Ken Berwitz

Last night, Rush Limbaugh ventured up to New York, and gave a talk at Town Hall.

Since Mr. Limbaugh is arguably the single most hated media personality among the left - especially the "Occupy" protesters - you'd expect there to be a protest.  And you'd be correct.

Let's do a Q and A to see how many showed up.

Q: There must have been at least 1,000.  Maybe it was in the 1,000's.  Did they have to block off streets to accommodate the sea of humanity?

A: Well, no. 

Q: I'm amazed.  Then there must have been at least 500 or more.  Did they block off that one street? 

A: Well, no again.

Q: Hmm, well this is Rush Limbaugh, so there had to be a couple of hundred anyway.  Right?

A: Wrong.

Q: Ok, were there 100?

A: Nope.

Q: Dammit, there had to be 50.  Uh...weren't there?

A: Nope.

Q: Then TWENTY FIVE?

A: Uh-uh.

Q: You're a &#@%ing liar.  There HAD to be more!!!!  (Seconds later)....really, weren't there at least 25?

A:  Well, no.  Actually there were mostly about 10, and never more than about 20. 

And it's not like Limbaugh's talk was unpublicized.  It was mentioned numbers of times on his own show, and was featured on the times square web site, among others.

One other thing:  If you go to theblaze.com, which has both still pictures and video, you will see that the protesters, what very few there were, carried typical "Occupy" signs, demanding jobs (as if protesting Rush Limbaugh would get them any) and referencing their stale-as-last-month's-bagels 99% - 1% routine, while one of them screams about millionaires and billionaires.

Holy excrement.  If they can't mount a successful protest against the hated Rush Limbaugh, who can they mount one against?

I'm trying to decide whether to end this blog entry with the word "lame" or "pathetic".  I think I'll just leave both of them up, and you can decide which fits better.  Feel free to choose both, or add a few of your own.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest in my series in which I ask what would have happened if it were President Bush instead of President Obama:

Excerpted from an article at London's Daily Mail:

Just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama hailed the 'extraordinarily special relationship' between America and Britain.

But it is clearly one he doesn't know all that much about if his latest foreign policy gaffe is anything to go by.

The U.S. President has come under fire today after referring to the 'English' instead of the British Embassy in his condemnation of the violence that broke out at the building in Iran yesterday.

A frenzied mob of militant Iranian students ransacked the main embassy in Tehran and a smaller diplomatic compound in the city.

They lobbed petrol bombs, stole classified documents, torched the Union flag and even tore up a portrait of the Queen.

The rioters also chanted 'Death to England' and threw rocks. One man held up a Union flag with a skull and cross bones on it.

In an interview yesterday, Mr Obama said: 'All of us are deeply disturbed by the, err, crashing of, err, the English Embassy, err, the embassy of the United Kingdom.'

By calling it the 'embassy of the United Kingdom', he got it wrong a second time.

Unbelievable.  President Obama first calls it the English embassy - which is dead wrong.  Then he "corrects" himself by calling it the embassy of the United Kingdom - which is just as dead wrong. 

We're lucky he didn't try a third time and call it "The embassy from, err, you know, that country that's separated from the real part of Europe by the English River....err, I mean the English canal".

What would our wonderful "neutral' media have said about President Bush incorrectly identifying the embassy of one of our most loyal allies in the world, and then compounding his ignorance by screwing it up a second time?  Can you imagine the howls about what a hapless ignoramus he was?

But the President sounding like a hapless ignoramus was not George Bush.  It was Barack Obama.  (And it is far from the first time he has done so. Remember when he referred to "Austrian" as a language?  Remember the 57 states?  Remember when he forgot his own daughter's birthday?  Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)

So don't hold your breath waiting for the attacks on his knowledge and/or capabilities that most surely would have been leveled at Mr. Bush.  Because they're not coming.

As noted before, this is the latest in a series.  But given Barack Obama's history of gaffes, I can pretty much guarantee that it won't be the last.

Ken Berwitz

Is the "Occupy" movement, which started as "Occupy Wall Steet" in New York City on September 17 and quickly spread to many other cities as well,  now the "Vacant" movement?  Let's check and see;

-"Occupy" protesters claim to represent 99% of the country.  In fact, their signature chant is:  "We are the 99%".  If true, that means the protest locations, certainly in large cities, must have been absolutely teeming with "Occupy" supporters. 

Were they?

-Well, let's look at the first, and biggest:  New York's "Occupy Wall Street" protest.  New York City has about 7,000,000 people (we'll forget the rest of the New York metro area, which would roughly double that number).  Let's assume about half of them (3,500,000) are old enough to go to, and stay at, an "Occupy" location.  So if just 1/2 of 1% of the adult supporters - a minuscule 1 in 200 - participated, then Zuccotti Park must have been filled with 99% of the 1/2 of 1% --- which comes to 16,825 dedicated "Occupy Wall Street" protesters.  

Was it?

-I doubt it, since Zuccotti Park is only about 3/4 of an acre in size, minus the trees, shrubs, tents, etc.  In reality, it fits only a few hundred people.  But let's try to be generous and say 500 people somehow stuffed themselves inside.  That means the "Occupy Wall Street" protests must have spilled over to the equivalent of an additional 33 or so similar-sized, similarly overcrowded areas. 

Did they?  

-And when law enforcement started dismantling "Occupy" camps both in New York and around the country (Los Angeles and Philadelphia are the latest to go), it stands to reason that a large segment of the 99% must have risen up to demand that protesters must be allowed to stay and represent them. 

Did they?

John Merline of Investors Business Daily has a very good piece on this subject today.  It gives examples of how our Accomplice Media, ever sympathetic to left wing insurgencies, has been assuring us all this time that the "Occupy" protests are a landmark event; a game changer.  And then Merline shows us what really is happening:  namely that, at less than 3 months old, the "Occupy" movement appears to be going straight down the crapper.

This is an important object lesson for people who still trust mainstream media to report what people are supposedly thinking.  I hope it is not lost on them.

Ken Berwitz

Until the Obama administration, I never knew that "transparent" was a synonym, not an antonym, for "opaque".  But, Mr. Obama has taught me it is so.

How bad is it?  I can answer in five words:  Nixon would have blushed.

Michelle Malkin has written a brilliant, fully-referenced column on just how secretive - and dishonest - this administration is.  I urge you to click here, and read every word.

But, for the meanwhile, here are some key excerpts (with plenty more in the full column).  Please pay special attention to the sentence I have put in blue:

Obama’s lawyers systematically have stymied public information requests, carved out crater-sized disclosure loopholes, fought subpoenas on scandals from Fast and Furious to Solyndra, and made routine the holiday document dump.

The latest meeting of the Government Accountability and Transparency Board, attended by Vice President Joe Biden, was closed to the press two weeks ago.

The Justice Department stealthily attempted to sabotage the Freedom of Information Act last month with a regulation change that would have allowed federal agencies to legally and deliberately deceive the public about the existence of requested records. After a massive backlash, DOJ retreated and sheepishly admitted that the license-to-lie rule “falls short” of the Obama “commitment” to transparency.

In October, the Interior Department and Energy Department spurned attempts to gain information about the administration’s $1.2 billion loan guarantee to Democrat-connected solar company SunPower.

In September, State Department officials refused to go on record during a briefing on its new global government transparency program.

As evidence of this historic openness, Obama flacks point to farces like last week’s Thanksgiving-timed release of White House visitor logs — which even left-wing good government activists have criticized for their incompleteness.

The plan worked.  As of Tuesday, no mainstream news outlet had reported on the contents of the Black Friday document trove.

None showed interest in the nearly 60 visits from Robert B. Creamer, a convicted felon and tax cheat, left-wing Huffington Post agitator, husband of Illinois Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky and vocal champion of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Nor has there been interest outside conservative blogs in the five White House visits by former Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler, a key Fast and Furious scandal bureaucrat, in July and August 2011, or in the five visits from former Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison, including on Aug. 18, 2011, just before the tax-subsidized firm declared bankruptcy.

Team Obama’s data whitewashers inside and outside the White House have given “cloud-based” a whole new meaning.

Transparent?  Yeah, right.

But, then again, why even bother hiding this information, since Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media have chosen to look the other way.  Again.  As they have so many times before.

This is an awful administration, which has failed in virtually every area of governance, and has lied about or obfuscated so many things that it literally is hard to keep track of them all.

Thank you, Michelle, for making this so clear.  If most mainstream media won't perform their responsibilities as journalists, maybe the ones who will - along with you, and others, in the blogosphere - will educate enough voters to do something about it on election day, 2012.

Ken Berwitz

How are those "freedom and democracy" elections going in Egypt - a country that has never known one day of freedom and democracy in its existence?

Let me start with the following excerpt from an article in London's Daily Standard.  As you read it, please remember that this could not possibly happen without the agreement, and acquiescence, of Egypt's military:

Witnesses told the Evening Standard that the Islamist party, which is expected to secure a large share of the votes, had a strong presence both inside and outside polling stations.
Onlookers claimed some Brotherhood groups were allowed to set up tables with laptop computers in order to show "people how to vote".

Voting laws passed after the fall of Hosni Mubarak's regime in February outlaw bribes or campaigning inside or near polling stations.

Today voting continued with turnout again reported to be high. Student Mariam, who would not give her full name for fear of reprisals said: "I wanted to boycott the elections, as the parliament will have no power and because of what happened in Tahrir, but if we don't vote the Muslim Brotherhood will win the majority."
But there is growing support for the Muslim Brotherhood with many claiming the party is the best option to bring order to Egypt.

"The Freedom and Justice Party (Muslim Brotherhood) are the most organised party right now," said Hossam, 39, an insurance broker who went to a Catholic school in Cairo.

"They have a religious view but they are the only ones who have a good plan for the country." The outcome of the election will indicate whether Egypt will remain secular or move down an Islamic path as have other countries swept up in the Arab Spring.

"They have a religious view but they are the only ones who have a good plan for the country"?  That's nice.

But what about the "freedom and democracy" protesters who filled Tahrir Square at the beginning of the year?  You know; the ones who impressed Barack Obama so much that, after waffling back and forth (his signature reaction to just about every decision which might have political consequences), he aggressively advocated for Hosni Mubarek to step down as head of state?

Well, Tahrir square was filled again over the past week or two.  But this time it was largely the Muslim brotherhood supporters, demanding elections before other opposition groups could organize and give them a battle.  And, sadly, they were joined by at least some of the original starry-eyed idealists, who actually convinced themselves that twittering each other and holding up signs was going to turn Egypt into a western-style democracy.  

Well, the good news is that they have gotten what they wanted; an election that will partially wrest control of the country from the military.

But the bad news is that the election will establish a large degree of Muslim brotherhood control over Egypt – which, when coupled with the considerable sympathy for the Muslim brotherhood within the military, turns Egypt into something far removed from what those idealists envisioned.

Is this what President Obama’s supporters were bragging about just months ago, as they touted his great “foreign policy victory”?  Not hardly.  As Egypt lurches towards becoming an Islamo-military state, don't expect to hear much bragging about it in the future.

Let me finish with the latest election information - from Maggie Michael's blog at huffingtonpost.com:

CAIRO — Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood was leading in initial, partial results from Egypt's parliamentary elections but it was facing stiff competition in many places both from more hard-line Islamic groups and from a liberal-secular alliance, judges overseeing counting said Wednesday.

The trend from results so far mirrored expectations that the Brotherhood, Egypt's most powerful fundamentalist group, would make the strongest showing in the first parliament elections since the fall of Hosni Mubarak.

In other words, not only is the Muslim brotherhood winning, but at least part of the rest of the vote was for candidates from even harder-line groups.  Does anyone in his/her right mind believe this will result in Egypt becoming a truly democratic state?  

Look, I admit that, just like the original Tahrir Square protesters, I also have a lot of starry-eyed dreamer in me.  I dream of an Egypt which would allow devout Islamists to practice their religion as they choose, while respecting and tolerating citizens who are less religious, or not religious at all, or who practice non-Islamic religions. 

But there is plenty of realist in me too.  And my realist part is assuring me that what is happening in Egypt will never allow this to take place. 

Ken Berwitz

As I mentioned last week, my wife and I have "adopted" a soldier.  I don't want to be specific here, so let's leave it at the fact that he is deployed overseas, in a place most of us would not feel safe in.  We very much hope to build a relationship with him while he is stationed in that place which will carry over when he is stateside.

Over the Thanksgiving weekend, we did some shopping, and put together a box of "stuff" for our adopted soldier.  This included a variety of items that are easily obtainable in the states, but not at all easy to get where he is - from socks, to canned ravioli, to shaving equipment, to Swedish fish candy, to foot powder, and a lot more. 

How easy it is to provide soldiers with everyday items like this:  items they have no access to where they are deployed! 

Here's a nice little sidebar to this story.  The last place I was in before going to the post office was a drug store.  I did so to pick up prescription medication, not to get anything more for our "adoptee". 

While at the pharmacy counter I wound up in a discussion with a guy who was also waiting for a prescription, and mentioned that I was about to send the box of "stuff" to a soldier.  He was very touched by it and asked for information about how he might become involved as well.  I, of course, gave him the information, then got my prescription and headed for the exit.

But before I could leave the store, the guy called out for me to stop.  He trotted over, handed me a $20 bill, and asked if I would use it to put a few more things in the box. 

I, of course, did so.  And believe me when I tell you that it made me feel like a million bucks.  

I couldn't wait to tell my wife about what had happened.  It made me realize that, while we certainly were doing something for our "adoptee", we were doing at least as much for ourselves.  

If this sounds like something you would like to be a part of - and I fervently hope it does - please contact Mr. Michael Anderson, who is involved with running the "Adopt A Soldier" program.  His email address is michaelanderson76@comcast.net. 

Although it is late for the holiday season, if you hurry you can still send an adopted soldier the kinds of things he/she will truly appreciate and maybe get it there before Christmas/Chanukkah.  But even if it gets there afterwards, I assure you it will be appreciated every bit as much.

You will be doing something genuinely worthwhile - both for a soldier who has volunteered to risk his/her life in defense of our country, and for yourself.  

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest email solicitation from Guy Cecil, who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC):

XXXX - There’s a huge amount of Republican spin about the supercommittee. But the truth is simple: Republicans created the deadlock by refusing to make billionaires pay their fair share.
 
Their goal is to blame this gridlock on Democrats to take over the Senate and White House. Then, with no need for compromise, they’ll simply write their own extreme agenda into law. Nothing will stop them from destroying the social safety net, cutting taxes for the 1%, and forcing the 99% to pay the bill.
 
We can stop the takeover. But to do it, we need to raise $100,000 in the next 48 hours. Our November FEC fundraising numbers will be scrutinized, and right now, we’re short. If we miss this goal, we’ll be seen as weak, and Republicans will steal the momentum.

(SOLICITATION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS)

 
Democrats fight to protect middle class Americans. Republicans fight to protect their powerful friends. If we lose, they write the agenda. Too much is at stake not to give.

Sincerely,

Guy Cecil

What a pack of nonsense, couched in angry, overheated rhetoric (weren't we supposed to stop doing that?).

Reality check:  there are approximately 400 billionaires in the United States.  Let's assume that every one of them makes, say, $500 million dollars a year (actually the number almost certainly is less).  Let's also assume that another $25 million dollars on average is taken from each billionaire as a tax increase. 

This would result in a grand total of $10 billion dollars.  What is that supposed to do?  End the deficit and give us a surplus?  Scarily, I'll bet there are some who think the answer is yes.  But that is not so.  Not even remotely close.

  The Obama deficit last year was well over 1.5 TRILLION dollars.  In other words, while Mr. Cecil has provided a nice, hefty dose of angry class warfare, in actual dollars we're talking about the equivalent of spit in the ocean.

And that's before we get to the "Occupy Wall Street" rhetoric (did you think that 1% versus 99% was a coincidence?).  In other words, while the Democratic Party has stopped referencing the "Occupy" crowd to the general public, it is on the front burner for solicitations to the party faithful.

What inferences can be drawn from this?  That, friends, is up to you.  I know what it tells me.

Ken Berwitz

Let's see......

Here is disgraced Syracuse Asssociate Coach Bernie Fine....

And often disgraceful congressperson Barney Frank.

Ken Berwitz

Don’t expect a Sarah Palin – Barney Frank ticket next year.  But at least they do seem to agree on something.

Excerpted from Matthew Boyle’s blog at dailycaller.com:

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank announced on Tuesday his support for the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a significant portion of President Obama’s health care overhaul. Frank, who announced Monday that he would retire at the end of his current term in office, became the 12th Democrat, and the 212th member of the House, to co-sponsor Tennessee Republican Rep. Phil Roe’s bill aimed at repealing the IPAB.

Frank is the most prominent Democrat to join Roe’s bipartisan repeal effort.

IPAB is a 15-member board, appointed by the president, scheduled to convene in 2014. In order to reduce per capita Medicare spending, the board will recommend levels at which Medicare recipients, including seniors, can be reimbursed for health care expenses.

In March, Roe told The Daily Caller the IPAB is the “real death panel” in the health care law, as compared to “end-of-life counseling” Obamacare provisions which former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once deemed “death panels.”

I have two points of disagreement here.  One is with Mr. Boyle: I would not describe a bill whose 212 co-sponsors are comprised of 200 Republicans and 12 Democrats as “bipartisan”.  the other is with Rep. Roe:  I consider Ms. Palin’s characterization of end-of-life counseling as “death panels” to be very well founded.  

But the big part of this story is that Barney Frank, hard-leftist that he is, will now, as a self-created lame duck house member, co-sponsor Roe’s legislation.  

Is it possible that Mr. Frank has a conservative streak?  Maybe it was in the same closet with his homosexuality, and just took a lot longer to come out – i.e. like until he didn’t have to worry about what the voters thought of him anymore?  Who knows?

Tell you what, though:  If Frank also throws his support to lower capital gains taxes, I guess we’ll have our answer….

Ken Berwitz

Here we go again.  Allegations of extramarital sexual activity leveled against Herman Cain.

Until yesterday, Mr. Cain had to defend himself against a total of four "accusers":  two that we only heard about (no details at all, just "hearing about" them was good enough for the media) and two who came forward - both with histories of sexual harassment complaints against men other than Mr. Cain.  One of them, Sharon Bialek, seems to have spent a great deal of her time over the last 15 or so years as a plaintiff in various courtroom proceedings.

The accusations themselves have been nonsensical.  No one said Mr. Cain tried, in any physical sense, to have sex with them.  The single most egregious allegation of physicality was that he tried to goose Sharon Bialek - but, according to her own story, a) he didn't actually do it, and b) he stopped when she said no. 

Politically, this has worked like a charm.  Mr. Cain, whose candidacy was a long shot to begin with, is now effectively out of the running for the Republican nomination.  If that were the only objective, therefore, the attacks would be over and done with. 

But make no mistake:  the attacks on Herman Cain are for a lot more:

-Herman Cain is a Black man who started with nothing.  On the left, and in much of our media (often indistinguishable from one another), the most comfortable, stereotypical narrative for Black men who start with nothing is that they stay with nothing, but it is not their fault; racist White "society" is responsible for any and all of their failures, and we have to give them things because the oppression they have suffered rendered them helpless, so we owe it to them;

-Herman Cain also is a Black man who, despite starting with nothing, has achieved great success.  On the left, and in much of our media, the most comfortable, stereotypical narrative for Black men who start with nothing and achieve great success is that their success is owed to what was provided by the left, who fought the good fight, and forced racist White society, steeped in its guilt, to give Black men what they need to move forward.  

But there is a problem:  Herman Cain did not get where he is through dependency on what guilty racist White people handed him.  He got where he is by hard work, persistence, and using his personal talents and abilities as well as he could. 

And what a ride!  Herman Cain has been;

-A mathematics major from Purdue University;

-A mathemetician for the US Navy,

-With the Pillsbury Company, a remarkable executive with a history of taking troubled businesses and turning them around with amazing speed and success;

-The head of the National Restaurant Association;

-A member of the board of directors, and then President of the Board of Directors, of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City;

What a breathtakingly successful, productive man! 

I doubt anyone would dispute that Herman Cain is a self-made success.  And, like many self-made successes, he is also a political conservative - one who clearly disdains the left's comfortable, stereotypical narratives for Black men (and women too).

In other words, Herman Cain, is a walking, talking, conspicuously visible demonstration that Black people can work hard and succeed without being handed things.   As such, he is a threat to the left's comfortable, stereotypical narrative of Blacks.  An enormous one.

He must therefore be destroyed.  

Herman Cain must be destroyed just as they tried to destroy Clarence Thomas for daring to be a Black conservative (with a White wife, which - I'm guessing - enraged them even further).  Just as they tried to destroy Bill Cosby when he started talking publicly about what the left's comfortable, stereotypical narrative was wreaking on Black children.  Just as they will try to destroy any other prominent Black conservative for the "crime" of succeeding without their help.

That is why Herman Cain is hated so much by the left.  That is why it has been open season on Mr. Cain.  That is why he has been called every racist name in the book - by people who profess to be against racism.

How can you possibly call a man with Herman Cain's résumé an Uncle Tom?  A minstrel?  Someone who makes Republican racists feel comfortable?  Etc, etc, etc?   No way, that's how.  But we have heard those exact same things, and a lot worse, from this terrified bunch of racists. 

Yet, amazingly, they - who deal so completely in odious racial stereotypes -  call him out for racism.  And much of our Accomplice Media are happy to go along.

