this information was available to businessinsider.com a week ago, was it not available to the rest of media as well, including our entire mainstream media? 

Why, then, hasn't it been front page/lead story news? 

If the Bush administration gave almost 170 million dollars in loan guarantees to a company that, less than a week later, allowed protesters Bush supported to overtake a park in Manhattan, do you doubt that media would have reported it?

These people may have the word "journalist" in their job descriptions.  They may even think they are journalists.  But they are no such thing.  They disgrace this once reputable profession. 

And Barack Obama, who again is caught paying off a company that does his bidding, disgraces the White House.

Ken Berwitz

“Owe a man $1,000 and you are his slave.  Owe a man $1,000,000 and he is your slave”

I don't remember where and when I heard that saying, but it is a damn good one.  It means that the more you are into someone, the more they - not you, but they - have at risk.

And that is precisely the game "Occupy Wall Street" protesters are playing in Manhattan.  Their idea is that if you get arrested, that is your problem.  But if a lot of you get arrested, that is their problem.

Excerpted from Melissa Grace's article in today's New York Daily News:

Next up for protesters: Occupy the Courts.

Lawyers representing about 800 Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested in the past month demand that prosecutors drop the charges.

If not, they say they won't deal and will insist on going to trial - putting pressure on the already overloaded Manhattan criminal courts.

"I'd like to suggest to the DA's office the appropriate way to deal with these cases is outright dismissal," said defense lawyer Martin Stolar.

"The leverage is, we take them all to trial."

Stolar and other members of the civil rights-focused National Lawyers Guild plan to meet today with prosecutors from Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr.'s office to lay out their position.

Every day this looks more and more like the late 1960's.  Civil disobedience on a massive scale, accompanied by the belief that somehow laws don't apply to them.

Incredibly, however, President Obama and many other key Democrats have spent the last week casting their lot with this bunch - making comments of understanding and support for them.  Maybe it is the "community organizer" coming out in Mr. Obama - which, after all, is the one thing he has real experience in.  Or maybe it is just his innate hard-left essence.

Either way, it is a political blunder of monumental proportions. 

Even people who may agree with some of the beliefs and aims of the protesters (me among them), do not like who the protesters are and how they are behaving. 

And most people I've spoken to don't think the protesters are any cross-section of normal, everyday people.  As I wrote in another forum yesterday,  they feel the "Occupiers" are largely comprised of professional troublemakers, freeloaders looking for a handout, students with a lot of time on their hands and aging former hippies desperate to relive their "glory days" of the 60's.

If Mr. Obama and his Democrat pals think the "Occupy Wall Street" people are an answer to the Tea Party, they have it all wrong.  It is far more that the Tea Party is an answer to the "Occupy Wall Street" people. 

And if you doubt that, please note that Rasmussen Research has just put out a new poll that has Herman Cain - Republican, conservative and Tea Party sympathizing Herman Cain  - ahead of Barack Obama, 43% - 41%.

Keep supporting the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, Mr. President.  I hope you reap every "benefit" of your support on election day next year.

Ken Berwitz

Glenn Reynolds, at pajamasmedia.com/instapundit, posted a very interesting and thought-provoking comment he received from a reader identifying himself as Stephen Judkins - enough so that I am posting it as well:

Here’s something I posted to my facebook page. It was, in part, inspired by watching Travis Smiley on PBS talking to blacks about racism in Hollywood. It was also inspired by some of your posts on Instapundit.

It’s dominated by a bunch of white men.
Sexual harrassment is commonplace for women getting jobs.
There are few opportunities for minorities, especially in the top jobs.
Physical appearance guides hiring.
They squeeze subsidies and tax breaks from local goverments under the threat of moving jobs overseas.
Top talent rakes in tens of millions of dollars while plenty of work is done by unpaid interns.
They practice shady bookkeeping to prevent paying people.
Why aren’t we hearing about an Occupy Hollywood group?

Remember about a week ago, when the immensely wealthy Russell Simmons and the immensely wealthy Kanye West hung out with the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd in lower Manhattan, as if they were pals of the protesters instead of the kind of rich people these protests are presumably railing against?  Remember how well received they were?

Interesting, isn't it, how selective the protesters' outrage is.  Do any of them doubt that Mr. Simmons and Mr. West have tax accountants, making sure they get every deduction available? 

Evidently if you get rich making movies, or producing and/or performing hip-hop, you are somehow exempt from the hatred reserved for those other rich people who don't pay their "fair share". 

Quite a movement they have there.

Ken Berwitz

No sooner had I finished putting up the previous blog, which details another of the seemingly endless scandals associated with President Obama's "Green" initiatives (and ours too, since we're paying - dearly- for them as they fail), I find an article at The Daily Beast detailing still more scandalous doings.  And, very surprisingly (damn near amazingly), it was written by stalwart "progressives"  Daniel Stone and Eleanor Clift.

I urge you to use the link I've provided and read every word.  But let me whet your appetite with these few excerpts:

This summer, federal inspectors made a routine visit to 11 homes in St. Louis to see what taxpayers got for the $5 billion that President Obama spent to help Americans weatherize their homes to save energy.

