Ken Berwitz

Here are the results of a just-released study by Survey USA, which was conducted in the San Francisco area:

Which statement about the Occupy movment best describes you. I supported the movement when it first started and I still support it. I supported the movment when it first started BUT NOW I oppose it. I opposed the movement when it first started BUT NOW I support it. Or I opposed the movment when it first started and I still oppose it.

Supported/Still Do              32%                      

Supported/Now Oppose       26      

Opposed/Now Support          3     

Opposed/Still Do                31      

What this means is that, in San Francisco, w hich is as left wing a city as there is...

-...the "Occupy" movement started out with a strong majority of support:  58% versus 34% who opposed it:  a differential of +24%...

-...but now just 35% support the "Occupy" movement and 57% oppose it:  a differential of -22%.

That, folks, is a turnaround of 46% in just a few months' time.  Which is huge.

And I again remind you that this is in San Francisco:  a place where you would expect "Occupy" sentiments to be more positive than just about anywhere else.

Now you know why I titled this blog entry "Occu-Bye".

Ken Berwitz

The following partial** chart pulled directly from the Obama campaign web site, is for readers who wonder whatever happened to Jon Corzine - the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, then Democrat Senator from New Jersey, then Democrat Governor of New Jersey, then Chief Executive of MF-Global.....where he somehow managed to lose $1.2 BILLION dollars of his customers' funds and can't seem to find it. 

It is also for readers, if any (and I certainly hope there aren't any) so impossibly naive that they believe the BS from Obama & Co. and think his campaign is really being funded by small contributors, $3 - $5 at a time.

The chart discloses the names, in alphabetical order of Obama bundlers who have, so far, generated over $500,000 for the campaign.  In reading it, keep in mind that there are already 61 bundlers on the list and this is only the end of January -- it is sure to grow massively between now and election day. 

And please pay special attention to the "C" part of the list.  See if you recognize a familiar name in bold print: 

 

Amount Raised: $500,000+
Last Name	First Name	State	City
Barber	Rob	MA	Cambridge
Barzun	Matthew	KY	Louisville
Bauer	Denise	CA	San Francisco
Benioff	Marc	CA	San Francisco
Bernstein	Andi and Tom	NY	New York
Brown	Kawanna	NY	New York
Buell	Justin	CA	San Francisco
Carnahan	Thomas	MO	St. Louis
Clark	Bob	MO	St. Louis
Cohen	Rhonda and David	PA	Philadelphia
Connors	Eileen and Jack	MA	Boston
Corzine	Jon	NJ	Hoboken
Crumpler	John	NC	Raleigh
Dornbush	Kirk	GA	Atlanta
Effron	Blair	NY	New York
Emerson	John	CA	Los Angeles
Eychaner	Fred	IL	Chicago
Forester	Christine	CA	La Jolla
Frank	John	WA	Bellevue
Gilbert	Mark	FL	Boca Raton
Green	Steven	FL	Miami Beach
Halpern	Daniel	GA	Atlanta
Hamamoto	Pam	CA	Tiburon
Hartley	Jane	NY	New York
Heyman	Vicki and Bruce	IL	Chicago
Katzenberg	Jeffrey	CA	Los Angeles
Kempner	Michael	NJ	East Rutherford
Kennedy	Lena	CA	Pasadena
Kramer	Orin	NY	New York
Lopez	Andres	PR	San Juan
Mamet	Noah	CA	Los Angeles
Mathis	Brian	NY	New York
Miller	Lee	IL	Chicago
Morgan	John	FL	Lake Mary
Munoz	Henry	TX	San Antonio
Myers	Charles	NY	Tuxedo Park
Overton	Spencer	MD	Chevy Chase
Parekh	Deven	NY	New York
Parham	Michael	WA	Seattle
Perlman and Karas	Dana and Barry	CA	Los Angeles
Raji	Azita	CA	Belvedere
Randlett	Lorna and Wade	CA	San Francisco
Robinson	Alfreda	DC	Washington
Rosen	Jack	NY	New York
Rudy	Kirk	TX	Austin
Schuster	Elaine	MA	Chestnut Hill
Sepulveda	Eugene	TX	Austin

Unbelievable, isn’t it?

jon corzine not only is being given a free pass from media on the billion-dollar-plus reaming he gave unsuspecting clients (when was the last time you saw a thing about it in mainstream print or broadcast venues), but President Obama is also getting a free pass on the fact that corzine remains a huge bundler for the Obama campaign.

 Sometimes the media bias truly is stunning.  And this is one of those times.