With this in mind, it is no surprise to me that another woman has been trotted out to accuse Herman Cain and get her 15 minutes of fame.

This new one, whose name is Ginger White, claims to have had a 13 year consensual affair with Herman Cain. 

Forgetting for a moment whether or not it is true (like Sharon Bialek, Ginger White has quite the checkered past), what does a consensual relationship have to do with anything? 

Aren't these the same media which called President Clinton's getting oral favors from a powerless intern, in his place of business (not to mention his residence, where his wife and child lived), during the work-day, "just sex"?  

As you can see, when the accused is a Black conservative, it is not "just sex".  It is something more.

I wonder if these people even know the meaning of the term "racism".  Because they behave as if they don't have a clue.

The bottom line is that, whether or not Herman Cain is some kind of a rake, cheating on his wife, remains to be seen.  Maybe we will at some time know for sure and maybe we won't. 

But we already know what to think of the people trying to destroy him.

Ken Berwitz

I watched a short, but telling interview on the Today Show this morning, between Savannah Guthrie and outgoing Rep. Barney Frank.

Ms. Guthrie asked Mr. Frank several questions, none of them a personal attack and none of them especially challenging.  But - apparently because she did not sing paeans to his transcendental greatness, he reacted like a baby in need of a diaper change.

Frank, at his best, has always been whiney and petulant.  But now that he is retiring, he apparently feels there is no need to hold back and, if anything, is significantly more whiney and petulant.

I'll post a link to the video when Today makes it available. Prepare for a pitiable few minutes.

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

Ok, it is now available.  Click here, watch the video and see what I'm talking about.

Ken Berwitz

Following is an article written by Colleen Owens, who heads the Richmond (VA) Tea Party.

If what she says is true, there is little doubt that Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones is intentionally playing by two sets of rules:  one very stringent set for the Tea Party movement and one very accommodating set for the "Occupy" protesters in his city.  That would be a terrible abuse of his Mayoral authority.

Please Read Ms. Owens' piece and make up your own mind.

I will, of course, post anything Mayor Jones or his people submit, completely uncensored.  In this blog, all voices are heard.

Richmond City Audits Local Tea Party After Standoff with Mayor

Two weeks after the Richmond Tea Party delivered an invoice to Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones for costs incurred for previous rallies, we received a letter from the City of Richmond formally stating that the city is auditing our Tea Party. Coincidence? This audit is an obvious attempt to intimidate and harass us for standing up against the unfair treatment and discrimination against our Tea Party.

First some back story: as reported on the front page of the Richmond Times Dispatch, the Richmond Tea Party delivered an invoice for charges incurred in our previous three Tax Day rallies at Kanawha Plaza because Mayor Jones chose to allow Occupy Richmond protesters to convene in the same park for two weeks.

The Mayor not only allowed the Occupiers to break the law, but he visited them in the city-owned park. “Jones said that as a ‘child of civil rights’ and protests, he had allowed the group to remain in the park but understands his mayoral responsibility to uphold laws of the city,” reported the Richmond Times Dispatch.

Apparently his mayoral duties included preferential treatment for a group he sympathizes with ideologically at the expense of the taxpayers.

The blog Virginia Right reported that the city provided services such as portable toilets, trash pickup, etc. The incomplete invoices obtained from the city totaled $7,000. This was only a portion of the actual costs to taxpayers because the costs of police, helicopter and incarcerations were not included. Also not accounted for was the 24-hour police protection of the Mayor’s home after the Occupiers moved their camp next door to the Mayor’s house. The Richmond Tea Party, conversely, paid for all services for our rallies, including the police, portable toilets, park fees and permits, amounting to approximately $8,500.

Our actions apparently struck a nerve. Our invoice to the Mayor was covered by hundreds of news outlets, including the AP, Richmond Times Dispatch, Baltimore Sun, and the Washington Post. On October 31, I appeared on Fox Business, Neil Cavuto’s show, and was interviewed about our actions. Reportedly, at least two Richmond City Council members agreed with our plight. “I guess we’ll be writing a check to the Tea Party people,” said Councilman Bruce W. Tyler, as quoted in the Richmond Times Dispatch. “You can’t treat one group different from the other. It’s unfair.”

On November 14th, representatives of our Tea Party attended the City Council meeting to speak to the Mayor and Council during the citizen forum. Mayor Jones, apparently too busy to listen to his constituents, got up and left before we spoke. He had no problem inviting members of the Occupy group to his office for a closed door meeting days later, at the same time refusing to meet with us.

His administration, however, found the time to send us an audit letter (provided in full below). No need for the city to audit the Occupiers, because, as the Mayor knows, all of their costs were provided by the taxpayers of Richmond(via Gateway Pundit). Here is the City Audit Letter Notification:

In the audit letter signed by Cynthia Carr, Field Auditor for the City of Richmond, it states that our Tea Party is delinquent in filing of Admissions, Lodging, and Meals Taxes with the city and as such our group has been targeted for a comprehensive audit. Well, aren’t we special? In fact, as part of the Business License we have with the City, a form is filled out by our treasurer every month (as required). We have never charged admission or had lodging or meals associated with our rallies. Every month the forms are appropriately filled with zeros. Ms. Carr goes on to say that if we don’t respond within 15 days, the City will make a statutory assessment–meaning they’ll pick an amount to charge us.

So the City and Mayor apparently feel that the Richmond Tea Party has not paid its fair share for use of Kanawha Plaza. We challenged the Mayor’s unequal treatment between groups and he responded with even more unequal treatment.

This story has also fired up other Tea Party groups across the country that have had the laws and fees applied unequally in regards to Tea Party rallies and Occupy protest camps. The message coming from mayors in numerous cities is that they are willing to spend millions in taxpayer money to accommodate the Occupiers that are breaking the law but have no problem charging Tea Party groups that follow the law exorbitant fees and making them jump through hoops to acquire permits (via Yahoo News).

The Richmond Tea Party stands for constitutional adherence, and clearly this has been unequal treatment under the law. We stand for fiscal restraint, and this is a case where a mayor used taxpayer money for his personal agenda. We stand for virtue and accountability in government and that is why we have taken a stand. We will be submitting a Virginia Freedom of Information Act request for all city correspondence pertaining to our Tea Party and its decision to audit us. We will not be intimidated and we will not back down. A Richmond attorney and fellow Tea Partier is currently reviewing our situation. Also, the ACLU has also contacted us inquiring about this matter.

For inquiries pertaining to this story you can email Colleen Owens at ColleenO@richmondteaparty.com
Colleen Owens
Media Contact
Richmond Tea Party
Twitter: @Colleen4Tea
email: Colleeno@richmondteaparty.com

Ken Berwitz

Well, we won't have Barney Frank to kick around anymore. 

Mr. Frank announced today that he was retiring from the house of representatives and this term, his 16th, would be his last.

According to the Associated Press report:

Frank said he originally intended to run for one more term, but that his decision was partially due to the fact that the state's new redistricting map will include many people he has never represented before.

Translation:  Barnery Frank only won by 11% in the last election.  And now, with a redistricting that gives his district a somewhat less "Democrats only" structure, it is going to be even harder to win. 

If Barack Obama remains as weak as he is now (don't let the polls fool you, barring unforseen circumstances this election will be won or lost on the economy), and Republican Scott Brown remains as strong, Frank would be in for the fight of his life and might well go out a loser.  Which he apparently does not want to do.

So it is bye-bye Barney.  And a large dollop of sarcastic thanks for your yeoman work with the Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac fiasco that was so instrumental in this country's financial collapse.

I won't miss you.

Ken Berwitz

John Nolte, at biggovernment.com, has been compiling a "rap sheet" of offenses, big and small, emanating from the various "Occupy" protests.

He started on October 1.  And, in less than two months, he is up to 348. 

John starts his latest post by reminding us that, despite some attempts at revisionism by our wonderful, "neutral" media,  Democrats are irrevocably thick and deep with the "Occupy" protesters.  His evidence?  Click on any of these:

Obama on Occupy Wall Street: ‘We Are on Their Side’

House Democrats Endorse Occupy Wall Street

Top Democrats Endorse Occupy Wall Street Protests

Pelosi Supports Occupy Wall Street Movement

He then goes on to list out the 348 individual components.  Some of them are legally actionable, some are not.  But just about all of them are shameful.  

The list is far to extensive to post here - not to mention the fact that it would deprive Mr. Nolte and biggovernment.com of internet traffic they deserve.  So if you want to see them, just click here. 

Then settle in.  There is a lot to read through. 

And, when you do, don't doubt two things:

1) These stories will figure prominently in Republican campaign advertising next year.  Because they can be used to define the Democrat Party;

2) These stories will not figure prominently in Democratic advertising next year.  For exactly the same reason.

Ken Berwitz

Piers Morgan is Larry King's safely-leftward replacement as the "9:00PM Interview" person on CNN. 

Previously (among other positions), Mr. Morgan was Editor of London's Daily Mirror.  In that capacity, Morgan - like Rupert Murdoch - was accused of publishing material derived from hacking phone conversations.  Unlike Murdoch, however, there was little follow-up on the accusations against Morgan and the story died in next to no time (why do you suppose?).  

In any event, one of Mr. Morgan's guests last week was Mark Kelly, husband of Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona congressperson shot and severely injured by jared lee loughner.  Six people were killed in the attack and a dozen others injured as well.

First, a quick synopsis of jared lee loughner:  He is a deranged lunatic with a history of drug and alcohol abuse, who made it clear, including in writing, that he despised Gabrielle Giffords for almost four years before his shooting spree.   From the Wikipedia entry for loughner:

According to an old friend, Bryce Tierney, Loughner had exhibited a longstanding dislike for Gabrielle Giffords, a Blue Dog Democrat, stating that women should not hold positions of power.^[29][30] He repeatedly derided Giffords as a "fake". This belief intensified after he attended her August 25, 2007 event when she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer his question: "What is government if words have no meaning?"^[15] (Loughner kept Giffords' form letter, which thanked him for attending the 2007 event, in the same box as an envelope which was scrawled with phrases like "die bitch" and "assassination plans have been made".)^[31] Zane Gutierrez, a friend, later told the New York Times that Loughner's anger would also "well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government."^[30]

Loughner's best friend, Zach Osler, said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right."

Ok.  Now that I've posted who and what loughner is, let's talk about the interview - specifically how Sarah Palin supposedly became a part of loughner's assassination plan, and what Mark Kelly and Piers Morgan had to say about it.

The Sarah Palin "connection", in its entirety, is that, about 10 months before loughner shot Giffords and the other victims, Ms.Palin's facebook page showed a map of the USA with 20 congressional districts identified as being vulnerable to a Republican takeover.  The map had crosshairs on each district.  One of the districts was Ms. Giffords'.

Two points:

1) This was years after loughner started talking about assassinating her;

2).  There is no evidence whatsoever that loughner ever saw the map. 

But since media have hated Sarah Palin's guts for years, they immediately tied the facebook map to loughner's actions.  And there has been nonstop coverage of this nonexistent "connection" right up to the present.

Ok.  Now let's go to the Kelly - Morgan exchange last week.

Here is a transcript of what Mr. Kelly said and how Mr. Morgan responded.  FYI:  the book reference is to "Gabby", written by Mr. Kelly and (to the extent she could contribute) Ms. Giffords:

PIERS MORGAN: Some interesting insights in the book into who, you know, walked to the plate and who didn't, really, in terms of political colleagues and people that she had worked for and against. Sarah Palin doesn't come out of this very well, I don't think, because there was a woman who at the time had been putting these cross hair things on her website and stuff, including Gabby.

And in her haste to take responsibility didn't even bother to pick the phone up, to write, do anything.

MARK KELLY: Yeah, we were never contacted by her.

 MORGAN: I find that extraordinary.

KELLY: Yeah, I was surprised too. You know, certainly the targets that she put over Gabby's and other people's districts, in our opinion, was not the right thing to do. She is not the first person to do that. And it hasn't always been Republicans that have done that.

MORGAN: I liked your line about it, which is if you had had the chance to talk to her, and you were expecting to, you weren't going to say that you were responsible. But you were going to say, you've been irresponsible.

KELLY: Yeah, that's my plan. You know, this was no surprise to us. Gabby even spoke about it before January 8th, during the election cycle, leading up to the election, in an interview. I think it might have been on MSNBC or some other -- another cable news network. She made is very clear that, hey, this is what's going on, and this could ultimately incite people to do violent things. So it wasn't a big surprise on January 8th that -- you know, that we -- you know, where we knew this map existed with the cross-hairs on it. Now, having said that, you know, Sarah Palin certainly is not responsible for what happened. But I think the angry rhetoric in an election year is not -- it's not helpful.

Kelly, to his credit, made it clear that a) both parties use this kind of imagery and b) Ms. Palin was not responsible for what happened. 

But, as you can see, Morgan would not be deterred. 

Me?  I don't find the fact that Ms. Palin did not contact Ms. Giffords extraordinary at all.  Not only did Ms. Palin have nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting, but - given the tidal wave of media coverage linking her to it anyway - if she publicly expressed her condolences in more than a generic way (i.e. like other congresspeople did), or physically went to the hospital, there is little doubt media would have reported it as a tacit admission that she was responsible for what happened.

Significantly, if you want to know what almost certainly did push loughner over the mental cliff and propel him to that shooting rampage, it is not hard to find.  The Washington Post, which certainly is not a supporter of Sarah Palin, had no problem doing so.  Here, let me show you:

Jared Loughner's music choice, Drowning Pool's 'Bodies,' strikes chilling chord

 

On Jared Loughner's YouTube channel, a lone video is listed as a "favorite" of the alleged Arizona shooter. As a hooded figure wearing a garbage bag for pants limps across the desert to set fire to an American flag, a howling heavy-metal song called "Bodies" serves as the video's relentless soundtrack

 

”Let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor," the singer barks in a refrain that carries an eerie echo in the context of the shooting rampage Saturday in Tucson.

 

Investigators haven't suggested a link between Loughner's violent outburst and "Bodies," a 2001 single by the Dallas band Drowning Pool. But Loughner's embrace of "Bodies" - at least as the backdrop to a favorite video - strikes a familiarly chilling chord: The Drowning Pool song served as the soundtrack to a double murder in Oakton, where in 2003, then-19-year-old Joshua Cooke cranked the throbbing tune on his headphones, walked out of his bedroom holding a 12-gauge shotgun and killed his parents.

The Post's article links you to an audio of this unbelievably disgusting, violent rationale for killing.  But to get the full impact, I think you have to see the video.  So I ask three things of you:

1) First, watch the video, by clicking here - and decide for yourself if this "favorite" of loughner's might have influenced his actions;

2) Next, think about how much evidence media had to ignore to pin the Giffords shooting on Sarah Palin at that time - and continually ever since;

3) Then, think about what kind of thought process could possibly cause Piers Morgan to find it extraordinary that Ms. Palin did not act as if she were responsible. 

Is Morgan ignorant of the facts I've put up?  Does he think that, because his pals in the leftward media tell a big lie enough times, it somehow becomes a fact?  Is it a combination of both?

What Piers Morgan said is stupid.  Ridiculous.  Fraudulent.  It is left wing partisanship at its most hopeless.

Lamentably, it is also standard issue material for many of our media. 

If the Washington Post could find that information about loughner's youtube.com "favorite", does it not follow that other media could have found it as well?  And even if you argue that the Post alone was capable of finding it - that the paper had some brilliant investigative tool no one else had - what about after the story was published?  Even when it was out there for everyone to see, virtually all media ignored it anyway.

How can they call themselves journalists?  How can they even face themselves in the mirror?

Ken Berwitz

This blog is for anyone out there who still doubts there is media bias against conservatives.

Here is the transcript of an exchange which aired on Saturday's edition of Fox News Watch, during a discussion of data compiled by the (conservative) Media Research Center - data which I have not seen refuted by anyone else, be they right, center or left: 

Let's see how she deals with it:

JON SCOTT (HOST): Just over a month to go until the Iowa caucuses, and the Republican candidates are doing what they can to try to make an impression. They're becoming regulars on the big three network morning shows. But do the producers and anchors of those programs have an agenda against the Republican field? One conservative media watchdog group, the Media Research Center, examined 723 campaign-related segments, including 101 interviews from this past year. And here are the results. According to the MRC study, Republicans were asked to respond to questions with a liberal agenda 82 percent Of the time, and questions about their conservative agendas were asked only 18 percent of the time. Compare those results to 2007 when Democrats were asked about liberal agenda items 72 percent of the time, but on conservative issues only 28 percent of the time. Jim, what's going on here?

JIM PINKERTON, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE MAGAZINE: I think it might be liberal bias, and I hate to throw-

SCOTT: Ellen's rolling her eyes.

PINKERTON: Well, here's one that's hard to argue with, and that is that, according to the same data, they identified Republicans as, quote, "conservative," 49 times, and whereas they've, and they identified President Obama as a "liberal" one time ... identified him as a candidate back in 2007 one time. Whatever you want to say about the nature of the question, to simply use that label, liberal or conservative, automatically cuts you away from a lot of votes that you might get from non-liberals and non-conservatives, and to label somebody as one is to put them in a box and tries to keep them there.

ELLEN RATNER, TALK RADIO NEWS SERVICE: If the Media Research study is correct and I read it just like you guys did, then, okay, they have a point, but I want to see how they really tag it because I'm not so sure that if I were sitting there watching the same clips with the same kind of questions and even the liberal and the conservative, I want to sit there with them.

JUDY MILLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: (INAUDIBLE) ... define liberal and conservative and how do they define it and how do they judge it and, you know-

PINKERTON: It was using the, it was, for clarity here to both of you, it was using the word, the L-word and the C-word.

RATNER: I understand, I understand, but I want to sit with them and see what else they're not necessarily, I mean, they have a media bias in the way they did this study.

PINKERTON: I'm sure they'd love to have you come over.

MONICA CROWLEY, TALK RADIO HOST: And the other point, too, is the use of the terminology among the networks, Jim, what you're saying is they use the word conservative, but they mean it in a derrogatory way. And they know that the L-word, the liberal word, carries a negative connotation, and so they're less likely to use it. It's also with the Wings - right-wing, left-wing - they're more inclined to say the right-wing candidate Michele Bachmann, but not the left-wing President Barack Obama.

SCOTT: Isn't that why many liberals are preferring to refer to themselves as conservative - I'm sorry - as progressives these days? But there issort of a negative connotation attached to that term.

PINKERTON: The Gallup poll, well, let's look at it this way: About 40 percent of the country is conservative, 20 percent are liberal, and the rest of them are moderates. That's Gallup, and it's pretty steady data. The point is, anytime you label somebody, they're below 50, and so automatically, everybody who's not a liberal says I'm a moderate or whatever I am, you're antagonized, and that's why they do it to hurt Republicans, but they don't do it ... (INAUDIBLE)

RATNER: Like there's this grand media conspiracy, Jim.

Even if you assume the MRC's conservative lean results in some "benefit of the doubt" situations being placed on its side of the ledger (which we're never supposed to do when a leftward source is quoted), those data are far too skewed for it to make up the difference. 

In fairness, let me express my sympathy for "poor" Ellen Ratner. She is a far leftist from an immensely wealthy family (a combination that will not surprise regular readers), who, as part of the panel, has to respond to this blatantly obvious demonstration of media bias.  So her attempts to deflect the data, while clumsy and ridiculous, are about the best she can do under the circumstances.

The point of all this - with many thanks to the MRC - is to put actual quantitative values on what I would think any fair observer of mainstream media already knows;  that media are dramatically biased in favor of the Democrat/liberal/left side.

Tell you what:  If what you just read is not enough, read the next blog - about CNN's Piers Morgan.  See if that brings the point home even more clearly.

Ken Berwitz

As I am sure you know (100% sure if you read this blog), earlier this week, when Michele Bachmann was a guest on NBC's Jimmy Fallon show, the music played as she came on stage was a song called "Lyin' Ass Bitch". 

That, of course, is utterly disgusting.  Fallon apologized afterwards (given that this occurred on his show, I'm trying to think of an apology that could possibly be less credible - and coming up dry) and, a day or two later, so did an NBC executive (ditto on what I said about Fallon).

Now, almost a week later, we have this statement from Terry O'Neill, who heads NOW, the so-called National Organization for Women:

I am heartened to see that conservatives are learning how hostility toward women in public life functions and and how it feels to be on the receiving end. However, I can’t help but wonder why their outrage is limited to those they condemn as liberals for taking shots at the Bachmanns and the Palins of the world. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are infamous for using sexist, racist, classist, homophobic remarks against anyone who doesn’t march to his extremist drumbeat. NOW regularly calls out sexism directed at conservative women as well as feminists, and we often speak up to remind everyone, including our political allies, that these types of slurs are harmful to all women, and they need to stop. The Roots’ song choice for Bachmann’s entrance was disrespectful, degrading and juvenile, and the bandleader’s apology was weak. Thankfully, host Jimmy Fallon and NBC stepped up with more sincere apologies. Now, will the right wing start policing its own? I’m not holding my breath.

In other words, the fact that Michele Bachmann was effectively called gutter names by Fallon's choice of musical introduction is little more than an opportunity to attack right wing conservatives.  Consider that Ms Bachmann herself is a right wing conservative and you realize that, incredibly, NOW is attacking her too. 

What an offensive pile of BS this is.  And what a fraudulent "organization" NOW is.