What they found was quite a surprise. Some of the energy-efficient furnaces installed at taxpayer expense spewed carbon monoxide that could poison occupants. New water heaters lacked required pressure valves, putting them in jeopardy of exploding. And a handful of contractors—unfamiliar with the nuances of specialized weatherization work—had used air blowers in homes with asbestos, potentially dispersing the cancer-causing agent, according to several Energy Department inspector-general reports.

As it closes in on retrofitting 600,000 homes, the government’s weatherization program—a key element of President Obama’s green-energy initiative—has had its share of happy, energy-saving customers. But it has also been riddled with problems. In one review, Energy Department investigators found that 14 percent of weatherization projects surveyed, from Tennessee to West Virginia, failed to meet safety or quality standards. Many customers were poor or elderly, with few resources to pursue wayward contractors.

But it is far from the only blemish on the administration’s much-touted green agenda. In addition to weatherization problems, an internal Labor Department report disclosed this month that a multibillion-dollar program to retrain workers for green-energy jobs met only 10 percent of its goal of creating 80,000 jobs. A federal renewable-energy lab in Colorado that got nearly $300 million from another green-energy program began laying off 10 percent of its workforce last month.

Overall, as the $787 billion economic stimulus—the primary engine for the green-energy agenda—came to an end Sept. 30, it is clear that the program created far fewer jobs than promised. So-called green-collar jobs are notoriously hard to tally, but numerous estimates by gleeful Republicans put the taxpayer cost of each green-energy job created by the stimulus at more than $1 million.

The clean-energy agenda quickly took on the trappings of the money-for-access game endemic to Washington. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, a chief backer of Obama’s agenda, hosted a roundtable in Washington in June 2009 with a dozen major clean-energy executives eager to build projects in his home state of Nevada. Within a year, at least eight executives from those companies donated to Reid’s reelection campaign. Reid’s office declined to comment.

Republicans put their own squeeze on the industry, pressing for federal largesse while publicly denouncing Obama’s program. House Speaker John Boehner, a leading critic on Solyndra, urged Obama to allocate clean-energy grants for a nuclear-enrichment project in Ohio, his home state, just three months after one of the company’s executives donated to Boehner’s reelection campaign. According to Maplight.org, a nonpartisan researcher of money’s influence on politics, Boehner has received nine major donations from nuclear-energy advocates. A spokesman for Boehner says there’s nothing improper about the speaker’s support of nuclear energy.

If Stone and Clift are finally talking about this, maybe some of the other "accomplice media" will break out of their defend-Obama-at-all-costs mode and do the same.

Not only would it result in a more informed public, but it would regenerate this bunch's status as actual journalists. 

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest news on another scandal most mainstream media are trying to protect Barack Obama from.

Here are the first few paragraphs of Richard Pollock's extensive, and fully referenced, blog, from pajamasmedia.com.  Read them and see for yourself:

The resignation of Jonathan Silver, the U.S Energy Department’s top loan officer, over the Solyndra scandal may be the tip of the iceberg. He supervised a much larger DOE loan program that suffers from the same problems as Solyndra: over the last 18 months, the Department has awarded more than $9 billion in below-market loans to auto companies under its Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program.

The most troubling transaction: a $465 million loan to California’s Tesla Motors. Tesla received a loan rate of 1.6% from DOE to manufacture an all-electric car that will sell for nearly $50,000. It will not exactly be the people’s car. Tesla also builds luxury sports cars that retail for $103,000 to $128,000.

Tesla also is no simple new age car company. It is owned and financed by big donors to the Democratic Party and to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Tesla’s principal owner is Elon Musk, the founder of PayPal. He has an estimated personal wealth of $672 million. His firm received venture capital from the The Westly Group, Daimler Chrysler, and from Abu Dhabi investors. The firm has partnerships with luxury sports car manufacturer Lotus and with Mercedes-Benz.

The secret to access to the DOE money is The Westly Group, run by California Democratic Party stalwart and big Obama campaign bundler Steve Westly. The former eBay executive wasn’t merely a prodigious fundraiser for Obama, raising $500,000 for his presidential campaign. He also served as the president’s California campaign co-chairman. Another Obama $500,000 bundler was Solyndra investor George Kaiser and his foundation.

Westly got statewide attention in 2006 when he spent $35 million of his own money to run an ugly and largely negative race against California state Treasurer Phil Angelides for governor.

Westly is a personal friend of President Obama, and since the election has visited the White House for meetings and social parties. He privately dined with the president in February with a small group of Silicon Valley billionaires. It was called the “trillion-dollar dinner.”

Solyndra.  SunPower.  Tesla.  Every one the recipient of huge, highly advantageous loan guarantees from the Obama administration.  Every one owned and promoted by Democrats loyal to President Obama.  Every one a loser that takes taxpayers to the cleaners.

And our "accomplice media", with few exceptions, continues to look the other way on behalf of the Obama administration, as the money flows.

Then they wonder why fewer and fewer people believe what they say. 

Stop wondering, guys.  There's no mystery here.