Has NOW ever marched in front of a mosque and demanded equal rights for Muslim women?   Has NOW ever marched at any "Occupy" site where women have been molested and raped?  Does NOW ever attack anyone or anything that is to the left of center? 

No, no and no.

NOW is not a woman's group.  It is a left wing front.  Period.  Its concern about women begins on the far left, and ends somewhere marginally closer to, but not anywhere near, the center.  The right?  Forget it.  They don't count as women.

No wonder our Accomplice Media love NOW so much....

Ken Berwitz

Think you have it bad?  Think you have problems? 

Watch this four minute video of a British gentleman named Nick Vujicic.  Not only will you stop feeling sorry for yourself, but you will be amazed by how inspirational Mr. Vujicic's story is and how successfully he is overcoming the obstacles in his life - obstacles that I doubt you come close to having.

I guarantee it will give you a different outlook on things.

Ken Berwitz

My wife and I spent part of this afternoon with friends, in the "historic" town of Smithville, New Jersey.

I'd lie to say I know what is historic about Smithville - even the town's web site doesn't tell us - other than the fact that several of the buildings are over a century old (nothing special in New Jersey) and it uses hokey "old-fashioned" spelling, ( e.g. the Towne of Smithville and its Shoppes).

On the up side, Smithville, historic or otherwise, has been transformed into about 60 different boutique stores and a bunch of restaurants and taverns (it was too early in the day to find out why one of them was named the "Baremore Tavern" - but I have to admit the name intrigued me.  Before I was married, it certainly was something I hoped for if I took a date to a drinking establishment).

Anyway, the reason for this blog is that one of the stores, the name of which I do not remember, had a t-shirt I thought was very irreverent, maybe a bit offensive, but gets enough points for clever to be mentioned here.

The shirt was patterned after the "three stooges" t-shirt we've all seen for years (i.e. head shots of each stooge).  But its heading was "The Real Stooges".  And instead of Larry, Moe and Curly, the pictures were of Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama nd Joe Biden, under which were the names "Scary", "Shmoe" and "Surly".

Is that a bit over the top.  Sure it is....maybe even more than a bit.  But I admit to laughing when I saw it.  Maybe you're laughing too.

Ok, back to politics.

Ken Berwitz

Earlier this year, when Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot by a deranged lunatic named jared lee loughner, media were saturated with accusations that the shooting was somehow connected to an illustration put out by the Sarah Palin camp some ten months earlier, with a map depicting crosshairs on various congressional districts that were vulnerable to a Republican takeover, one of which was Giffords'.

The fact that loughner never gave any indication he saw the map, or cared at all about Sarah Palin?  Irrelevant'n'immaterial.  Palin was a Republican, and media's favorite piñata.  So it was open season.

NBC's Today Show and its sister network, MSNBC, were front and center in these attacks.  Which makes the headline on its web site today that much more interesting.  And hypocritical.

MSNBC is reporting a New York Times article (itself a highly propagandized piece) which talks about how much money conservative groups are spending in advertising which characterizes President Obama as a failure. 

The Times' headline is "TV Attack Ads Aim at Obama Early and Often". 

But the MSNBC headline to this same story?  "Conservatives mount costly air assault on Obama". 

Air assault? 

Tell me:  If a map with crosshairs is responsible for Gabrielle Giffords' shooting - even if the shooter apparently never knew it existed - would any attempt on Barack Obama's life be due to the "Air Assault" rhetoric from MSNBC?

Don't mind me.  I'm just wondering if the same set of rules is being applied.

Ken Berwitz

Nucci's South, on Staten Island in the shadow of the Outerbridge Crossing, is a terrific Italian restaurant.  Raymond is a friendly, accommodating host and Eddie is a great bartender.

Just thought I'd mention.....

Ken Berwitz

First let me reprise my take on what Newt Gingrich said about illegals in the last Republican debate:

Gingrich's headline from last night is that he made a comment - and stuck to the comment - that, under very stringent circumstances (e.g. lived here for 25 years, paid taxes, went to church, etc.), illegal Mexicans should be given a path to staying in the country legally - though not as citizens.  This morning's media are trying to make a big deal out of this, suggesting that it is a disastrous position to take in a Republican primary. 

Personally, I doubt that is true.  Gingrich's example a) describes a tiny percentage of illegals who b) by their lifestyles would grace their communities.  Even hardliners would have a problem arguing with that.

That made sense when I wrote it, and makes sense now.

Gingrich did not advocate "amnesty" - other than in the sense that long-time residents who lead exemplary lives would be allowed to stay in the country -- much as a convicted robber who escapes from jail, and then is found 25 years later living an exemplary life might be pardoned by a judge.

This is a big deal?  Not to me.  And not, I suspect, to most other people.

Based on the latest polling, Newt Gingrich is now a major candidate.  That means other candidates need to take him down in order for them to win.  If their internal polling suggests Gingrich's stand on illegals has traction, they will continue trying to use it against him.  That is probably the best inidicator of how major or minor it is.

We'll keep an eye on who does what -- as will, I am sure, a great many Latino people who want to know just how intractable Republican candidates intend to be on this issue.

Ken Berwitz

Casey Stengel once said that the secret of being a successful manager was keeping the players that hate you away from the players who haven't made up their minds.

Boy could he have taught the "Occupy" protesters in San Diego something.

These geniuses filled up 75 baskets at a Wal-Mart.  They then stood around the checkout counters, in people's way, responsively chanting their "message" about how crappy Wal-Mart was.  After their infantile recital, they left the shopping carts there for the employees they claimed to be supporting to have to clean up, and marched out chanting "We are the 99%, you are the 99%, we are the 99%, you are the 99%".  Finally, outside the store, they gave themselves a rousing cheer - as if they accomplished something.

Here is the video (if you have trouble seeing it below, just click here):

What they accomplished was annoying the hell out of shoppers, and undoubtedly turning a lot of the people who were indifferent, or at least marginally receptive to them, into people who wished they would go back to their squatter camp, take the freebies they're sponging off of others, and just shut up.

Congratulations, guys.  You are not the 99% (did any other people leave their shopping basket and join you?).  But you probably will be starring in political commercials for the Republican Party next year.

Ken Berwitz

Earlier this week I blogged about the "Occupy" protesters' brilliant strategy of disrupting Black Friday.

The idea was to get out into the street, remind shoppers that they, too, were part of "the 99%", and convince them to strike a blow for ?????? (I'm still not sure what) by refusing to patronize major chain stores - which, as any "Occupy" protester can tell you, are enemies to us all.

So how'd that work out? 

Well, since it would be hard to find a population more left wing, thus receptive to the "Occupy" protesters, than San Francisco, let's check and see what happened there.

Excerpted from Kevin Fagin's article at the San Francisco Chronicle:

Bargains and a pretty holiday tree trumped politics Friday night.

Occupy SF activists had hoped to keep shoppers out of downtown San Francisco stores to protest corporate greed, but no matter how hard they yelled, shoppers shoved right on by.

Two dozen Occupy protesters began marching around downtown at sundown, chanting protest slogans. They'd hoped to make their anti-consumption point at the annual Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Union Square, but the crowd was so massive they couldn't get near.

The marchers then blocked the intersection of Market and Fourth streets for 15 minutes beginning at 7 p.m., but left when police arrived.

That sure doesn't look like a rousing success to me.  It looks, instead, like the "Occupy" protesters' major accomplishment was being responsible for a minor traffic obstruction.

And let's remember, again, that we are talking about San Francisco.  Left wing, Nancy ("God bless them") Pelosi-loving San Francisco. 

Do I dare hope that some of our mainstream media take note of this complete fizzle-out, and conclude that the "Occupy" protesters, whom they have publicized, sympathized with and nurtured for two months, are a joke to pretty much everyone else? 

In the words of one commenter:

"It's not much of a protest at all anymore. It's become nothing more than an urban camp-out with poor sanitation consisting of a few dirty hippies, malcontents and a few hobos partaking in the free "fun".

Yep.  I couldn't have said it better.

Ken Berwitz

Smallpox is nonexistent in the United States (or, apparently anywhere else).  And should a case pop up, there are effective vaccines ready to take care of it.

Why did the Obama Administration authorize a $443 million project to come up with an experimental smallpox vaccine - and then make good and damn sure that the company getting the $443 million was run by a big-time Democrat contributor?

Why am I asking you questions you already know the answers to?

Excerpted from David Willman's November 13 article for the Los Angeles Times:

Cost, need questioned in $433-million smallpox drug deal

A company controlled by a longtime political donor gets a no-bid contract to supply an experimental remedy for a threat that may not exist.

 

Over the last year, the Obama administration has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or will work.

Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world's richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor.

When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company's financial demands, senior officials replaced the government's lead negotiator for the deal, interviews and documents show.

When Siga was in danger of losing its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from competing.

Siga was awarded the final contract in May through a "sole-source" procurement in which it was the only company asked to submit a proposal. The contract calls for Siga to deliver 1.7 million doses of the drug for the nation's biodefense stockpile. The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government's specialists had earlier said was reasonable, according to internal documents and interviews.

Once feared for its grotesque pustules and 30% death rate, smallpox was eradicated worldwide as of 1978 and is known to exist only in the locked freezers of a Russian scientific institute and the U.S. government. There is no credible evidence that any other country or a terrorist group possesses smallpox.

Now, two weeks later, have you seen a tidal wave of articles, features and exposés from our wonderful "neutral" media about this obvious payoff to a Democrat big shot?  Have you seen any "Occupy" protesters demanding it be rescinded? 

If the answer is no (and that is the answer) then prepare to be even more outraged.  Because the former head of the unconditionally Obama-supporting Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is involved as well.

Excerpted from Ed Morrissey's piece at hotair.com:

Siga Technologies has close ties to the Democratic Party with its primary investor, party donor Ronald Perelman, and relatively new board member Andy Stern, the former head of the SEIU and a frequent visitor to the Obama White House.  The deal amounts to almost a half-billion dollars for Perelman and Stern, and the White House appears to have intervened to relax contract requirements and eliminate any hint of competition for the project.

It turns out that there was another questionable call in awarding the contract to Siga:

In October 2010, Siga announced it had been awarded a multi-billion dollar contract to develop ST-246, despite the fact that the contract stipulated only a small business could be the winning bidder. A smaller company protested, and in response, the Obama Administration blocked everyone except Siga from bidding for a second offering of the contract.

The government’s justification for only talking to Siga was that an antiviral was needed within five years, and Siga was the only company who could do it. That justification troubled some HHS officials, one of whom called it “a stretch” in an internal email obtained by the paper. As much as $115 million in taxpayer money had already been spent developing the drug, which had not been approved by the FDA.

The kicker?  The FDA has no idea how it will approve the drug for use in humans.  In order to do the double-blind testing required for certification, they would have to expose test subjects to live samples of smallpox, since the disease no longer exists outside of a few military laboratories in Russia and the US.  Who would want to volunteer to expose themselves to smallpox and hope they don’t draw the placebo card in the trials?

Could this be more blatantly corrupt?  Could this be more disgusting?

It is so bad that, as Morrissey points out, Senator Clare McCaskill - a Democrat who is in for a major re-election battle next year - has demanded an investigation.  Ms. McCaskill is willing to go up against the Obama administration, which she has not bucked for the almost three years it has been in place, so she can demonstrate anti-Obama credentials to voters in the swing state of Missouri.

That should tell you how dirty this political payoff is.  And how malfeasant our Accomplice Media are by - other than the LA Times and a few others - suppressing it so that the average voter has no idea it is even happening.

Shame on them. 

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

Ken Berwitz

My wife and I, with another couple, just caught George Clooney's new movie, "Descendents".

How appropriate that we saw a turkey like this on Thanksgiving.

On the positive side, the acting was very good.  Unfortunately, that is the last positive comment I can make about it.

The story line was unpleasant and unentertaining.  The dialogue was not just bad, it was offensive, annoying, and devoid of credibility.

Worst of all, almost none of the major characters had any likeability.  Not Clooney, a clueless cuckold who let hs children make a fool of him, not his older daughter, an alcoholic druggie with a foul mouth, not her "boyfriend" (or whatever he was), a grinning idiot with a talent for saying the wrong thing, and not Clooney's wife who (mercifully) was comatose for just about the entire movie, while everyone else yelled at her about how much they hated her.   

The only sympathetic characters were the younger daughter whose obnoxiousness was explained by her emulation of the older one, the father in law who was unaware that his daughter was cheating, and the devastated wife of the guy she cheated with. 

Among we four, the two wives liked it (what do they know?)  The other husband and I couldn't stand it.  But before you assume this is purely a gender thing, while leaving the theater we we ran into two other couples we are friendly with, and all four of them thought it stunk too. 

Let's just say that George Clooney is a fine actor, who made a very bad choice by agreeing to star in a godawful movie.  

As my sainted grandmother would say, "Feh".

Ken Berwitz

As you may know, Al Gore is the spearhead of "Current TV" - a largely unwatched cable news network, whose biggest "talent" is the extra-terrestrially leftward keith olbermann.

Here is what Mr. Gore has to say about his network - as excerpted from Tim Graham's post at newsbusters.org:

"Some of our competitors may see us as being on the left side of the spectrum," Gore admitted, "but the entire spectrum has been pulled so far to the right that we believe that we are completely right about what viewers are yearning for as we enter what is sure to be one of the most heated, energetic, and fascinating election years in memory."

Well, there you have it.  In the world of Al Gore, Current TV only looks like it is to the left because the rest of media have lurched so far to the right.

When you stop laughing, think about this:  Al Gore came within a hairs breadth of becoming President of the United States.

Suddenly it's not so funny any more.......

Ken Berwitz

What is happening in post-Mubarek Egypt?  What policy path is the Obama administration following?

Here is the bad news, courtesy of the following excerpt from Howard Lafranchi's piece at jewishworldreview.com:

US to Egypt: Stick to election plan, even if it means empowering Muslim Brotherhood

By Howard LaFranchi

The United States is encouraging Egypt's military rulers to stick to a schedule of elections set to kick off next week, despite continuing violence — and despite the likelihood that the electoral timetable favors the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist movements.

The Obama administration is in essence caught between two unpalatable options: pressing ahead for elections that the Islamists are likely to win, and thereby sounding like a force for Egypt's democratic transition; or recommending a postponement that a growing number of liberal Egyptians prefer, but which risks coming across as anti-democratic.

Egypt's transitional military rulers announced this week that parliamentary elections set to begin Monday will go ahead, despite five days of violence that has left more than 35 Egyptians dead and scores wounded.

The plan to proceed with voting was worked out at a meeting between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood, the two most powerful institutions in post-Hosni-Mubarak Egypt. The new plan also calls for presidential elections to be held before July, an apparent acceleration of a previously announced transition plan.

Other political parties were invited to the meeting, but most liberal secular movements boycotted it.

Still, many Egyptians — in particular those who spearheaded the February movement that toppled a regime — fear that the military, composed in large part of recruits from the country's more conservative rural areas, favors a Brotherhood electoral triumph. They worry that a parliamentary triumph for the Brotherhood, combined with the military staying in power at least until mid-summer, would allow the two to write a constitution — and to delineate civil and political rights to their liking.

Despite those concerns, the US is sticking to its support for the established electoral calendar. 

Lovely.  Just lovely.

And thoroughly predictable:  it must be, since I (and many, many others) were talking about this potential situation even as the original protesters filled Tahrir Square.

But did anyone in this administration think about the likelihood of such a scenario before helping to force Hosni Mubarek out? 

Did anyone in this administration think about the consequences of an Islamic fundamentalist government in Egypt?  What it will mean to the country and to the overall middle east, not to mention the rest of the world?

Did anyone in this administration think at all, about anything?  Will they ever start?

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

See?  Tippi Hedren was right!!! (if you don't know what that means, I'll explain at the end of the blog).

From an article  - with accompanying video, if you're interested - at WTAE.com, Pittsburgh:.

PENN HILLS, Pa. -- A wild turkey apparently flew into an Eat'n Park restaurant on -- of all days -- Thanksgiving.

 

The 15-pound turkey was found among a pile of shattered glass on the carpet near some booth tables around 3 p.m.

Nobody was inside the restaurant on Frankstown Road, which was closed for the holiday.

SLIDESHOW: Photos Of The Turkey And The Damage

Hmmmmm.  What do you make of this? 

Did the turkey feel left out?  Rejected?  Or was this an angry reaction to the day, coupled with a bad choice of which restaurant to attack?

Or maybe this is part of a coordinated effort, and restaurant patrons - especially the ones whose tables are near windows - should also watch out for irate porkers on Christmas day......

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

Tippi Hedren starred in Alfred Hitchcock's very scary  movie, "The Birds", (well, it was scary in 1963, when it came out) in which birds started attacking and killing humans.  That, of course, is a far cry from the comedic "Revenge of the Nerds" which spawned the punny title of this blog entry.

Ken Berwitz

This one is for the folks who have convinced themselves that the "Occupy" protesters do not include an anti Semitic element.  This, of course, would include most of our wonderful "neutral" media  - who have been nice enough to shield us from hearing their voices and seeing their signs - a good many of which I have put up on this blog.

From Aaron Klein's piece at worldnetdaily.com:

The recent executive director of the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations' South Florida chapter is a founder and spokesman of Occupy Miami, WND has learned.

 

Mohammad Malik currently is as an activist with several other Islamic groups.

 

He has led hate-filled anti-Israel protests in which participants were filmed wearing Hamas paraphernalia while chanting "Nuke Israel" and "Go back to the oven" – a reference to Jews being killed in the Holocaust.

 

Malik has been widely quoted in the Florida news media in recent weeks speaking for Occupy Miami.

 

The Miami Herald identified Malik as one of the organizers of Occupy's Miami's downtown campsite headquarters.

 

The Independent previously quoted Malik as an "unemployed Miami native who has worked with the ACLU and is the current spokesperson for Occupy Miami."

 

In September 2010, Malik was appointed as the director of CAIR's South Florida chapter, covering the region of Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties.

 

In March 2010, Malik organized a CAIR dinner in Miami. The keynote speaker was Siraj Wahhaj, who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj has also defended the convicted WTC bomb plotters and has urged the Islamic takeover of America.

At what point do our major media stop protecting the "Occupy" movement, and actually report what is happening within it?

If this anti-Jewish, anti-Israel scumbucket were a Tea Party leader in a major city, do you doubt that you would have heard about it by now? 

Illustratively, last year Tea Party members were accused of screaming "nigger" at Black congresspeople who walked through their demonstration in Washington DC.  And even though the accusation was a flat-out lie (not one audio or video tape could be produced with anyone yelling any such thing), it has been reported and re-reported countless times since then. 

In other words, the same media that were perfectly willing to condemn an entire conservative group for the alleged racism of a few - which did not even occur - are equally willing to suppress information about the anti-Jewish, anti-Israel element of a left wing group, even when specific evidence is available.

The double standard is breathtaking.

Ken Berwitz

Technically, we are no longer in recession.  Every quarter we inch up a tiny little bit.

That make you feel better about the economy?  I didn't think so.

Here, excerpted from Peter Ferrara's excellent article at townhall.com, are some of the specifics:

...unemployment has been stuck at 9% or above for the longest period since the Great Depression. Unemployment for blacks has remained over 15% for over 2 years, with Hispanic unemployment stuck well into double digits over that time as well. Teenage unemployment has persisted at nearly 25%, with black teenage unemployment still nearly 40%.

The U6 unemployment rate, reflecting all of the unemployed still wanting work and the underemployed who can't get full time work, is still 16.2%. That includes an army of the unemployed or underemployed of over 26 million Americans. And that still doesn't fully count the millions of Americans who have given up and dropped out of the work force altogether.

On September 13 came the Census Bureau report fleshing out the full meaning of no economic recovery under Obama. Median family income has fallen all the way back to 1996 levels. The Wall Street Journal further reported on September 14, "Earnings of the typical man who works full time year round fell, and are lower--adjusted for inflation--than in 1978."

The poverty rate climbed to 15.1%, higher than in the late 1960s when the War on Poverty was getting underway, $16 trillion ago. The child poverty rate climbed to 22%, nearly a quarter of all American children. The total number of Americans in poverty is higher than at any time in the over 50 years that the Census Bureau has been tallying it. Moreover, the number of Americans ages 25-34 living with their parents has soared by 25%.

Obama apologists can't continue to blame the depths of the previous recession, and they can't because the historical record makes plain that the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery. Based on that historical record, we should be completing the second year of a booming economy by now.

In the second year of the Reagan recovery, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. In the first two years of that recovery, 7.6 million new jobs were created, on the way to 20 million jobs created during the first 7 years. Presently, we are still 6 million jobs below the peak before the last recession, four years ago.

Not a pretty picture, is it?

But it is well worth remembering the next time someone talks to you about the "Bush recession".  

When Barack Obama, with his huge majorities in both houses of congress, inflicted the so-called "stimulus package", he took ownership of this economy.  And now, almost three years later, this is what we have to show for it.  The Obamaconomy.

Don't expect him to run on it in 2012.....

Ken Berwitz

Ed Schultz finds it distasteful to refer to cops as "pigs".  It turns his stomach.  So much so that he used the term himself just last night, when describing a police officer who used pepper spray on "Occupy" protesters at UC-Davis after they ignored his order to disperse.

This is an actual quote from the transcript of Schultz's "Ed Show" on MSNBC (where else?):

It is amazing to me that there is a law enforcement official who felt it compelled – and I’m going to say something now that is really distasteful but I feel like I have to say it because I am a product of the sixties – this is how law enforcement got the term “pig.” This is how they got labeled “pigs.” And that term just turns my stomach. I equate this to the Rodney King beating. I really do. The action’s no different than taking a nightstick out on a guy or to go right up and pepper spray people right in the face when they’re absolutely harmless. What’s the difference?

Ed Schultz asks "What's the difference?"  Well, let's compare. 

First we have the Rodney King incident, excerpted from wikipedia.com (which, in this case, has it exactly right):

As George Holliday's videotape begins, King is on the ground. He rises and moves toward Powell. (Solano termed it a "lunge," and said it was in the direction of Koon.)^[16] At this time, taser wires can be seen coming from King's body. As King moves forward, Officer Powell then strikes King with his baton. The blow hits King's head, knocking him to the ground immediately.^[17] Powell hits King several additional times with his baton. The videotape shows Briseno moving in to try and stop Powell from swinging, and Powell then backing up. (Koon reportedly yelled "that's enough.") King then rises to his knees; Powell and Wind continue to hit King with their batons while he is on the ground.^[18]

So we have two police officers, apparently unaware they are being videotaped, absolutely beating the excrement out of King.

And the UC-Davis incident? 

We have a police officer trying to get protesters to move by giving them a dose of pepper spray -  which will make them uncomfortable for a short period of time and do no physical damage of any kind.  He does it in full view of everyone, presumably because pepper spray is so minimal that it won't matter.

Yep, that's a direct comparison there all right (feel free to wipe off the sarcasm that is now dripping from your monitor). 

They actually pay this guy to say things like this on TV? 

Oh, wait.  It's MSNBC.  Never mind; he deserves a raise.

Ken Berwitz

I don't know a lot about currencies.  But I do know a lot about Europe.  And I know that when a bunch of countries that historically do not like each other (I'm trying not to use the term "hate" here) are in a situation where some of them have to prop up the others, it does not bode well for their common currency.

Here, excerpted from John Melloy's aricle for cnbc, is the latest indication of where the euro seems inexorably headed:

Investors began to fear the worst for the euro after unusually weak demand at an auction for bonds from Germany, the region’s largest economy. One analyst went so far as to put the currency on a “death watch.”

 

 Germany sold just 60 percent of the 6 billion euros in 10-year bunds it brought to auction, about the weakest demand seen for the country’s debt in the currency’s 16-year history, economists said. The rejection of debt from Europe’s safe harbor marks a new stage for the crisis.

 

“No bunds wanted equals no Euros wanted equals the Euro death watch,” wrote Mark Steele, an analyst with BMO Capital Markets. “We have seen many poor German auctions. This is not the issue. The issue is how badly the euro is doing after the weak auction.”

You can almost hear the flush.

I do not know for sure what the end of the euro would mean to us.  But from what I have read, it would not be anything good.

According to globalpost.com's Philip S. Balboni:

The only real hope for a long-term solution is for Europe to adopt the United States model with true fiscal consolidation. What the 17 euro zone nations lack is a central financial authority with the power to set national budgets and to impose taxes. Yet such far-reaching change will be enormously difficult to achieve in a Europe divided in so many ways.

Christine LaGarde, head of the IMF, argues that “credible, medium-term fiscal consolidation” among the euro zone countries combined with “aggressive” ways to support short-term economic growth is the path out of the current crisis. But any change that gave some central authority the power to set national budgets and impose taxes would require approval by the parliaments of each of the 17 euro zone nations and it would probably also have to go to the voters in each country. It is almost inconceivable that such approval could be achieved.

We can only pray that new short-term measures by European leaders will forestall a Greek default and prevent a global banking crisis. But the best days of the euro appear to be behind us.

That's certainly nothing to look forward to.

But we better look forward to it, because it seems more and more likely that the euro is going straight down the drain. 

Does the Obama administration have a plan in place?  Has it prepared us for a global banking crisis?  If so, how?

These are questions that our media have to - not should but have to -  ask. 

But are they asking?  Do you see anything about it, say, on the nightly news or the morning shows?  Prominently featured in your newspaper? 

I know you've been given all the news there is about the ridiculous accussations against Herman Cain.  And Kim Kardashian's speed-marrying interlude with Kris Humphreys.  And who is doing well on the X factor.  But what about something a tad less trite, like whether we will wind up in a financial coffin with the euro?

Get ready.  No matter how bad things are they can get worse.  And very well could be reminded of this truism, first-hand, in the next few months.

Ken Berwitz

There are few things easier than apologizing for your actions, after you've done something and gotten the "benefit" of it.

With that in mind, I note that Jimmy Fallon, the late night comic (whom I admit I have never watched) has apologized to Michele Bachmann.  And so has at least one executive from NBC, which runs the Fallon show.

The reason for their apologies?  Congressperson, and presidential candidate, Michele Bachmann was a guest on Fallon's show earlier this week.  And the music Fallon played when she came on (it's his show, he's responsible for this) was a song with the title "Lyin' Ass Bitch".

That is sick.  It is disgusting.  And - as we see over and over again - it is something that would only be done to a Republican, never to a Democrat. Which makes it, if possible, even more sick and disgusting because you can add politically partisan in as well.

As readers of this blog certainly know, I am not a fan of Michele Bachmann's and would not vote for her as President.  Therefore my reaction to Fallon's "music" (if you can call it that) is not based on support for Ms. Bachmann. 

My reaction is because NBC - which already disgraces itself with the ugly, hateful, racist filth spewed on sister station MSNBC, apparently is determined to sink even lower - and, through Fallon's vicious insult, has succeeded.

Congratulations to NBC on its "success".  I'm sure its executives are all deliriously happy about it.

Ken Berwitz

Last year, President Obama appointed Dr. Donald Berwick as Administrator of the centers for Medicare and Medicaid services.

It was a recess appointment.  It had to be, because Mr. Berwick, a lover of the British health care system (which is falling apart), and aggressive proponent of health care rationing (death panels, anyone?) could never have gotten approval in an up or down senate vote.

Well, now, at the end of his year-long recess appointment, Dr. Berwick has resigned.  For exactly the same reason:  he would never be approved if senators have to go on record voting for him.

So who is President Obama nominating as a replacement?  Why Marilyn B. Tavenner, his deputy - who presumably shares his exact same views. 

Here is how Ms. Tavenner is characterized in Robert Pear's article for the New York Times:

Ms. Tavenner, the secretary of the Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources when Tim Kaine was governor, is more of a manager and less of a visionary than Dr. Berwick, who has been working for more than two decades to transform the health care system and raise the quality of care.

There you go.  Ms. Tavenner is just a grunt, not a visionary and all-around Saint of the Sick like Berwick. 

It will be interesting to see if she, too, is blocked, and Mr. Obama needs another recess appointment to put her in charge.

Ken Berwitz

The "Occupy" protesters have an interesting target (and I do mean Target - among others).  They intend to "Occupy" and disrupt sales at just about every major chain store in the country.

I'm not kidding, folks, this is for real.  You can read all about it on the "Occupy" movement's stopblackfriday.com web site. 

But, just so you can see exactly what I'm talking about, read this little excerpt:

"Keep in mind that we are not occupying small businesses or hardworking people—we must make a distinction between the businesses that are in the pockets of Wall Street and the businesses that serve our local communities.

We are NOT anti-capitalist. Just anti-crapitalist.

Below is a shortlist for publicly traded large businesses to Occupy or to boycott on Black Friday. Luckily, most of them don't have good presents anyway. If you want to see the top 100 retail businesses for 2010 to boycott, click here.

On Black Friday, Occupy or boycott:

- Abercrombie & Fitch [ANF  44.88    -0.79  (-1.73%)   ]

- Amazon.com (yes, we have to stay away from Amazon, too!) [AMZN  188.99    -3.35  (-1.74%)   ]

- AT&T Wireless [ATT  27.21    0.17  (+0.63%)   ]

- Burlington Coat Factory

- Dick's Sporting Goods (I was surprised, too!) [DSG-FF  28.505    -0.43  (-1.49%)   ]

- Dollar Tree [DLTR  76.61    -0.48  (-0.62%)   ]

- The Home Depot [HD  36.52    -0.58  (-1.56%)   ]

- Neiman Marcus

- OfficeMax [OMX  4.25    -0.24  (-5.35%)   ]

- Toys R'Us [JPM  28.38    -1.03  (-3.5%)   ]

- Verizon Wireless [VZN  95.50    1.20  (+1.27%)   ]

- Wal-Mart [WMT  56.64    -0.21  (-0.37%)   ]

Solidarity!"

Yeah!  We'll fix their wagon!  If we're really, really successful, major stores all over the country will have lower sales, will buy less from the suppliers, will cut down the work forces and will pay less taxes!!!!   Wow, will that be GREAT!!!!!

Does anyone in his/her right mind believe that these people speak for 99% of the country?  Or anyone outside of the hard left/anarchist set? 

If so, I suggest a Friday morning trip to one or another of the stores "occupy" protesters will be disrupting, to see/hear what the disrupted customers think of them. 

One other suggestion:  don't bring small children, unless they have large ear plugs.

Ken Berwitz

tony rezko was sentenced to 10 1/2 years in jail yesterday.

If you are saying something like "Tony who?", or "I've heard the name but I can't remember......etc.", then you have been played by the Obama-loving Accomplice Media.

tony rezko was a close associate of Barack Obama, he and his wife were involved in helping Mr. Obama purchase his Chicago mansion for hundreds of thousands below market price, and either personally contributed or bundled at least $250,000 for Mr. Obama's political campaigns.  Mr. Obama initially claimed that rezko donated very little money, and then, as more information came out, kept admitting to more and more.  No one knows for sure what the actual grand total is. 

In other words, Barack Obama had a long-time relationship with tony rezko that reeked to the high heavens.   

Which, of course, explains why his sentencing got virtually no coverage in the mainstream media outside of Chicago.

Here is one of the very few reports that were made about Rezko and his relationship with Barack Obama.  It comes from David Asman, of Fox Business Network and I saw it at Noel Sheppard's blog for newsbusters.org (what, you expected it from MSNBC?):

Tony Rezko was sentenced today to 10-and-a- half years in prison. The former power player in Chicago politics has been sitting in jail for three-and-a-half years waiting to be sentenced for 16 counts of political corruption. The prosecutors argue against cutting his sentence for time served even though he has been serving some pretty hard time in a high-risk unit with terrorists and members of a Mexican drug cartel. They clearly want to keep Rezko in deep isolation for a very long time.

But the man who would probably most like to see Tony Rezko stay out of sight is President Obama. One of the first political contributions ever came from companies controlled by Tony Rezko in 1995. In 2003 Rezko was put on Obama's campaign finance committee for the U.S. Senate. And in 2005 the Obama's purchased a one $1.65 million house in Chicago with a $300,000 assist from Rezko, something the president later publicly regretted.

While the press has been running big headlines about the lousy character judgments of Republican presidential contenders, somehow the president's lousy judgment in associating so closely with Tony Rezko keeps getting a pass. We all make mistakes, but a close association with a guy prosecutors are locking up with drug assassins and terrorists deserves at least as much scrutiny as gifts once purchased for a candidate's wife. Or maybe that's just us.

Amazing, isn't it?  Herman Cain got two solid weeks of nonstop negative press for unproven allegations, involving accusations that he did next to nothing of any substance, which were made anonymously.  And when two of the women finally came forth, it turned out that both had histories of trying to get sexual harassment settlements involving other people -- after which both promptly disappeared from view (do you even remember their names now?  I'll help out:  Sharon Bialek and Karen Kraushaar). 

But when tony rezko gets 10 1/2 years in jail (for 16 felony convictions, in case you're interested)?  There is virtually no media talking about his sweetheart real estate deal or the buckets of money he generated for President Obama.

How do these people call themselves journalists?  How do they even face themselves in the mirror?

Ken Berwitz

How is that Egyptian "Arab Spring" thing coming along? 

Here is your answer, excerpted from David D. Kirkpatrick and Anthony Shadid's article in today's New York Times.  The bold print is mine:

CAIRO — The Egyptian military moved Wednesday to end a fifth day of clashes between police and protesters that left at least 31 dead, in a confrontation that has plunged the Arab world’s most populous country into crisis and underscored the divide between demonstrators in Tahrir Square and the country’s military rulers.

 

The army dispatched armored vehicles and troops to separate the two sides, in a bid to halt clashes that wounded hundreds and cast a haze of tear gas over the iconic square. The attempt worked for a time, but after 90 minutes of relative calm, the mayhem resumed. In the chaos, it was unclear which side returned first to the fighting that has pitted police armed with tear gas and guns against rock-throwing protesters.

The demonstrators who took to the square again last week have demanded that the country’s de facto ruler, Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi resign, and the military council he heads turn over power in the country to a civilian government.

In trying for a truce, according to television reports, the government was apparently hoping that the crowd would be more willing to accept the authority of the soldiers than the loathed security forces.

Clerics from al-Azhar, Egypt’s foremost institution of Islamic scholarship, and doctors joined the soldiers on the front line in an attempt to enforce a truce. Egyptian television broadcast footage of the two sides separated by a coil of barbed wire.

But as the night progressed, Tahrir Square descended into chaos at times. Tear gas billowed from two streets connecting to the square, and bonfires burning garbage cast a pallid glow into the night. People fled, as rumors flickered through the crowd of security forces’ intentions.

The government has been struggling to restore control after days of the biggest unrest since President Hosni Mubarak was driven from power nine months ago. A deal struck Tuesday between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military centered on an agreement to hold a presidential election by late June.  

So who is running the show in Egypt? 

Is it those well bred, well fed, twitter enthusiasts who demanded the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak's government earlier this year? 

Nope. 

It is the military, and the military's new-found partner, the Muslim brotherhood.   They are why the people who have again filled Tahrir Square to demand freedom and democracy are quickly being killed in the streets -- 31 dead in just five days and numerous others injured, with a near certainty there will be many, many more to come.

Is this Tahrir Square or Tehran Square?

Look, I do not blame the people who protested against Hosni Mubarak for doing so.  He ran an unsavory, corrupt regime.  Their mistake was not taking into account the fact that his replacement could be even worse.  A lot worse.  Now they have to deal with the terrifying probability that Mubarak's successors will be a coalition of hardline military and shari'a law fundamentalists.

I'll tell you who I do blame, though. I blame the so-called foreign policy experts in the United States - led by President Barack Obama - for being blind to the consequences of proactively helping to facilitate Mubarak's demise.  They are the ones who supposedly acted not on raw idealism but on understanding the consequences of their actions.  

How could they not have seen this coming?  How could they have bungled it so badly? 

For the sake of all enlightened people in Egypt, and for all religious minorities there, especially the Coptic Christians who now must fear for their lives, I hope I am wrong.  But I do not see how this ends up as anything but a disaster for them, and for the entire middle east. 

Ken Berwitz

I wish to defend Frank Rich, formerly a theater critic, then a political columnist for the New York Times who now writes for New York Magazine. 

Mr. Rich is not an imbecile.

He is a very intelligent man - who is so perverted by his unconditional subservience to the far left that his analytical capabilites have become hopelessly compromised.

But he is not an imbecile.

Illustratively, Mr. Rich's latest piece for New York Magazine  essentially blames right wingers for....the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

You may recall that lee harvey oswald, a deranged communist sympathizer who married a Russian woman and for a period of time defected to the USSR, had something to do with President Kennedy's assassination.  So does Rich.  But in his perverted mind, that somehow does not count. 

Read this passage from his commentary and see for yourself:

Immediately after the assassination and ever since, the right has tried to deflect any connection between its fevered Kennedy hatred and Oswald’s addled psyche with the fact that the assassin had briefly defected to the Soviet Union. But at the time even some Texans weren’t buying that defense. An editorial in the Dallas Times Herald chastised its own city for supplying “the seeds of hate” and “the atmosphere for tragedy.” The editor of the Austin American wrote that “hatred and fanaticism, the flabby spirit of complacency that has permitted the preachers of fanatical hatred to appear respectable, and the self-righteousness that labels all who disagree with us as traitors or dolts, provided the way for the vile deed that snuffed out John Kennedy’s life.”…

 

America’s violent culture wars had started before JFK was shot. They were all on display in Oswald’s Dallas. At least in 1963, polling showed that only 5 percent of the country—a fringe—subscribed to the radical anti-government views championed by the John Birch Society and other militants of the right. These days, that fringe, whether in the form of birthers or the tea party or the hosts of Fox & Friends, gives marching orders to a major political party.

There you go.  To Mr. Rich, oswald's impeccably left wing credentials do not amount to a hill of beans.  What counts is that Dallas, in 1963, was a right wing town.  Therefore the fact that JFK was assassinated there means the assassination was a product of the right wing. 

(Using that logic, New York City - which was dominated by liberal Democrats for the many years it had far more murders than any other city in the United States - proves that liberal Democrats are the cause of murders.  That's a little something for Mr. Rich and his followers to think about.)

But Rich doesn't stop there.  He also manages to associate the John Birch Society with the Tea Party movement and Fox News' morning show (I'm surprised he didn't expand it to all of Fox News' programming). 

Funny thing, Mr. Rich.  As you point out, the John Birch Society always was an outlier group.  But the Tea Party movement has been credited as a - maybe the - major reason Republicans won over 60 house seats and a half dozen senate seats from Democrats last year.  Could it possibly be that it isn't quite as "fringe" as you fantasize it to be?

If Frank Rich wants to see what a real fringe group is, maybe he should take a close, hard look at the "Occupy" protesters.  Better yet, maybe he should wait until next year and see how many Democrat candidates openly support the "Occupy" movement - and how many house and senate seats they win because of that support. 

But, then again, doing that that would make sense.  And partisan perversion doesn't allow for a lot of sense. 

Even if the person in question is not an imbecile.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a quick overview of my reaction to what seems like the 3,812th Republican presidential debate.

The more debates I watch, the more I come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is probably the best candidate Republicans have.  He is poised, knowledgable, articulate and has a résumé I would kill for. 

Yes, Romney has been on both sides of several major issues - which is far from unique among politicians.  But if that disqualified political candidates, we wouldn't have many left, would we?

Besides, Romney ran - and won - as a Massachusetts Republican.  That doesn't happen by being a doctrinaire conservative.  In fact, even Rick Santorum (speaking of doctrinaire conservatives) admitted that he had to compromise to get most (75% he said) of what he wanted on major legislation.  Santorum claimed that doing so did not change his principles, which seemed to be an attempt to differentiate his lack of purity from Romney's.  I don't think it did.

Newt Gingrich also is highly knowledgeable.  Gingrich's headline from last night is that he made a comment - and stuck to the comment - that, under very stringent circumstances (e.g. lived here for 25 years, paid taxes, went to church, etc.), illegal Mexicans should be given a path to staying in the country legally - though not as citizens.  This morning's media are trying to make a big deal out of this, suggesting that it is a disastrous position to take in a Republican primary. 

Personally, I doubt that is true.  Gingrich's example a) describes a tiny percentage of illegals who b) by their lifestyles would grace their communities.  Even hardliners would have a problem arguing with that.

Herman Cain remains a singleminded businessman type, who is way, way out of his league when it comes to politics.

Rick Perry performed better than he has at other debates.  But that's all it is; a better, more successfully rehearsed performance.  His goose is cooked.

Ron Paul certainly speaks from strong personal conviction, and certainly has a loyal cadre of supporters.  But some of his positions are whacko, and he has a horrible history of attracting the worst kind of people (nazis, White supremacists) who seem to find him a very desirable choice.  I would vote for Barack Obama 100 times out of 100 over Paul - not that it matters, since he isn't getting the nomination.

John Huntsman is an exasperating candidate.  Given his background and track record, Huntsman might well be the best candidate to run against Barack Obama.  But no one seems to care about his candidacy. 

Michele Bachmann is now an afterthought.

The bottom line?  As of now (and always subject to change - this is politics, let's remember) I expect Mitt Romney to be the nominee. 

And, if he wants a Vice Presidential nominee who has significant political experience, might bring in a key state, and who is more conservative than he is, thus attractive to the Tea Party set, two-time Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum would be a very logical choice.

Ken Berwitz

Last night, on Fox News' Special Report, Charles Krauthammer (one of the best columnists - maybe the single best  - we have) explained President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign just about perfectly:

"Everything he does is about campaigning. He gave up the governance phase of this term about three months ago. 

This payroll tax cut and demanding that it be paid for by taxing the 1%. It's part of an Occupy Wall Street campaign. That's what he is running. It's you and me, the president is saying, against the 1%. This is what everything he does has to do with.

He doesn't expect any of this ever to end up being enacted. It's all a pose"

Yep. 

The issue is whether voters see through it.  I wonder how many will.

Ken Berwitz

There is ignorance, and there is IGNORANCE.  Here is an example of IGNORANCE, from Ray Downs' article at christianpost.com:

José Benítez, the mayor of Huarmey, a town on the coast of central Peru, claims that the high levels of strontium in the local tap water is reducing male hormones and causing an increase in the homosexual population, reported Peruvian newspaper, La Republica.

Benitez made the comments at the launch of a local water access project, it was reported. The mayor's audience was surprised by his comments, and he is being criticized by some for his "ignorance."

Dr. Robert Castro Rodriguez, dean of the College of Pharmaceutical Chemistry of Lima, said Benitez's claims were off the mark, telling a Peruvian radio station that high amounts of strontium could lead to bone cancer, anemia and cardiovascular complications, but not homosexuality.

This is not the first time a South American politician has blamed chemistry for homosexuality. In 2009, Bolivian president Evo Morales said that hormones injected into chicken can not only turn people gay, but bald as well.

There are few things on this planet talked about with more ignorance than homosexuality.  And people like José Benitez and Evo Morales seem determined to prove it.

Let me make this very simple.  Being homosexual is not from strontium in tap water.  It is not from chicken hormones.  Nor is it a conscious decision.   

Case in point:  I am heterosexual.  I am, and have always been, attracted to the opposite sex.  I am not heterosexual because I sat down with a piece of paper, listed out the good and bad points of heterosexuality and determined it was the way to go.  I am heterosexual because that is my personal nature.

Being homosexual is exactly the same thing.  Gay people are not gay because they sit down with a piece of paper, list out the good and bad points of homosexuality and determine it is the way to go.  They are homosexual because that is their personal nature. 

It is true that homosexual people can choose whether or not to engage in homosexual activity.  But that decision has nothing to do with who they are and what sex they are attracted to, any more than a heterosexual person's decision to engage or not engage in heterosexual activity changes the fact that he/she is heterosexual.

I hope that is clear.  If not, I apologize for my inability to make it so.  If I could think of a clearer way to say this, believe me, it would be in front of you right now.

Ok, enough about ignorance.  Back to politics (oh wait, I guess we're still dealing with ignorance, aren't we?)

Ken Berwitz

This one is for anyone who objects to Newt Gingrich's exhortation that "Occupy" protesters should go out and get jobs.

I just read a blog by Ken Shepherd (nice first name!) of newsbusters.org.  In it, he quotes from a Washington Post Article, featuring an "Occupy" protester named Dylan Bozlee. 

Bozlee, who self-identifies as an anarchist, dropped out of college to participate in the "Occupy" protests.  And he has an interesting take on life, which I thought you might like to read.  Here it is:

"Do I want to work? Only if I wanted a home, wife, kids and a dog. If not, I think you're ruining your life"

In other words, to college dropout Dylan Bozlee, the only reason to work is if you want to live what I'm sure he sees as a whitebread, "Leave It To Beaver" existence.  It has nothing to do with being a productive human being.  No no no.  Much better to be a parasite, living off the people who, ruinously in his mind, see a connection between what they earn and what they get.

How many other Dylan Bozlees do you figure there are among the "Occupy" protesters?  Or, maybe the question should be how many "Occupy" protesters do you figure are not like Dylan Bozlee?

But wait.  Bozlee and his non-working pals may have a point.

In Los Angeles today, "city officials" (translation:  Antonio Villaraigosa, the city's pusillanimous Mayor)  have offered "Occupy" protesters 10,000 feet of free office space - excuse me, $1 a year - and free farmland if they want to do some farming.  In return, the "Occupy" crowd has to leave their squatter's camp at city hall.

Way to go, Mr. Mayor!  They plopped themselves down illegally, have been making demands for the better (make that worse) part of two months ---  and instead of having the police remove them from the land they have no right to be on, you're going to bribe them with a deal that you would never give any productive businessperson or farmer. 

As long as there are losers like Antonio Villagairosa's out there, the Dylan Bozlees of the world have a point.  And as long as Angelinos keep electing losers like Villagairosa, they deserve all the Dylan Bozlees who show up.

Ken Berwitz

The holiday season is a time for caring and giving. 

And I can think of no better way to do both, than by getting involved with the Adopt A Soldier program.

The military consists of men and women who voluntarily serve and defend our country - often thousands of miles from home, in places where their lives are in danger every day.

In the Adopt A Soldier program, you will be given the name of an individual member of the military whom you can communicate with, and supply with some of the basic items that would be in his/her stateside home (e.g. toiletries, music CD's, snacks and other goodies that travel well, etc.).  Things that we take for granted because they are easily available stateside, but are nearly impossible to get in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, etc.  

Participating in this program is easy, and inexpensive.  But it can mean everything to a soldier; especially at this time of year.  Not just for the goodies that you might send, but because it means someone cares, and thinks he/she is important enough to go the extra distance for.

Interested?  I hope so. 

If you would like to Adopt A Soldier, please contact Mr. Michael Anderson.  His email address is michaelanderson76@comcast.net.

This is part of what Mr. Anderson sent when my wife and I asked to be a part of Adopt A Soldier (the rest involves the individual soldier, and I'll keep that personal):

I am sending you the name of a soldier and suggestions on items you may want to send and instructions for how to send packages to a military APO address. Believe me, anything you send will be appreciated. My son was deployed last year in Iraq and mail from home was always a big deal. We sent packages every week as many of the men in his Platoon (21 soldiers) did not get much support from home. Many of these kids are deployed in remote areas and do not get mail for weeks on end. Your package will be appreciated. The soldiers share items so if one does not need an item, they share with the rest of their team.

I am also attaching a PDF file showing how a gentleman from Atlantic County (NJ) put his packages together as well as a picture my son sent to me showing a typical mail delivery in Iraq.

IMPORTANT:  PLEASE ACT QUICKLY.  It takes 1 - 3 weeks for mail to get to some of the places your soldier might be deployed, and they recommend that items tied to the holiday season be sent by November 25th (though - this is me talking, not Michael - I suspect you can go over by a few days).

Thanks in advance for your participation.

Ken Berwitz

There is new information about the MF-Global scandal.  And it is worse than what we originally were told.  A lot worse.

Instead of involving about $633 million dollars - itself a major scandal - it now is believed to involve well over 1 billion dollars - money that is missing and probably either lost forever, or has been stolen (which, effectively is the same thing).

This is what caused MF-Global to suddenly declare bankruptcy, and summarily let go over 1,000 workers, basically with nothing but the shirts on their backs.

Who ran MF-Global into the ground?  None other than jon corzine.  A fabulously wealthy Democrat who formerly headed Goldman Sachs, was the Democrat Senator from New Jersey and then its Governor. 

Is that a major news story?  I assume you know I am asking a rhetorical question:  it, of course, is huge.

The news that MF-Global is missing about 1.2 billion dollars - double the initial estimates - came out yesterday.  So it would be big news in, say, the New York Times and the Today show, right?

The New York Times does not have this on its front page.  Or even in its news section.  If you happen to read the Business section that's where you'll find it. 

And, unless I missed it when I showered - which was well into the show, thus not in "major story" territory - Today has not done a story on it at all.  Maybe it was mentioned in passing, maybe not.  But that's the extent of it.

This is journalism?  This is neutrality?  This is integrity? 

Would they have buried this enormous scandal on behalf of a Republican who was CEO of a Wall Street company, and US Senator, and State Governor?  Yeah, sure.  And Kim Kardashian just joined a nunnery and took a vow of poverty.

How do these people call themselves journalists?  How do they even look at themselves in the mirror?

And why would you trust anything they tell you?

Ken Berwitz

We all know there is virtually no voter fraud in the United States. 

After all, the george soros-funded Brennan Center for Justice says so.  And it calls itself nonpartisan, so it must be telling the truth.

The New York Times agrees wholeheartedly.  And it calls itself nonpartisan too.  So that ends the issue, right?

Welllll, maybe not.

Artur Davis is a former Democrat house member from Alabama, who ran (albeit unsuccessfully) for Governor as well.  He is now practicing law in Virginia and out of elective politics.  Last month he made a statement expressing regret that he went along with his Democrat colleagues in fighting Voter ID legislation. 

That stirred up quite a hornet's nest - understandably, since we all know from the Brennan Center, the New York Times, and many likeminded venues, that there is no need for Voter ID because there is almost no voter fraud.

Well, Mr. Davis has done it again.  He has made another statement; this time directly confronting the claim of no voter fraud.  And since he was not only a multi-term congressperson, but also a Democrat - i.e. a member of the party desperately fighting Voter ID legislation - I would think his words are worth paying attention to. 

So here they are, courtesy of the following excerpt from an interview Mr. Davis conducted with Neil Munro of the daily caller:

“What I have seen in my state, in my region, is the the most aggressive practitioners of voter-fraud are local machines who are tied lock, stock and barrel to the special interests in their communities — the landfills, the casino operators — and they’re cooking the [ballot] boxes on election day, they’re manufacturing absentee ballots, they’re voting Donald Duck, because they want to control politics and thwart progress.

“People who are progressives have no business defending those individuals, those kinds of people.”

The dailycaller.com video runs just 4:55.  And it is absolutely devastating.  You can see it by clicking here.  I strongly urge you to do so.

I would urge the benighted and/or dishonest folks (mostly dishonest, I think) at the Brennan Center and the New York Times, along with their left wing cohorts, to view it as well.  But I doubt it will do any good.  Because I suspect they know this already.

Ken Berwitz

Note to our wonderful "neutral" media:  The MF Global fund, headed by Democrat Jon Corzine, which just declared bankruptcy and summarily laid off over 1,000 employees, probably is not missing $630 million dollars.  It probably is missing over $1 billion dollars.

Excerpted from Patrick Rizzo's article at (of all places) msnbc:

More than $1.2 billion of customers' funds may be missing from the accounts of a brokerage formerly run by former New Jersey Gov.  Jon Corzine, double previous estimates, the court-appointed trustee overseeing the brokerage's bankruptcy said Monday.

"At present, the Trustee believes that even if he recovers everything that is at U.S. depositories, the apparent shortfall in what MF Global management should have segregated at U.S. depositories may be as much as $1.2 billion or more," the trustee, James W. Giddens said in a statement.

The statement released by the trustee's office said even that estimate was preliminary and could change.

NOW do you think you might give this major-story status?  Or is Corzine's being a Democrat - and one who was heavily supported by Barack Obama - still enough to keep it at "and in other news" status?

I would ask this of the "Occupy" protesters too.  But they have made it so plain that they are willing to pick and choose which slimeballs they attack and which they give a free pass to that it would be a waste of my time.

Ken Berwitz

There have been numerous acts of vandalism at "Occupy" sites.  But little media coverage.

There have been anti-Semitic speakers, and signs at "Occupy sites.  But little media coverage.

There have been rapes at "Occupy" sites.  But little media coverage.

There have been deaths at "Occupy" sites (7 that we know about so far).  But little media coverage.

At an 'Occupy" protest on UC - Davis campus, a row of protesters who refused to leave were pepper sprayed by an overzealous police officer, which temporarily made them uncomfortable.  The media coverage has been nothing short of massive.

Why do I call them "Accomplice Media"?  If you didn't know before, I assume you know now.

Ken Berwitz

Ray Donovan was a Secretary of Labor under Ronald Reagan.  In 1987, after being acquitted of trumped up fraud charges, he famously asked "Which office do I go to, to get my reputation back?"

If former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens were alive today, he would be asking the same question. 

Excerpted from Brad Heath's article in USA Today:

An investigation of prosecutors responsible for the botched corruption case against the late Alaska senator Ted Stevens found evidence of "significant, widespread and at times intentional misconduct," but recommended that the prosecutors not face criminal charges.

 

The findings in a two-and-a-half-year investigation by Washington lawyer Henry Schuelke III were revealed Monday in an order from U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan. Sullivan wrote that the investigation found the Stevens prosecution was "permeated" by the prosecutors' concealment of evidence they collected that could have helped the senator's defense.

 

Stevens had been accused of violating federal ethics laws by failing to disclose more than $250,000 in gifts and services he had used to renovate his home. He lost re-election to the Senate seat he had held for 40 years and died in a plane crash last year.

 

The case against the longtime senator collapsed in 2009 after the U.S. Justice Department admitted that government lawyers failed to disclose evidence that could have undermined the case. Flaws in the case were so significant that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder asked a federal court in Washington to throw it out even though Stevens had already been found guilty.

Obama sock-puppet eric holder threw the case out, even though Ted Stevens was a Republican?  Can you imagine what a phony, fraudulent pile of excrement this must have been?

Well, there's nothing to say about the result, is there?  Ted Stevens lost what would have been an easy victory because of those charges.  And - if you want to play the Morbidity Game - if Stevens had remained a Senator, he would almost certainly not have been on the plane that crashed, thus he might still be alive today.

Now, let's see how tonight's network news shows handle this major scandal.  Let's see what the morning shows say about it tomorrow. 

Will they demand that the prosecutors be relieved of their duties?  Will they note that Democrat Senator Mark Begich owes his seat to their disgraceful actions?  Will they wonder out loud why no criminal charges would be filed against prosecutors who have been found to knowingly conceal exculpatory evidence?

Wanna take bets?

Ken Berwitz

One of the most frequently made arguments for allowing illegal Mexican aliens to stay here is that "they do the jobs nobody else will do".

Well, Alabama has enacted the toughest anti-illegal laws in the country - tougher than those of Arizona.  And we have read reports that illegals are either in hiding or streaming out of the state.  But that should not affect the unemployment rate, should it?  After all, "they do the jobs nobody else will do", right? 

With that in mind, please read this excerpt from Neil Munro's blog at dailycaller.com and see how it matches up with that claim:

Unemployment rates have fallen in Alabama amid new legal pressure on companies to comply with a popular immigration reform law.

September was the first full month that the reform was in force, and the unemployment rate fell from 9.8 percent in September to 9.3 percent in October, according to a Nov. 18 report from the state government.

The rates fell from 9.9 percent to 9 percent in Etowah County, from 8.8 percent to 8.1 percent in Marshall county, and from 11.6 percent to 10.6 percent in DeKalb county.

“The latest fall in unemployment numbers is proof that American citizens will work, and continues to solidify [the evidence] that self-deportation [by illegal immigrants] due to the Alabama Taxpayer & Citizen’s Protection Act is occurring,” said Chuck Ellis, a city council member in Albertville — the main town in Marshall County, northern Alabama.

Does that put the lie to claims that the jobs will go begging if illegals are not there to take them?  You tell me.

Look, I wish all people well, and I wish all Mexican workers looking for employment well.  But the place to take a stand is in Mexico, not the United States.  If there are not enough jobs where you are legal citizens, then march.  Petition.  Agitate.  Mexico is not - repeat, not - a poor country. 

But do not come here, illegally, and take jobs that legal citizens would be doing if you weren't here - along with lowering the wage scale for all workers - legals included - in the areas that you specialize in (such as agriculture and construction).  That is not fair to people who play by the rules.

I now wait to hear the next 1,000,000 stories from our wonderful "neutral" media about what a tragedy it is that illegals cannot continue to take jobs from legals in Alabama.

Ken Berwitz

I just read Mark Finkelstein's blog at newsbusters.org, which describes a very interesting, and telling, piece of today's Morning Joe show, in which Mika Brzezinski - egged on by a left wing Columbia professor named Jeffrey Sachs - unloaded on Newt Gingrich.

What precipitated this outburst?  First a video was played in which Ginrich said the following:

NEWT GINGRICH:  “All the occupying movements start with the premise that we all owe them everything.  They take over a public park they didn’t pay for.  To go nearby to use bathrooms they didn’t pay for.  To beg for food from places they don’t want to pay for.  To obstruct those who are going to work to pay the taxes to sustain the bathrooms and to sustain the park, so they can self-righteously explain that they are the paragons of virtue to which we owe everything……  That is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country, and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them “Go get a job, right after you take a bath”.

It should be noted that the applause and cheering generated by these comments, which I heard when it was played in other media venues, was edited out of the tape on Morning Joe.  Nice going guys - a great demostration of your commitment to journalistic standards.  (You can see/hear the edited video by clicking on the link I have provided to Mark's blog - and the unedited video, with the enthusiastic applause and cheering for what Gingrich had to say, by clicking here.)

Before posting Ms. Brzezinski's reaction, let me point out that she has a long-running feud with Newt Gingrich - in large part because she does not like some of the things he has said about her father, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor.  Add to this the vast difference in their political outlooks, and you've got some real oil-and-water dynamics going.

Here is Ms. Brzezinski's reaction, in rust.  With my thoughts in blue.  Given the length of her statement and my reactions, I've split this up into a series of paragraphs:

MIKA BRZEZINSKI:  Someone needs a bath, and I don't think it's the people from Occupy Wall Street. That's all I'm going to say. That means you’re not saying anything else, right?  Er, wrong.  I've got nothing else. “Ok, that means you’re not saying anything else, right?  Er, wrong again.  

I'm so disgusted by that that something horrible is going to come . . . I, I, am I alone here? Not on Morning Joe you’re not.  Am I over-reacting [note quavering voice]? Can't tell yet.  We’re still waiting for you to say something.   

I'm sickened by that . . . It's fair to say he's in the 1%, correct? Yes it is fair to say it.  But it is fair to say that you are too.  And so are most of the people who you have on Morning Joe, including Joe himself.  Is there a point in this somewhere? 

He's telling the 99% to take a bath and get a job?  No, Mika, he is telling the people in the occupying movements to do so.  The only way what you just said makes sense is if you equate the "occupy" protesters with 99% of the country.  That’s what they claim, and apparently you are on board with them.  But do you have any evidence - maybe a poll or two - showing that 99% of the country says these people speak for them?  Nope.  So we’re still waiting for your point.  

Really? Really, I wonder how they do that right now. How, given the state of this country, how anyone's going to just get a job and take a bath. You can’t figure out how people get jobs?  They go out and look for them.  They fill out job applications.  They go on interviews.  They sure don't get jobs by camping out in a public park, demanding free everything, and whining that nobody hired them.  Is that how you got your job?  As far as how anyone takes a bath, they fill a bathtub with hot water, take a bar of soap, and….I have a feeling you can figure out the rest.  

Who is this man?  Who does he think he is?  He apparently thinks he is someone with an opinion.  You have them too, Mika.  And why is he surging in the polls? I don't get it.   Here’s a thought:  Maybe a lot of people agree with him; certainly about the “occupy” protesters.  Hint:  That’s probably why he got the enthusiastically positive reaction that your people – maybe at your personal request for all I know – edited out of the video you showed.  

I mean,to hear Newt Gingrich standing on literally his high horse, Literally?  Newt Gingrich stands on high horses? after taking advantage of the system, cashing in, You mean being compensated for what he does?  Isn’t that how you cash in, Mika?  being the biggest, literally the biggest hypocrite in the Republican field, probably in politics today.   The biggest hypocrite.  You consider providing consultational services in return for a mutually agreed-upon compensation to be hypocrisy?  No wonder you’re so enthralled with the “occupy” movement. 

And then to cast aspersions and to speak down to these people as if--plghhh--they should be flipped away? It's disgusting.  It's absolutely disgusting.  Just curious, Mika:  how often have you expressed your disgust for the illegal squatting, the freeloading, the anti-Semitism, the violence, the rapes, the vandalism and the 7 (that we know of so far) deaths at these “occupy locations?  Ever?  Maybe you ought to rethink your priorities just a bit.  Like 100%. 

It's a very angry way to start the show. I'm extremely sorry.  But it's the first time I'd seen that.  And it literally made my skin crawl.  I can't believe he resonates.   That’s because you are a left wing elitist who cannot understand why anyone could disagree with you.  Don’t blame Gingrich for that.  Oh, and by the way, we’re still waiting for you to make a point.

Ok, there they are.  Gingrich's comments about "occupy movement" people, Brzezinski's comments about Gingrich, and my comments about Brzezinski.  You decide who, if anyone, is making sense.

Ken Berwitz

This is not the kind of stuff I usually write about.  But I feel as though I should say something about the re-opening of an investigation into the death of film star Natalie Wood.

As you may be aware,  in late November, 1981, Ms. Wood drowned off the California coast during a night on board the yacht, "Splendour", which she owned with her husband, actor Robert Wagner.  

The two had been fighting about something and, according to the captain, Dennis Davern, he saw them continue the fight on the aft deck. 

A period of time later, Wagner told Davern he could not find Wood on the ship.  They looked, and could not find her on board.  Davern claimed Wagner did not seem concerned.  But the yacht's dinghy (small auxiliary boat) was missing and, it was speculated, she decided to take it back to land.  The next day, her body was found in the water, about a mile from where the yacht had been.

Ms. Wood's death was ruled an accident.  But now, suddenly after 30 years, the investigation has been re-opened. 

Why?  What changed?

Well, two things changed: 

-One is that Dennis Davern has come forth to tell us that, in his opinion, Robert Wagner had something to do with Ms. Wood's drowning.  He was on the Today show Friday morning - looking like a garbage pile in good-will clothes, incidentally - and did not give a straight answer to any question about what happened on the boat.  At one point David Gregory, visibly exasperated by Davern's non-responses, asked him why he bothered to come on the show. 

Two years ago, Davern "wrote" a book (I assume his collaborator, an advertising woman named Marti Rulli, really wrote it) about the incident.  I don't think it did very well then.  But, while sales have not exactly gone through the roof, they have been far more brisk now that people are aware that there is a re-investigation;

-Another is that Lana Wood, Natalie Wood's sister and also a successful actress (though not as successful as Natalie), who "retired" (I don't know her actual reasons) for almost a quarter century, has decided to get back into the business in a big way.  According to the Internet Movie Data Base Ms. Wood's career petered out in the early 1980's and she had no screen credits at all from 1985 to 2008.  But, right now, she has 6 - count 'em, 6 - projects either announced, in pre-production, in production or filming. 

Wouldn't it be great to have a big dollop of publicity right about now?  And isn't it fortuitous that, because of the re-investigation, she is a hot commodity again?  

Ms. Wood also did a segment - a very strange one, regarding her supposed conversations with Captain Davern many years ago - on the Today show just this morning.  And I am certain she will be all over the airwaves for the near future.  What a great boost to her un-retirement!

You may gather from this that I am very suspicious of the motivations behind this re-investigation.  If so, you are correct.

Do I know that Natalie Wood is being used by Dennis Davern and Lana Wood for personal gain?  No I do not.

Do Mr. Davern and Ms. Wood benefit by the timing of this re-investigation?  You bet they do.

Is that why I am suspicious about why, after laying dormant for 30 years, Natalie Wood's death is being looked at again.  Yes.

That's my take on it.  You, of course, can make your own call.

Ken Berwitz

Will the "Occupy Oakland" protesters successfully make a fool of Mayor Jean Quan? 

God knows, they've done it before.  Will this be round 2?

Excerpted from article at msnbc.com:

Anti-Wall Street protesters took over a vacant lot and adjacent park in downtown Oakland late Saturday and erected a tent camp to replace one torn down by police, setting the stage for a potential showdown.

Protesters marched to the lot and tore down a chain-link fence before pitching tents as a light rain started. Police on the scene did not immediately intervene and the camp later expanded into an adjacent public park.

"Occupy Oakland has a new home at 19th and Telegraph," organizers said in a message to supporters, adding there would be a big "housewarming" party. "Bring tents!"

The move appeared to be a direct challenge to Oakland police who less than a week ago forcibly dismantled a similar protest camp nearby , and risked igniting a confrontation. Police have said they would not allow another encampment.

When the "Occupy Oakland" scam arti....er, sincere protesters set up shop in the original location - a public park they had no legal right to expropriate from the public, Mayor Quan not only did not roust them, she stated her support for them.

However, after almost two months of increasingly loud, abusive, unsanitary conditions, coupled with increasingly violent confrontations, then a couple of deaths at or near the camp.......she finally decided to dabble in sanity and had the park cleared out. 

Now they are back, after breaking through a fence (which undoubtedly is illegal) and setting up shop in a second public park (which undoubtedly is also illegal). 

What will Mayor Quan do now?  Wait for it to fester and degenerate into what it became last time? 

We'll be watching......

Ken Berwitz

Where do at least a couple of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters stay, now that Zuccotti Park is no longer home (if it ever was to these two)?

Here's your answer, via excerpts from the New York Post's exclusive story.  (And hotel-wise, boy does that "excusive" term ever fit):

Hell no, we won’t go — unless we get goose down pillows.

A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can “unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko,” The Post has learned.

The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.

“Tents are not for me,” he confessed, when confronted in the sleek black lobby of the Washington Street hotel where sources described him as a “repeat” guest.

Spitzer, 24, an associate at financial-services giant Deloitte, which netted $29 billion in revenue last year, admitted he joined the protest at Zuccotti Park several times.

“I’m staying here for work,” said Spitzer, dressed down in a company T-shirt and holding a backpack and his suitcase. “I do finance, but I support it still.”

During his stay, hotel sources said, he and other ragtag revolutionaries he brought into the hotel lived like 1 percenters. He would order up a roll-out bed to accommodate guests, they said.

“He’s here all the time,” a hotel source said. “We all see him at the protest.”

Spitzer denied sheltering Occupiers. He claimed he only invited in a blogger buddy living at the park to wash off his camp grime.

Meanwhile, Dutro, 35, one of only a handful of OWS leaders in charge of the movement’s $500,000 in donations, checked in on Wednesday, the night after police emptied Zuccotti Park.

While hundreds of his rebel brethren scrambled to find shelter in church basements, Dutro chose the five-star, 58-story hotel, with its lush rooms and 350-count Egyptian cotton sheets. He lives only a short taxi ride away in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Does that make you wonder how many other "Occupy" protesters live it up when they're not posturing for the cameras? 

Does it make you wonder just how hypocritical some "protesters" really are, and what they're really about?

I hope so.  Because it should.

And now that The Post has opened the door, maybe a few more of our wonderful "neutral" media venues might do a bit more exploration of just who and what the "Occupy" protesters are as well - not just the luxury-hotel crowd, but the anarchists and down-with-the USA radicals, and anti-Semites and......etc. etc. etc.. 

Or would that go to far towards meeting their journalistic responsibilities?

Ken Berwitz

There is a lot to dislike about Newt Gingrich. 

If you are a family-first kind of person, the fact that he is on his third marriage and clearly was philandering while married to his first two wives (maybe this one too, for all we know) would be right up there.

If you are political conservative, his seven-figure consulting deal with Freddy Mac and his on-again off-again flirtation with mandated health care would almost certainly be eating at you.

But one charge, a really awful one, which has dogged Gingrich for about 30 years now, should be debunked. 

Newt Gingrich did not serve his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital dying of cancer.  That was, and remains, a 100% lie.  Yet you can still hear and read about this "fact" today.

Here is what actually happened, from what I would consider a pretty reliable source:  his daughter - who was there at the time.  It comes to us via excerpts from her personal account at creators.com.  The bold print is mine:

My mother and I have both recently run into quite a few people who hold an inaccurate understanding of this hospital visit. Many think my mother is dead.

So, to correct the record, here is what happened: My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive, and often spends time with my family. I am lucky to have such a "Miracle Mom," as I titled her in a column this week.

As for my parents' divorce, I can remember when they told me.

It was the spring of 1980.

 

I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.

 

Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.

It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won't repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here's what happened:

My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.

Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.

She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.

The tumor was benign.

My mother and father are alive and well, and my sister and I are blessed to have a close relationship with them both. 

Let's review the lies that have been told about this incident: 

-He didn't serve her with divorce papers in the hospital;

-She wasn't in the hospital dying of cancer; she was there to have a tumor removed - a benign tumor, as it turned out;

-She did not die of cancer, she is still alive today.

Yet, for something like 30 years we have heard that all this happened.  That is the power of an Accomplice Media. 

There are many people who don't like Newt Gingrich - and there are certainly valid reasons not to.  That's fine.  But let's keep them to reasons that actually exist; not reasons that were invented out of hatred for Gingrich and perpetuated by political and media liars.

Ken Berwitz

In name, UNESCO stands for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

In reality, UNESCO stands for very different things.

According to David Halper's blog at weeklystandard.com:

On Wednesday, the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad was chosen to be the Arab representative on the UNESCO committee the deals with issues relating to the implementation of human rights.

UNESCO's decision comes after Assad's regime managed to kill 3,500 demonstrators and arrest tens of thousands, without any due process whatsoever.

Can that possibly be true?  It seems to be.

So what would you call an organization that names a murderous butcher who is in the act of killing his own people by the thousands, as the representative for a bloc of 22 states?  Educational?  Scientific?  Cultural?  I don't think so.

How about insane?  Malevolent?  Sick?  Far more concerned with currying favor among Arab countries than worrying about human rights?   Don't those descriptions fit a lot better?

Or you can simplify, and just call it the United Nations. 

Why do we fund this morally, spiritually and ethically dead organization? 

Ken Berwitz

With thanks, and apologies, to John Hinderaker of www.powerlineblog.com, I am reposting his latest blog in its entirety.   I do so only because it is too short to excerpt.  Mr. Hinderaker, of course, has a standing offer to lift anything he wants from this site (just try to spell my name right).

Read it and understand how committed Barack Obama is to keeping the United States dependent on foreign sources for our energy - often foreign sources that hate us and wish for the end of western civilization:

Obama’s Job-Destroying Machine Grinds On

I can’t figure out whether it is due to malice or incompetence; all I know is, if you wanted to hurt America’s economy, you would do pretty much everything the Obama administration does. Energy policy is the absolute worst. First Obama delayed (and perhaps killed) the Keystone pipeline. Michael Ramirez sums up that decision, which can be explained only as an economically irrational attempt to shore up the president’s liberal base in advance of next year’s election: 

It seems that every day brings a new Obama administration outrage. Today, it was the USDA’s decision to delay shale drilling in Ohio:

President Obama’s United States Department of Agriculture has delayed shale gas drilling in Ohio for up to six months by cancelling a mineral lease auction for Wayne National Forest (WNF). The move was taken in deference to environmentalists, on the pretext of studying the effects of hydraulic fracturing. …

Speaking of the WNF gas drilling, one environmentalist group spokesman suggested that moving forward with drilling “could turn the Ohio Valley into Ozone Alley,” even though Wayne National Forest already has nearly 1300 oil and gas wells in operation which this study does not affect.

It has been estimated that that drilling in the Utica shale will produce up 204,500 jobs by 2015. The Obama administration claims that those jobs have only been delayed and are not gone forever. Sure. In the unlikely event that Obama is re-elected, the only constraint on his economically destructive policies will be gone, and we can expect him to do everything possible to kill energy production and destroy job creation.

 Given this, and other actions (e.g. preventing new domestic offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico while effectively susidizing Brazil's drilling), it is hard not to conclude that President Obama proactively wants us to remain energy dependent.

Why?  I consider this about 2% misguided environmentalism and 98% politics.  You, of course, will decide for yourself.

Meanwhile, we continue to spend untold billions and trillions on foreign oil, when we could be using our own domestic reserves - and creating a ton of jobs in the process.

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

I love this.

Michelle Fields of dailycaller.com approached a group of self-proclaimed "wealthiest 1%" people with an ipod connected to the US Treasury web site where people can voluntarily donate additional tax money.

She asked a number of them if they would like to do so:  i.e. instead of forcing everyone to do what they are saying, and then - without a camera and microphone around - maybe having their tax accountants retrieve some or all of it, they were asked to simply give additional tax money based on their own principles.

Now what do you suppose happened? 

Here is the video.  Watch it and prepare to be surpri , er, not surprised at all:

CLICK HERE TO SEE VIDEO

I think the operative term here is "full of excrement".....but that last word actually might be a bit shorter.

Go back to your rich lives and your tax accountants, fellas.  Nobody buys your BS.  Not even the people who congratulate your for your selfless sacrifice -  you know, the selfless sacrifice that you won't engage in when the cameras are rolling and the microphone is on.

Ken Berwitz

Larry Elder had Chris Matthews on his radio show to promote Matthews' new book about John F. Kennedy.

Instead, they had a war.  A war of words, but a war nonetheless.  And Elder not only prevented Matthews from dominating the conversation by talking over him (which, along with lunatic-fringe hatred for all things Republicans is what Matthews does these days), he got more than his share in. 

And Mr. Matthews was not happy about it.  Thermo-nuclearly not happy about it.

Here's a fun game:  as you listen, try to count how many times Matthews whines and pouts like he needs a diaper change. 

Ken Berwitz

Here's an interesting take from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on who was running yesterday's (largely unsuccessful) "Occupy Wall Street" day of disruption.  It comes to us via excerpts from MJ Lee's article at politico.com:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested Friday that unions took over the Occupy Wall Street protest yesterday.

“A vast percentage of the people were union members protesting — some private unions and then some municipal unions — and they had, you know, organized signs and leadership and that sort of thing,” Bloomberg said on WOR radio station Friday. “So it really wasn’t the protesters that have been in Zuccotti Park or that you see around the country.”

Bloomberg added, “It was just an opportunity for a bunch of unions to complain or to protest or whatever they want to do.”

Executive director of United NY Camille Rivera who was involved in coordinating Thursday’s rallies pushed back on the mayor’s comments.

“It wasn’t all unions. That’s an inaccurate response. It was a coalition of communities,” Rivera told POLITICO. “The mayor should take a look at the all the videos and all the photos of the day’s events where the thousands of people were not just union members. It was people from across the city that came out in response, in outrage over what’s happened over the course of the week.”

Bloomberg also suggested to the Occupiers that it was time to move on. “There are problems in the country. The ways to fix those problems — you can make yourself heard, which I think has been done. But now it’s time to get back and build our economy.” 

Who is right?  Well, let me give you an easy way to figure it out:  if you see lots of identical signs - i.e. someone ran them off on a printing press very quickly - you can pretty much bet it is unions.  And there were lots of identical signs.

I have a feeling that the original group of "Occupy Wall Street" protesters are feeling a lot like the original protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square.  They thought they were the movement but, instead, they were just moved out of the way. 

See, the way it works is that when media give a huge amount of coverage to a group of protesters, most of it highly sympathetic, other groups immediately try to get into the act.  Eventually the loudest and the strongest run the show.  In New York, and most other major cities, that spells U N I O N S.

So, to a great extent, the "Occupy" protesters have, themselves, become occupied. 

Think they're enjoying it?

Ken Berwitz

We are now up to 51 house members demanding that the disgraceful, incompetent toady and Obama sock-puppet, eric holder, resign as Attorney General.  The reason?  His involvement in, and lies about, Operation Fast and Furious.

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

The surge in congressional calls for Attorney General Eric Holder’s immediate resignation has reached a new milestone: More than 50 members of Congress are now demanding Holder step down in the wake of Operation Fast and Furious.

The number of congressmen calling for Holder’s immediate resignation is now 51. New additions to that list include Republican Reps. Todd Akin and Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri, Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, Steven Palazzo of Mississippi and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.

Rep. Westmoreland said Operation Fast and Furious was a disgrace to the American people and that Holder needs to resign immediately.

“Fast and Furious played fast and loose with the American public’s safety, leaving a U.S. Border patrol agent dead and DOJ-purchased guns in the hands of Mexican drug lords,” Westmoreland told The Daily Caller. “To say this program was a failure and an embarrassment to the U.S. justice system is an understatement.”

“No matter how many times the attorney general’s statement of when he was aware of Operation Fast and Furious changes — and it has changed almost daily — at the end of the day, he is the head of the Department of Justice and the buck stops with him,” said Westmoreland.

 (THE DAILY CALLER: Complete Operation Fast and Furious coverage)

The White House and the Justice Department remain silent as pressure for Holder’s immediate resignation builds, which may be a sign that the Obama administration is prepared to force Holder out if it is politically necessary

How much longer must we endure this incompetent liar as our Attorney General? 

And how much longer will our Accomplice Media protect him, by either under-covering the Operation Fast and Furious scandal or not covering it at all?

How do they call themselves journalists?  How do they even look at themselves in the mirror?

Ken Berwitz

National Public Radio (NPR) has aired a multi-part series on the "kidnapping" of I\indian (or native American - your choice) children in South Dakota.

Based on an extensive, five-part analysis by John Hinderaker of powerlineblog.com, the story is fraudulent.  And I don't mean a little fraudulent, I mean a complete hit job that ignores facts and makes things up as it goes along. 

I am going to give you a little bit of Part five which, I would hope, will hook you into reading the rest.  If Mr. Hinderaker is correct (and, based on what he is showing, I would bet just about everything I have on him) this is a truly stunning cesspool of deceit, partisanship, sloppiness and journalistic malfeasance.

Read this:

We are nearing the end of my investigation into NPR’s disgraceful three-part series on South Dakota’s Department of Social Services. NPR alleged that the state agency “kidnaps” Indian children from Indian reservations, and places them in white foster homes because it profits by doing so, and because this kidnapping scheme financially benefits South Dakota’s current governor, Dennis Daugaard. I deconstructed these absurd accusation here, here, here and here. NPR’s story was, to put it politely, a tissue of lies and deceptions. In a sane world, South Dakota’s responsible officials would be able to sue NPR for defamation. That, of course, is not the world we live in.

Apart from all of NPR’s specific misrepresentations and errors, a broader and more important point looms over the series on South Dakota’s Indians. There is, indeed, a terrible problem, but NPR didn’t have the courage to identify it honestly. Unemployment on South Dakota’s reservations runs around 80%. There are hardly any jobs, other than manning convenience stores. Tribal leaders have estimated that the alcoholism rate also runs around 80%. Think about it: who would want to live in a place where there are virtually no jobs? Only those who are content with dependency and happy to live on welfare. There are plenty of hard-working, ambitious Indians, but few of them live on reservations.

If you imagine a place where 80% of the people are unemployed and 80%–not coincidentally–are also alcoholics, do you suppose that there will be serious problems involving children? Problems like abuse and neglect? Of course. Hence, by virtue of requests that it gets from tribal law enforcement and directives from tribal courts, South Dakota’s Department of Social Services has the unenviable task of trying to rescue some of those abused or neglected children.

That is the real story, but NPR didn’t have the courage to tell it. NPR would have been hampered, of course, by the fact that state employees are barred by confidentiality laws from talking about the facts of particular cases. So it was much easier for a lazy NPR reporter–in this case, Laura Sullivan–to simply take the tall tales that she was told on the reservations as gospel. That was bad enough, but she added her own endorsement of those fables, and worse yet, her own fabrications.

Did that get your attention? I certainly hope so.

I strongly urge you to use John's links and read the first four parts of this incredible exposé.  Then use this link to read the rest of Part V.

Unless you started at the bottom, I doubt that you will ever think of NPR the same way again.

Ken Berwitz

I read about Jon Corzine and MF Global in today's New York Times.  Not on the front page, or even in the news section; it was relegated to the business section.  On line, it wasn't even among the lead business stories; you had to click into Business to find it down the list.

Read the first few paragraphs of Azam Ahmed and Ben Protess's article, see just how big the story is - and then wonder where the story would have been placed if Jon Corzine were a Republican:

MF Global improperly diverted customers’ cash for its own use in the days before its bankruptcy, an act that regulators believe may help explain why $600 million of customer funds remains missing, people briefed on the investigation say.

Investigators have now zeroed in on hundreds of millions of dollars in suspect borrowing at the commodities and derivatives brokerage firm, which at the time of its collapse was run by Jon S. Corzine, the former Democratic governor of New Jersey. At least some of that money was used to cover trading losses at MF Global, regulators suspect, meaning the money may no longer be simply missing. It may be gone.

MF Global, like other brokers, can use customer cash if it puts up sufficient collateral. But the firm did not provide enough backing in late October, essentially taking free loans, said the people briefed on the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry was continuing.

It is unclear what MF Global did with all of the money or whether it can be recovered. The firm may have used some of the cash to keep its own lenders at bay, which means the money could be sitting in an account at another firm.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest from Egypt - the site of what our wonderful "neutral" media have been calling a foreign policy victory for President Obama.

It is excerpted from an article at msnbc.com:

Over 50,000 Egyptian protesters flocked to Cairo's Tahrir Square Friday to pressure the military government to transfer power to elected civilian rule, after the cabinet tried to enshrine the army's role in a constitutional proposal.

 

The protesters, mostly bearded men and veiled women, sang religious chants before Friday prayers, while others handed out flyers demanding the withdrawal of the constitutional proposal and presidential elections be held no later than April 2012.

 

"Does the government want to humiliate the people? The people revolted against Mubarak and they will revolt against the constitution they want to impose on us," a member of an orthodox Islamic Salafi group cried out over loud speakers, to the cheers of thousands of protesters.

 

Deputy Prime Minister Ali al-Silmi showed a constitutional draft to political groups earlier this month which would give the army exclusive authority over its internal affairs and budget.  

Does this look to you like a battle between the military and the shari'a law fundamentalists for who takes over Egypt?  Because it sure looks that way to me.

Tell me:  which one of those two results would be a victory for democracy? 

Is this the "Arab Spring" President Obama and his acolytes in the media were bragging about?  Or does it finally teach them that, before advocating to get rid of something bad, you better be damn sure it won't be replaced with something even worse.

With "foreign policy victories" like these, who needs defeats?

Ken Berwitz

Last night my wife and I were watching a news report about the "Occupy" protests in New York.

As we watched them try, desperately, to disrupt New York City as much as possible (and fail in doing so), my wife asked me a question that I can't get out of my mind:

“Why isn’t anyone asking what it would take to get them to pack up and go home?”

Exactly!

We all know what the protesters say they are against:  corporate greed, Wall Street greed, money manipulation (except if sugar daddy soros is the manipulator), higher student loans, personal hygiene, stuff people expect you to pay for....(ok, I admit I haven't seen those last two on any of their signs).  But, presumably, they would stop protesting, declare victory and go home if something happened.

What would that be?

If the answer is a series of glittering generalities, I don't want to hear them.  I've already heard them, and they are meaningless.  What, specifically, do "Occupy" protesters want to be done?

-Do they want other people to pay for what they get - like food, clothing, shelter, school tuition, etc.?  It is pretty clear that a great many of them do.  But it is equally clear that a large majority of the people who would be subsidizing them - which includes a great many among "the 99%" who work for a living, feel otherwise.  

"You sign up for a tuition loan?  Don't expect me to pay for it.  You feel that tuition costs are too high at the school you go to?  Then "occupy" the school, not a public park.  And if that doesn't work, go to a school that charges less tuition.  This is your expense, not mine.  Take responsibility for your own life."

-Do they want Wall Street traders to make less money?  It is pretty clear that a great many of them do.  So how would they like to accomplish that?  By capping salaries?  "Sorry, Mr. Smith, Mr. Robertson can't put your money in an IRA.  He hit his salary limit and, since he won't be compensated for handling your account, has declined to work for nothing".

-Do they want to take down the capitalist system?  It is pretty clear that a great many of them do.  But a) most people think that is nuts and b) if they're that hot to live in a non-capitalist system, there is one less than 100 miles from Key West, Florida that they can emigrate to - one that Michael Moore thinks they will get great health care in.  I don't notice any of them going there.

See the problem?

When people mass in the street to demand results without any specific remedy, they aren't really protesters, so much as they are whining babies.  "Waaaahhhhh, I WANT this and you won't GIVE it to me.  IT'S NOT FAIR!!!  WAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

Well, it's getting cold, winter will be coming on soon, and there are finals to worry about.  So, as indicated by yesterday's non-showing in New York City, the "Occupation" appears to be just about over - at least on the East Coast. 

Maybe by spring, they can regroup, and figure out what their specific demands are.  But I hope they don't expect much support from Democrat politicians, some of whom initially spoke on their behalf but in recent weeks have gotten strangely silent. 

With favorability for "Occupy" protesters already through a trap door, and heading even further south, only the safest Democrats from the safest districts would even consider supporting them in an election year - especially a year when the country votes for President, the entire house of representatives, and 33 senate seats, 23 of which are held by Democrat incumbents.

Having started with my wife's thought, let me leave you with one of mine:  If "Occupy" protesters really did represent "the 99%", those politicians would come running.   Especially in an election year.  What does it tell you if, instead, they are running away?

Ken Berwitz

There were people on the streets.  Probably a few thousand of them. Maybe as many as 5,000 (at least some, I suspect, being onlookers rather than participants).

That is one urine-poor showing for Manhattan.  I'm guessing you'll find more people in Macy's the day after Thanksgiving (assuming the "Occupy" protesters don't bomb it, that is).

I guess screaming "We are the 99%" isn't working.  Maybe they should try "We are the 99.9%, and a few more might join in.

Not surprisingly, the "Occupy" protesters still decline to go after the rich left wingers who are, or at any rate used to be, openly in support of their cause.  Even if their millions are with exactly the same companies protesters are railing about.

The "are" crowd includes Michael Moore (estimated worth:  $50 million), Kanye West (estimated worth:  $70 million) Russell Simmons (estimated worth: $300 million) and, of course, the epitome of monetary manipulation and greed, george soros, who has more billions than hamburgers served at McDonald's. 

But that's ok, George.  You're home free.  If you support the movement you are forgiven your greed.  Funny how that works. 

And then there is the "were" crowd:  i.e. Democrat politicians who were gung-ho for the "Occupy" movement but now don't seem to know it exists.

The first name that comes to mind, of course, is Nancy Pelosi.  You don't hear her saying "God bless" the protesters anymore, do you? 

Well, at least you can't say she's bugging out on them for personal gain.  If she blessed the "Occupy" protesters now, she'd win her next election by even more than her usual mega-landslide. 

Nope, she's bugging out on them because she is a leader of the Democrat Party - one who is fully aware that most of the rest of the country does not share her ardor for the "Occupy" protesters.  Pelosi, who is nothing if not calculating, understands what an albatross the "Occupy" movement has become for Democrats in most of the rest of the country, so she's gone into muzzle-mode.  And she's not the only one. 

Good politicians can smell a winner a mile away.  Excellent politicians can smell a loser 2 miles away.  Great politicians can smell a winner that has turned into a loser 100 miles away.

As the weather gets colder, and protesting becomes less convenient, that may be the most fitting epitaph for "Occupy Wall Street".

Ken Berwitz

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

From thesmokinggun.com:

A Tennessee man is facing a domestic assault charge after he allegedly struck his mother with a ham during an argument Tuesday afternoon in their home.

 

Emanuel Cordell Kennedy, 37, was collared after his mother told cops that she was hit in the back with the thrown ham as she was walking down the hall, according to a Union City Police Department report excerpted here.

In an interview with police, Kennedy claimed that he did not intend to hit his mother, 55-year-old Brenda King, with the tossed ham. King apparently was not injured by the pink missile, the size of which was not detailed by investigators.

Kennedy, pictured in the above mug shot, is being held without bond in the Obion County jail. He is scheduled to be arraigned this afternoon on the misdemeanor count.

Fortunately Ms. King was not hit solidly, she was only glazed.

With apologies to the Mills brothers, apparently the ham bone's connected to the domestic assault charge.

Ok, I'm through hamming it up.  I don't want to be a pig about this, so the next bad joke is up to you.  Knuckle down and give us a good one..

Ken Berwitz

My pal, Toyman Bob, sent me this email. 

I know at least a couple of the anecdotes it describes are true.  I don't know about the rest, but hope they all are.

If you are positively disposed toward the USA and what it has done for the free world, you should enjoy them immensely:

Ken Berwitz

When literary icon Dorothy Parker was told that former President Calvin Coolidge had died, she is supposed to have said "How can they tell?"  That was because Coolidge, also known as "Silent Cal", spoke so little that people did not hear him.

It has just been announced that the Joy Behar show will go off the air next month.  If Ms. Parker were alive today, she would be asking the same question, "How can they tell?"   Not because Behar speaks so little that no one hears her, but because she doesn't stop speaking, and no one listens to her.

Behar will have had a prime time show for over two years.  And during that period she went from being solid last in the cable news ratings for her time slot to.....being solid last in the cable news ratings for her time slot.

The latest data (as of Monday), show Behar with all of 326,000 total viewers nationwide.  This compares to 565,000 for Anderson Cooper, 766,000 for Lawrence O'Donnell and 1,669,000 for Greta Van Susteren.  In the key 25-54 demographic, Behar is at 78,000, compared to 173,000 for O'Donnell, 206,000 for Cooper and 409,000 for Van Susteren.

Why has Behar stayed so far down in the ratings?  Maybe it has to do with her predictably unwavering hard-left positions on just about every issue.  But I doubt it, because that could also be said about the far higher-rated Lawrence O'Donnell.  Or maybe it is that she never seems prepared, and usually does not get beyond trite clichés (like him or not, O'Donnell certainly prepares for his shows and has facts at his disposal).

Add in Behar's enormous store of  venomous invective, and that probably gives you the rest of your answer.

Matt Hadro of newsbusters.org has compiled a list of Behar's ugliest comments (and boy oh boy did he ever have a lot of material to choose from).  You can read it by clicking here.  It is a study in mindless hatred and ignorance.

Bye Bye Joy.  I'm sure you will be sorely missed.  By who?  I don't know. 

How can I tell?

Ken Berwitz

It was supposed to be easy pickings.

Karl Rove - the hated George Bush guru Karl Rove - was asked to speak at Johns Hopkins University. And a bunch of "Occupy" protesters showed up to shut him down by heckling him so that he could not do so.

They picked on the wrong dude.

Mr. Rove gave them a lesson in free speech by doing something other conservatives who are heckled never seem to learn how to do.  Answer back with plain, blunt, common sense truth. (Liberals/leftists have little need to learn this, since they are rarely heckled on university campuses.  I assume this does not surprise you).

Excerpted from Mike Hellgren's report for Baltimore's CBS affiliate, WJZ:

Minutes into his speech at Johns Hopkins University, Occupy movement protesters heckled Karl Rove.

 

And he fired back.

 

“If you don’t have the courage to stand here and then ask a question, you’re just showing your moral cowardice,” Rove said.

 

“Do not be so arrogant and presumptive to think that you’re the only person who has a First Amendment right that needs to be heard,” Rove continued. “Who gave you the right to occupy America? Nobody.” 

 

Hopkins removed 15 people from the auditorium. No one was arrested.

 

Rove’s speech was open to the public. Some students became fed up with the disruption.

 

“You are not only disrespecting Mr. Rove,” said one student, “you are disrespecting us and the rest of the student body.” 

 

“I was honored to be invited to speak at Hopkins,” Rove told WJZ. “And recognize that outbursts did not come from Hopkins students. It’s ironic that people who supposedly stand for free speech would attempt –ineffectually— to deny it to others.”

 

“I can do this all night long,” Rove told the hecklers. “You want to keep jumping up and yelling you’re the 99 percent? How presumptuous and arrogant can you think you are?” 

 

My congratulations to Karl Rove!!  Good job, well done!!

Rove stopped these fascist wannabes in their tracks by saying exactly what they needed to hear (not that I expect it penetrated any of them).  Free speech means everyone can speak.  Not that you can speak, and then shut up people you disagree with.

Mr. Rove gave them a lesson in the meaning of the term.  I can only hope he also gave other speakers a lesson in how to handle situations like this.

You never know.  Shut up enough hecklers, enough times, at enough campuses, and......they might actually have free speech at those campuses. 

What a refreshing change that would be.....

Ken Berwitz

This is for anyone who believes the "Occupy" movement is nothing but principled people coming together for a common cause:

From the "Occupy Chicago" web site:

Everyone please visit the

Permalink Submitted by Occupy Chicago ... on Tue, 2011-11-15 21:21

Everyone please visit the City of Chicago Department of Human resources on the 11Th floor and enter the Hearing Room after 10:00 am. Watch how your taxpayer dollars are wasted. This is a Occupy Chicago candidate running for office in the 36Th Ward. Support this guy Bruce Randazzo. Watch City Hall keep all the good jobs for the insiders. Stay an hour and get $20.00 on the way out. Enjoy.

• Log in or register to post comments

Sorry, this will happen on

Permalink Submitted by Occupy Chicago ... on Tue, 2011-11-15 21:22

Sorry, this will happen on thurday, SORRY!!!!!! Link to above!!!!

What does this tell you?  Plenty, I would think.

Ken Berwitz

Herman Cain, who increasingly shows that a terrific businessman can be a lousy presidential candidate, has made another gaffe.  During a campaign stop in Miami, he was given coffee and a croqueta, tasted it, and asked "How do you say delicious in Cuban?" (click here to see the video). 

Whoops.  There is no language called "Cuban".  So that makes Herman Cain a __________________.

I left the end of that sentence blank so you can finish it.  But before you do, I would like to remind you of another politician who said something just a tad similar.  Watch this video from April, 2009, and see/hear this politician wonder "...how do you say that in Austrian?"

Whoops.  There is no language of "Austrian".  So that makes this politician a ____________________.

Note:  If you've watched the video - or if you just remember the incident - you are aware that the politician in question is Barack Obama, currently President of the United States.  And he didn't say it in front of a few people while casually munching on some finger-food in a Cafe, he said it while stammering into a microphone (no teleprompter...) and made an absolute fool of himself to the forum he was speaking at, and to the rest of the world that it was broadcast to.

Now, what is the last word of that sentence?

One other thing:  Not that you need me to tell you this, but if you should happen to see a report on Mr. Cain's reference to "Cuban", without any mention of Mr. Obama's reference to "Austrian", you are seeing a biased report. 

Like, for example, the report I pulled Cain's video from, which doesn't mention it at all.

Ken Berwitz

At one point, as our Accomplice Media provided a seemingly unending string of positively-spun articles about the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. polling showed that a pretty large number of people were in sympathy with what appeared to be their goals (i.e. cutting Wall Street and banks down to size).   Some media people pointed out that these goals were relatively similar to at least some of those voiced by Tea Partiers.  

That, however, was then.  This is now. 

Now, after two months of seeing what the "Occupy" protesters are really about, polls show support for them dropping like a rock.

But not at the New York Times.  If you believe its Letters to the Editor column, everyone is still enthralled by the "Occupy" movement and or furious at authorities for removing the squatters' camp at Zuccotti Park.  

Do you want evidence to support what I just said?  Ok.  This morning's edition has five letters about the "Occupy Wall Street".  You can read them in their entirety by clicking here.  Meanwhile, let me show you the key passages from each one:

From Letter 1:  The American democracy — our system of capitalism and free markets, the electoral system and tax policies — has been distorted by moneyed interests. The problem isn’t that some people are wealthy but that the playing field has been tilted to favor the wealthy. Our challenge is to revive America as a land of equal opportunity.  The beauty (and the power) of Occupy grew from the movement’s ability to focus the public consciousness on a compelling issue rather than trying to ram a point of view down anyone’s throat.

From Letter 2:  Having visited Occupy Wall Street at Zuccotti Park repeatedly over the last five weeks, I am certain that alleging sanitation and crime problems was a pretext for the New York police’s unreasonable actions there on Tuesday: the 1 a.m. police raid; the barring and mistreatment of the press; the seizure of thousands of books.

From Letter 3:  Last weekend, on a visit to New York City, we had the pleasure of going to the Occupy Wall Street site. As a 68-year-old veteran of antiwar, civil rights and women’s liberation protests of the 1960s and ’70s, I have to say Occupy Wall Street was the neatest, most orderly and polite protest I have ever witnessed.

From Letter 4:  Officials should designate an area in a New York City park as a public speaking forum for Occupy Wall Street in the tradition of Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park in London.

From Letter 5:  Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg had an opportunity to do something that would have vaulted him to the status of a great mayor in the eyes of many, including those who do not usually agree with him.  If he had left the protesters in Zuccotti Park alone, he would have shown that he understood why their concerns are important, and why they are shared by millions of nonrich people in this country.  What would it have mattered if the park owners were angry with him?

Ken Berwitz

Like other scandals of the Obama administration, this one grows and grows.

The latest news, which comes to us via excerpts from Peter Schweitzer's new book "Throw Them All Out", via John Hinderaker's highly illuminating and highly disturbing piece for powerlineblog.com, is about a company called BrightSource Energy Inc.:

In 2010, BrightSource was in deep trouble. It was $1.8 billion in debt and was losing money hand over fist–a $71.6 million loss on a mere $13.5 million in revenue. A company destined to go down the drain, one would think. But no! The Obama administration bailed out BrightSource to the tune of a cool $1.4 billion in loan guarantees.

How could that possibly have happened? Well, start with the fact that the principal investor in BrightSource is VantagePoint Partners. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a Venture Partner in VantagePoint. But BrightSource had an even more valuable contact than that:

Sanjay Wagle…was one of the principals in Kennedy’s firm who raised money for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. When Obama won the White House, Wagle was installed at the Department of Energy (DOE), advising on energy grants.

Just like Solyndra.  Just like SunPower.  A ton of money - taxpayer money, of course - handed over to a "green" company....that, by amazing coincidence, has an Obama money-bundler behind it. 

And if you read on, you will find the prognosis for BrightSource is basically that it has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.  Put another way, without more and more of our tax dollars - i.e. if it had to actually rely on its value and meaning in the real world - this company would be gone with the wind.

Unbelievable?  No, it's the Obama administration.  Playing by Chicago rules.

The 2012 election cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

This one doesn't need much explaining.

Excerpted from David Shepardson's article in the Detroit News:

The Treasury Department dramatically boosted its estimate of losses from its $85 billion auto industry bailout by more than $9 billion in the face of General Motors Co.'s steep stock decline.

In its monthly report to Congress, the Treasury Department now says it expects to lose $23.6 billion, up from its previous estimate of $14.33 billion.

The Treasury now pegs the cost of the bailout of GM, Chrysler Group LLC and the auto finance companies at $79.6 billion. It no longer includes $5 billion it set aside to guarantee payments to auto suppliers in 2009.

There you have it:  the great "success" that Obama & Co. have been patting themselves on the back for since bailing out GM and Chrysler.

Well, they're right for some folks:  it certainly has been a rousing success for the auto unions, which continue to stuff their pockets full-to-overflowing with taxpayer dollars - many millions of which will no doubt be used in an effort to re-elect their Sugar Daddy, Barack Obama.  

But how successful do taxpayers - the ones footing the bill for these money-losing bailouts - think it is?

I guess we'll find out in 2012

Ken Berwitz

"Occupy Wall Street" protesters are now threatening to disrupt the New York subway system.

My question is:  Who do they think is the more typical subway user?  A millionaire getting to a big corner office to get busy exploiting 99% of the country, or a working person trying to get to a place of employment and earn a living? 

These "protesters" are so full of crap their eyes are brown. 

And that goes double for the Accomplice Media.  Just look at this excerpt from NBC-New York:

The day of protests Thursday marks the two-month anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and was planned before the city cleared protesters from Zuccotti Park on Monday night. But the timing is significant because it will show whether the movement has legs beyond the park.

On  Tuesday night, after the city allowed protesters to return -- but without tents or sleeping bags -- just a dozen protesters huddled on park benches.

The protesters, who are attempting to raise awareness of income inequality and corporate greed, insist they have the resilience to survive without a home base.

“We poured a tremendous amount of resources into defending a park that was nearly symbolic,” Han Shan, an Occupy Wall Street activist, told the New York Times. “I think the movement has shown it transcends geography.”

That isn't a news report; it is a sympathetic love letter.  Not a word about the filth left behind, or the crimes committed within the "protest" area, or the foul language or the taunting and physical actions against police or the small businesses in the Zuccotti Park vicinity that lost their shirts over the past two months, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.  Only about their wonderful objectives and how resilient they are.

Then these geniuses wonder why people call them biased........

Ken Berwitz

For anyone who wonders why I call them the "Accomplice Media"....

...the following is excerpted from Ken Shepherd's blog at newsbusters.org:

The Washington Post, no conservative paper it, gave front-page coverage today to the latest development in the Solyndra scandal: E-mail records show that the Obama White House urged the solar energy company to postpone layoffs until after the 2010 midterm elections.

 Sure enough Solyndra publicly announced a round of layoffs on November 3, "immediately following the Nov. 2 vote."

While this development broke yesterday afternoon, ABC, CBS, and NBC have ignored the development in their November 15 evening newscasts as well as their November 16 morning programs

Still wondering?  I didn't think so.

Ken Berwitz

This story of acrobatic derring-do comes to us via an excerpt from a story at thesmokinggun.com (and that's not all that was "smoking"). 

It seems that Tina Marie Arie and Howard Windham were arrested at a Whataburger location, for giving drugs to an acquaintance......:

 The pair was cuffed and stuffed into a police cruiser for the trip to get booked.

That’s when things got interesting, according to a spokesperson for Montgomery County Constable Precinct 4. When the officer looked in his rear view mirror, he “could no longer see Tina Arie,” who subsequently explained that she was resting her head in Windham’s lap because she was “tired.”

Suspicious, the officer pulled over to the side of the road to further investigate, according to a press statement. He discovered that, “despite being handcuffed behind their backs,” the pair were engaged in a sexual act. Windham’s jeans were undone “and Arie was servicing his exposed genitalia.”

Though Arie and Windham could have faced an additional public indecency charge, they apparently caught a break when investigators opted not to tack on a misdemeanor count to the more serious felony narcotics charges.

Hey, it was a cruiser.  They were cruising.

Evidently, Ms. Arie thought she was getting a Whataburger, but had to settle for a quarter pounder.

Maybe that's why, after one look at what she was "servicing", the police decided it wasn't even worth a misdemeanor charge.  If I were Mr. Windham, I wouldn't be too happy about their assessment.  

Being the model of decorum, I will spare you the line I came up with about special sauce........

All other bad jokes (and, let's face it, they're not "hard" to come by in this story) are now, er, in your hands.

Ken Berwitz

Here's what our Accomplice Media are not showing you. 

The video is less than 5 minutes long.  It has some very raw language and threats.  But if you want a real idea of what was going on at Zuccotti Park, it is must-viewing (If you have trouble with the video below, click here).

Remember:  Unless you happen to be a millionaire wall street trader (millionaire left wing filmmakers and money-traders who support radical causes are, of course, excluded), this bunch is telling you that they are the 99% - thus they are representing you.

Are they?

Ken Berwitz

Here, just emailed, is the latest $$$ solicitation from Guy Cecil, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

XXX,

Karl Rove's group Crossroads GPS is running a major ad campaign right now attacking five Democratic Senate candidates, including Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts and Tim Kaine in Virginia.

The lies in some of these ads are so blatant, they warrant removal from the public airwaves. And our candidates are fighting to have this done. But we need your help to stand with them, get the word out and try to get these ads off the air. Please help us end this most recent string of Karl Rove deceits by signing the petition.

Click here to demand that these ads be taken off the air. Our fight is gaining traction, but we need you if we’re going to stop Karl Rove in his tracks.

Their ad in Montana suggests that Sen. Jon Tester attacked farmers – by voting for a bill that doesn’t even exist. The claims in the Virginia ad were debunked last year. And in Massachusetts, their ad suggests that Elizabeth Warren supports a violent overthrow of government. Seriously?

These ads are vile, ridiculous and false. They belong in the trash, not on public airwaves. Stand with us in demanding that these ads be taken off the air.

We know Karl Rove’s going to keep spouting his lies. Frankly, he’s made a career of it. But we’re not going to let him get away with it. The stakes are too high to let any lie go unanswered.

Sincerely,

Guy Cecil

Please note that, although the insults and accusations fly thick and fast, there is no link to any of the ads being villified by Mr. Cecil in an effort to separate potential contributors from their money.

Why is that?

Would it not be fair to say that if the ads really said things the way Cecil claims, he would make good and sure there were links to them, so people would know how accurately they are being described, become outraged, and give, give, give?

What does it tell you if the links are not there? 

Well, I'm not Guy Cecil. 

-Click here for the Jon Tester ad.  You will find that it attacks Tester for voting against preventing the EPA from regulating Montana farmers' dust (I kid you not).   The ad is very confusing to me, and its vote reference (#157, October 6, 2011) appears to have little relevance to farming or dust.  Maybe Crossroads GPS has an explanation -- but, unless I'm missing something, in this case Cecil appears to be right.  However....

-Click here for the Virginia ad, which appears to be a standard ad claiming that Tim Kaine supports President Obama and Mr. Kaine and Mr. Obama's policies have hurt Virginia.  This is a big deal?  Please.

- Click here for the Elizabeth Warren ad.  You will see footage of "Occupy" protesters, with a voiceover saying they support "radical redistribution of wealth, and violence" - both accusations based on a research study of "occupy" protesters conducted by long-time pollster Doug Schoen.  At no time is there any mention of violent overthrow of the government.  Cecil, therefore is wrong, or lying.

That, it seems to me, is pretty thin material for an attack-laden email such as the one Cecil sent.  You, of course, can decide for yourself.

Ken Berwitz

I wish it were surprising to learn that some of the most explicit hatred against Israel comes from loony-left self hating Jews.  Or that self-hating Jews are big-time supporters of  "Occupy Wall Street".

But it isn't.  We've seen this before. 

I don't know for sure who funds the "Un-Occupy Palestine" movement.  But I would bet, and give odds, that it comes back to the ultimate self-hating Jew, george soros - a Jew by birth, an nazi collaborator as a teen, a convicted inside trader as an adult - who has a special animus against Israel that it would take a half-dozen Freuds to figure out.

In any event, here is a 7 minute youtube.com video of members of this group (from the sound of it, maybe 12 - 15 people) screaming out, in a responsive-reading exercise (i.e. don't think, just read what we wrote for you and agree with it) for Jews to "Occupy Wall Street, not Palestine". 

CLICK HERE TO SEE VIDEO

Please note that they are not demanding an "unoccupation" of Gaza (can't do that, it's already un-occupied for almost 6 years) or Judea and Samaria (the west bank - most of which also is currently held by Palestinian Arabs).  They are demanding an "unoccupation" of all of the land area of Palestine.  That means Israel ceases to exist in any form. 

I'm sure J Street, which claimed for years that it was not funded by soros, and was lying all that time, would be very proud of this group.  I would not at all be surprised if there is cross-membership or if the two are formally affiliated. 

With Jewish Israel-haters like this, who needs ahmadinejad?  They're certainly not chanting about him, are they? 

Come to think of it, ahmadinejad also hates israel and wants it to disappear...so, in these people's eyes, how bad can he be?

Ken Berwitz

There are three major dailies left in New York (when I was growing up there were 7 - and two more which mostly serviced Long Island.  Can you name them?  Answer at the bottom of this blog).

I thought you might be interested in how each of the three are reporting the clearing of Zuccotti Park

First we have the first few paragraphs of David M. Halbfinger's and Michael Barbaro's article in the New York Times:

Emergency-service trucks rumbled up Broadway to positions on two sides of Zuccotti Park. Powerful klieg lights blinked on, illuminating about 220 protesters in tents and sleeping bags. The one-square-block plaza was as bright as day. But it was only 1 a.m.

 

Voices of the police, booming from loudspeakers, echoed through the financial district. Officers swept through the park, picking their way around tents and over sleeping bags, handing out leaflets. Dozens of protesters linked arms and shouted “This is our home,” “Barricade!” and, in one case, “You’re stepping on my bed!”

But the message was clear: Occupy Wall Street’s two-month encampment was coming to a sudden end.

The eviction early Tuesday morning, which ended with the arrests of 140 bleary-eyed protesters who had not heeded the orders to clear out, capped two intense weeks in which Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and his aides tried but failed to negotiate with members of Occupy Wall Street. They concluded that the protesters were unwilling to negotiate and unable to address their encampment’s growing problems on their own.

On Tuesday evening, after a judge agreed that officials could ban tents and tarps, several hundred protesters without sleeping gear returned to the park in Lower Manhattan, began to meet and prepared for an uncertain future.

“I think everyone’s still in the processing mode,” said Nate Barchus, 23, a protester from Providence, R.I., who acknowledged feeling rage and disappointment. “This will be a catalyst. This reminds everyone who was occupying exactly why they were occupying.”  

You might wonder why being rousted from an illegal camp site reminds everyone who was occupying exactly why they were occupying.  You might reason that it doesn't make much sense, unless the exact reason for the occupation was to have a free place to crash.  I might too.

Ok, next we have excerpts from Joe Kemp's, Rocco Parascandola'a and Corky Siemaszko's article in the New York Daily News:

The ouster of the occupiers began with a flash of blinding light.

Hundreds of cops in riot gear had been massing in the shadows around Zuccotti Park, encircling with a blue ring of steel the protesters who had been camped there for nearly two months.

Blinking in the glare, many of the 200 or so protesters — some roused from their sleep — appeared stunned when police officers with megaphones began ordering them out of the park.

“All property, including personal property, must be removed immediately,” they read from a script. “This is a health hazard. If you refuse to leave the park, you will be subject to arrest.”

Moving at lightning speed, cops flipped over tents in waves to make sure nobody was hiding beneath the tarps. Some of the protesters quickly grabbed their gear and scrammed.

But the hard-core refuseniks — a group of about 150 — moved to the middle of the park, where they locked arms and chanted, “Whose park? Our park” and “We’re not going nowhere.”

They were drowned out by the sound of sanitation crews dismantling the encampment and dragging off mattresses, blankets, tables, chairs and guitars.

By 4:30 a.m., another large crowd had gathered at Broadway and Pine St, and the most defiant climbed on police cruisers and dared cops to arrest them. Others let the air out of the cruisers’ tires. Forty minutes later, the police had enough and ordered the crowd to disperse.

When they refused, officers moved in and were bombarded with food, water bottles — and even a wooden plank — by the angry demonstrators, police said.

Those who weren’t arrested retreated to Foley Square. And by 8 a.m., that group was on the move again, this time to a new encampment at Canal St. and Sixth Ave.

As dawn broke, commuters arriving downtown found Zuccotti Park cleared of demonstrators, and several stopped to tell the cops, “Good job.”

Ken Berwitz

I used to think that Chris Matthews could never catch up to keith olbermann for sanctimony and bile.  But I have to admit he is changing my mind.

Here is Matthews' latest contribution to the obnoxious/stupid school of on-air verbal vomit:

"Let me finish tonight with this: The utter confusion in the Republican presidential nominating process results from two discernible facts. One: they hate. That's the simplest explanation of the disastrous course of this selection process. They hate so much they are not in the mood to fall in love with a candidate or even fall in behind someone. Their brains racked as they are by hatred, they lack the like mode. They are in no mood looking around for a politician they like. The hating is so much more satisfying. Second factor: They aren't respecting experience. Each candidate has his or her time in the limelight yet out there in the audition stage, one after another, has showed they don't have the stuff.

"Embarrassed by the exposure, they have slunk back into the shadows. And so, the Republicans have a problem. They are consumed by hate, so consumed they can't think positively of whom they may want to lead them. They just can't change the subject from opposition to government, and they can't get over the fact that to govern this country requires some experience in government, some knowledge of how you lead a government."

Can you imagine what would happen if a cable news commentator described Black people - all Blacks, in general - as, say, lazy and shiftless?  Or all Jews as cheap.   Or all Irish as drunks.  Or all Italians as mafiosi?   Or all Muslims as terrorists?  The outcry would be - and should be - deafening.  I doubt anyone who said that would be on the air the next day.  Maybe never again.

But here we have Chris Matthews talking about Republicans - all Republicans in general - as haters, their brains racked by hatred, with no like mode, disrespecting experience, so consumed by hate they can't think positively......ok, enough.

Either Chris Matthews has met, interviewed and evaluated tens of millions of registered Republicans throughout the USA, or he is barfing out ridiculous stereotypes about them, based on little other than his own ad hominem attitudes.  I think we know which of the two it is.

(Maybe this would be a good time to remind you that Matthews calls himself "absolutely nonpartisan".  That's a little like a field mouse declaring itself absolutely the king of beasts).

Stereotypes are obnoxious.  They are stupid.  And, ironically, they usually spring from the exact state of being that Matthews is verbally vomiting about:  hate. 

Does this mean Chris Matthews has degenerated into an obnoxious, stupid hater? 

You do the math.

Ken Berwitz

To your right, you will see three lists of web sites.  Ten I consider to be left wing, ten I consider to be right wing, and four I consider to, more or less, be in the middle.

One of the "middle" sites has, for some time, been politico.com.  But I no longer know why I am keeping it there, and am thinking of moving it to the left wing group. 

There are a variety of reasons for doing so, but let me show you a very recent one.  Like from today.

Here is the beginning of Mackenzie Weinger's article, posted maybe one half hour ago, which talks about Republican calls for Attorney General eric holder to resign:

During a Capitol Hill press conference, several members — including Reps. Paul Gosar, Raul Labrador, Tim Huelskamp and Blake Farenthold — also said President Barack Obama should join in their demand that Holder quit.

Labrador, an Idaho Republican, said the attorney general should resign for his role in the controversial operation.

“Attorney General Eric Holder cannot avoid responsibility for his involvement with a government program that directly led to the tragic death of a decorated Border Patrol agent,” Labrador said. “As our nation’s top enforcer of the principles of law and justice, Mr. Holder has now lost credibility and should step down immediately.”

A quick google search does not turn up any other such material at politico.com.  This, therefore, is either brand new information to the politico.com crowd, or information they have had access too for a period of time but just plain chose not to talk about.

The answer:  unless politico's newsgathering capabilities have been shut down for the last two weeks, it is the latter.  That is because, over this time period, a total of 42 Republican congresspeople - not to mention Sarah Palin - have called for holder's resignation. 

How do I know this to be true?  I get my information from dailycaller.com:  Matthew Boyle's articles in particular.  Mr. Boyle is keeping track of the count and updating it almost daily, as additional congresspeople add their names to the list.  Here is his latest tally. 

In other words, politico  - presumably with the same access to this information as dailycaller.com - is not just a day late and a dollar short, it is weeks late and dozens of congresspeople short.

Would politico have been as remiss if it were a Republican Attorney General being asked/told to resign?  I doubt it. 

That is why I've titled this blog "pathetico.com".

And one (but far from the only) reason I am considering that web site move.

Ken Berwitz

Read the following email exchanges between then-Solicitor General, now-Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and Lawrence Tribe.

CLICK HERE TO SEE EMAILS

 

I assume you now know why Justice Kagan must recuse herself from the ObamaCare decision.  If not, I don't know how to explain it to you.

Ken Berwitz

What if President Bush held a press conference in Hawaii and said this?

When I meet with world leaders, what’s striking — whether it’s in Europe or here in Asia — the kinds of fundamental reforms and changes both on the revenue side and the public pension side that other countries are having to make are so much more significant than what we need to do in order to get our books in order.

Well, President Obama held a press conference in Hawaii, and said that.  Those exact words.

I'm guessing the "fact' that Hawaii is in Asia will probably be news to most Hawaiians. 

Think about what they would have said if it were Bush.  Now, what are they saying about Oba....what's that?  You didn't hear anything at all?

What a surprise.

Not for nothing do I call them the Accomplice Media.

Ken Berwitz

This one is for anybody who has somehow convinced him/herself that racism is a thing of the past (and, astonishingly, there are people who have).

Excerpted from Ann Sheridan's article at msnbc.com:

ANSONVILLE, N.C. — Vandals spray-painted "House of the Devil" on a wall, defecated on the pulpit and broke every stained-glass window at a church in North Carolina — the worst-hit of several churches that were vandalized in the area.

The hardest-hit church — Cedar Hill AME Zion Church in Ansonville east of Charlotte — was in ruins Monday night as Ansonville Volunteer Fire Fighters and church elders tried to clean up a mess so devastating it left many church members in tears.

Spray painted on the building were phrases “God is a lie” and “House of the Devil,” as well as racial slurs and swastikas. The church's congregation is predominantly black.

Inside the church, vandals defecated on the pulpit, tore out air conditioning units, broke every stained-glass window and left water running in the building. They also tried to burn a cross on the front lawn of the historical church.

“They tore up our building but they didn’t take our spirit,” said Rev. Renee Bethea, the pastor at Cedar Hill in rural northern Anson County since July.

She cried as she told of a child’s tombstone that had been thrown through a church window.

Creatures (I won't call them "people"; they don't qualify) who do things like this are not fit to be among decent human beings.

And although the good news is that there probably are less such creatures among us today than there were in decades past, the bad news is that there still are plenty to go around.

Somebody knows something.  Probably a lot more than one somebody. 

Let's hope that one of them - or more - comes forward quickly, and leads the authorities to whatever cesspool these excrement piles wallow in.  They are a stain on humanity.

To the congregants of Cedar Hill AME Zion Church, I do not wish for you to rise above this.  I assume you already are above this.  My hope is that you can somehow get past it, rebuild, and turn the ugliness into something positive.

People of good will are rooting for you.  That is a guarantee.

Ken Berwitz

I swear I am not making this up.

Here is the question CNN's White House Correspondent Dan Lothian asked of President Obama, at a press conference held after the last Republican presidential debate:

“Last night at the Republican debate, some of the hopefuls, they hope to get your job, they defended the practice of waterboarding, which is a practice you banned in 2009. Herman Cain said quote, “I don’t see that as torture.” Michele Bachmann said that it’s quote “very effective.”  So I’m wondering if you think that they’re uninformed, out of touch, or irresponsible?”

That is supposed to be a press conference-quality question for the President of the United States????

Does this mean Lothian, with equal pofessionalism, will be asking the eventual Republican nominee if President Obama's massive failure on the economy, due to his disastrous "stimulus package", makes him uninformed, out of touch or irresponsible? 

In the meanwhile, I have a question for Mr. Lothian.  Since you think it is appropriate to ask a campaign-rally question like that at a press conference, are you unbelievably stupid, unbelievably incompetent, or just hopelessly in the tank for Barack Obama?

I have another question:  What does this say about CNN, which hired you and made you a White House correspondent?  You can pick from the same three choices.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest, from  Egypt, that wonderful paradigm of Democratic Transformation our media have, for months, been touting as an Obama "foreign policy victory".

Excerpted from Joseph Mayton's article at the Jerusalem Post:

“We were at the front of the protests, getting beaten and supporting the future of Egypt,” recalls Heba. But now, she says, “Women are not being heard from and this is causing a lot of frustration among myself and my friends who want the ability to choose our lives and what we do.”

The role of women in Egypt's transitional government has been very limited, and no women were included on the committee that drafted Egypt's transitional constitutional declaration. The new elections law does away with the Mubarak-era quota, which allocated 64 seats in parliament for women. The new law requires that at least some candidates be women, but some have complained that their parties are assigning them spots on election lists that will make it hard for them to win a seat in parliament.

The controversy over the status of women in post-Mubarak Egypt came to a head at the start of November after Hazem Saleh Abu Ismail, a leading presidential candidate and Muslim cleric, gave two television interviews in which he outlined an Islamic future for the country that would impose Saudi Arabian-style dress and behavior on the public.

In an interview on the 90 Minutes television program, Abu Ismail said he supported what he called “Islamic dress” for women, meaning the hijab, or veil. Asked about what would happen to a woman wearing a bikini on the beach, he responded, “she would be arrested.”

Days later, he went on the Biladna Bil Masr program and lashed out at the show’s popular TV host, Reem Maged, and all other unveiled women in the country. He declared al-tabarouj  (the failure to cover one’s hair and of wearing makeup) a “mortal sin” and said he would make such actions “criminal,” citing his interpretation of Islamic law.

He told Maged he wouldn’t have agreed to the interview at all because of her dress but said that in politics “things are different” and he has to meet with people from all walks of life.
To underscore his point, a Facebook-based Salafist news outlet re-aired the interview with Maged’s head and face covered by a dark filter to “veil” her.

Note to Heba:  Did you ever see the movie "Back to the Future"?  I ask because you are about to live in the Egyptian version of it. 

Or, put another way, I suggest you read up on the 10th century, so you will understand the direction in which your country is headed.

This is President Obama's "foreign policy victory"?   This is the "Arab spring"?  

When you consider what is happening in Egypt, you realize that - compared to what is going on there now - Hosni Mubarek doesn't seem that bad after all..... and Barack Obama doesn't seem that victorious. 

Now grow old waiting for our Obama-worshipping Accomplice Media to talk about it. 

Ken Berwitz

The squatter's camp (not protest, but squatter's camp) that was called "Occupy Wall Street" is over.

Last night, after two months of anarchy was permitted in and around Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan, the "residents" (that is certainly how they saw themselves) were evicted.  Many went peaceably, many did not.  There were 70 arrests (Update:  that number is much higher now).

As the police and cleanup crews (I hope there were fumigators among them) swooped in, the campers chanted "Whose park?  Our park.  Whose park?  Our park". 

That is the hallmark of these so-called protests:  people taking over someone else's property, living off of other people's largesse, and declaring, based on nothing but the sense of entitlement they get from doing these things, that it is now theirs. 

Sadly, pathetically, that is the defnition of "ownership" to many, maybe most, of the campers.  No connection at all between what they produce and what they own.  Just take it over, scream a few angry slogans, and fantasize that this constitutes transfer of title.

It doesn't.

Mayor Bloomberg, who took two months to grow the set of gonads necessary to toss this bunch out, has declared they can come back in once the park has been cleaned.  But only if they obey the law:  New York's law, not theirs. 

In other words, no tents, no sleeping bags, no food preparation.  Take a stroll, sit on a bench, enjoy the day.  Which, if this is seriously enforced (and I suspect it will be), means no more "Occupy Wall Street" in Zuccotti Park. 

I wonder how many of the far-leftists, anarchists, street people and other assorted free-loaders and hangers-on are now expecting that the 99% they fantasize representing will rally to their side. 

My advice for them is to find another camping grounds for that wait.  A permanent one.  Because it ain't happening.

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

UPDATE:  Things are happening fast. 

First we have a hard-left judge (who has no business playing politics from the bench, but isn't that what hard-left judges do?) named Lucy Billings, issuing a temporary restraining order preventing New York from clearing out the park.  This, of course, is a bit late, since the park has already been cleared out, but who's counting?

Then we have Mayor Bloomberg ignoring Judge Billings' order, on the grounds that he needs time to "clarify" it and understand what it means.  In other words, the park stays clear.

This, in effect, is Bloomberg's version of what Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said about Judge John Marshall's 1832 decision in Worcester vs. Georgia:  "John Marshall has made his decision.   Now let him enforce it". 

The Jackson comment was probably mythical.  But Mayor Bloomberg's obvious end-around is not.  Apparently he grew an even bigger pair of balls than I thought. 

Good for him.  Better late than never.

Ken Berwitz

Just when you thought you didn't have to endure Gloria Allred any more.....................

Now this publicity mill on legs has come up with the "boyfriend" of sharon bialek who will assure us that Herman Cain really did try to put his hand under bialek's skirt, headed for her genitals.

Excerpted from Chuck Goudie's article for WLS-TV Chicago:

A former suburban Chicago doctor is expected to reveal new details on Monday aimed at discrediting presidential candidate Herman Cain, the ABC7 I-Team has learned.

The new witness, according to sources involved in the case is Dr. Victor Zuckerman. He has scheduled a news conference for Monday at 1 p.m. with attorney Gloria Allred. The news conference is scheduled for Monday at a Holiday Inn in Shreveport according to a TV station KSLA. Zuckerman was the boyfriend of Chicago business woman Sharon Bialek, who is also represented by Allred.

Dr. Zuckerman is expected to describe how he was with Bialek when the two of them met Mr. Cain at a Chicago restaurant in 1997. Cain has denied any recollection of the encounter. That alleged dinner was the precursor for Ms. Bialek's one-on-one meeting with Cain in Washington, DC a month later. It was during that discussion in a car that Bialek claims that Cain "suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals."

That's it? That's what she called a press conference to tell us?  That - assuming we believe him - Zuckerman was with Cain and bialek in a restaurant, a month before the alleged incident took place? 

Does this mean that, in the happy horsemanure world of Gloria Allred and the breathless media which dutifully regurgitate everything they can find about Cain, eating with someone in a restaurant is just like being an eye witness to what happened in a car a month later?

Holy excrement.  This doesn't even qualify as gossip.

Oh, by the way, Goudie also points out that:

Zuckerman has operated a pediatrics practice but is also affiliated with a "laser and age management" operation according to Internet advertisements and his postings. The Louisiana business is billed as a "a full service Medispa with great aesthetic procedures, a weight loss program and Hormone Replacement Therapy."

On an anti-aging website, Dr. Zuckerman describes himself as interested in "triathalon (sic) training&poker, painting and anti-aging." His favorite book is listed as "the national enquirer" and favorite quotation is: "Insanity-doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

Zuckerman may not know how to spell triathlon,  but at least he got Albert Einstein's definition of insanity right. 

If Einstein were alive today, watching the media continue to publish attacks on Herman Cain without one iota of actual evidence other than the say-so of a serial plaintiff like sharon bialek, I have no doubt that he'd think they were all nuts.

Ken Berwitz

I just took a look at the hard-left crooksandliars.com web site, and found a blog about Major Jean Quan finally deciding to remove the Oakland "Occupy" protesters.  In it, the writer, Diane Sweet, referred to them as "peaceful campers". 

After a riot or two, broken windows in local stores, sexual assaults, etc. etc. etc, this is supposed to be a group of "peaceful campers"???????

I couldn't resist.  I commented as follows"  "Peaceful campers"?  Thanks. I needed that. If sarcastic laughing is exercise, you just gave me a week's worth.

You can use the above link to see what, if anything, other crooksandliars.com commenters are saying.  Be warned, however:  politesse is not exactly the coin of the realm over there.....

Ken Berwitz

The following "commentary" was broadcast on al-aqsa TV (Gaza) less than two weeks ago.  With great thanks to memri.org for recording and translating it:

This entirely typical fare is what Gazans are treated to when they turn on their TV sets. 

This is who the world demands that Israel make peace with.

How?

Ken Berwitz

If the New York Times were not taken seriously by so many people, this morning's lead editorial on illeg