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

**It is only a partial chart because, for some reason, I am having all kinds of trouble lifting the last part of it from the web site.  But if you click on the link I've provided you can see all 61 $500,000+ bundlers -- along with all the other major bundlers as well.

Ken Berwitz

I have written many blogs chronicling what I sarcastically refer to as left wing "civility" - i.e. indisputably uncivil words or actions by folks on the left side of the political aisle.  You know, the side that most media never seem to notice.

Well here is an example of left wing "civility" so egregious that if the Washington Post had any class at all it would suspend Richard Cohen for it, if not firing him outright. 

You can read all of Cohen's incredibly vicious, sophomoric bile-a-thon by clicking here.  But let me give you just a taste of it below:

Herman Cain had endorsed Newt Gingrich....One clown endorsed another.

 

It’s hard to know who is the more ridiculous figure — the grandiloquent, bombastic and compulsively dishonest Gingrich, or the beguilingly ignorant Cain...

 

The Republican establishment acts as if this season’s goon squad of presidential candidates has come out of nowhere, an act of God — a tsunami that hit the party and receded, leaving nothing but nitwits standing. 

 

...the embrace of Sarah Palin by the GOP establishment has got to be noted. The lady has the gift of demagoguery and the required anti-elitism, but she knows next to nothing about almost anything — and revels in her ignorance.

 

The Republican Party has veered so far from reality that Gingrich is lambasting Romney as a “Massachusetts moderate” — moderation being, as it was with the clueless Barry Goldwater...

 

The Republican establishment that has now risen up to smite the bratty Gingrich has only itself to blame....  The GOP is brain-dead.

This is acceptable to the Washington Post?  Wow.

Note to Richard Cohen:  Like them or not,

-Newt Gingrich came from a modest-income military family and rose to become a congressperson, a speaker of the house, and the key orchestrator of the "Contract With America" which resulted in the first Republican house majority in 40 years.  He is also the author of 25 books, mostly on historical subjects.

-Herman Cain, who started out with nothing, has an advanced degree in mathematics, was a mathematician for the US Navy, a hugely successful business executive, and President of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. 

-Sarah Palin, who started out with next to nothing, has been a town mayor, an Energy Secretary and the Governor of a state - in fact, the single most popular Governor in the country until the Richard Cohens of the world went into nonstop attack mode against her;

-Barry Goldwater ran his family's business, then entered the military and rose to the rank of Major General before becoming a five-time US Senator and Presidential candidate.

Now a question for Mr. Cohen:  What the hell have YOU ever done that is more impressive?   Well, let's pick from the following achievements:

-You have written columns for the Washington Post for 36 years without ever winning a Pulitzer Prize (Anyone who writes a column for the Washington Post that long without winning a Pulitzer is damn near in a category by himself),

-You had an illicit affair with Peter Jennings' wife.  And then, years later, you were accused of sexual harassment against a 23 year old female editorial aide (congratulations on getting away with just being scolded for inappropriate behavior),

-You were named the "#1 Hack" of 2010 by Salon Magazine,

-And, as demonstrated above, you write columns which insult people who have accomplished more than you ever ever did, or ever will.

Despite what I have outlined above, I would not want the powers that be at the Washington Post to fire Richard Cohen.  After all, he may have degenerated into a disgusting, low-life bottom-feeder, but he's their disgusting, low-life bottom-feeder.  They hired him, and therefore share at least some of the blame.

A suspension, on the other hand, is probably very appropriate.  But it also is very unlikely to happen.

Lucky for Cohen.  And too bad for the Washington Post's reputation as a first class paper.

Ken Berwitz

When when someone tells me how similar the "Occupy" movement is to the Tea Party movement, I'm never sure whether to laugh or just shake my head in amazement.

Yes, they are similar on a few issues - most notably that financial institutions are too powerful and that they should not be bailed out with taxpayer money.  Then what?  Where are the other similarities?  Show me a few, because I can't find them. 

The Tea Party movement is pro USA, supports capitalism, demands that people be taxed less, and, based on how they have behaved at gatherings and how they have left the areas where such gatherings took place, very respectful of other people's rights.

By contrast, the "Occupy" movement is loaded to the gills with anti USA, anti-capitalism people who demand that they be given more by the taxpayers, and based on how they have squatted in public areas against the law and behaved themselves at gatherings such as the one I am about to report, they could not give a damn about anyone else's rights

(This, of course, is before we get to the many freeloaders among them who are only there for the "stuff" they get without paying for it, and the outright anarchists).

There are countless examples of how ugly the behavior of "Occupy" protesters is.  Oakland is an excellent example - one which has largely been brought on by jean quan, its hapless, helplesss, hopeless "Occupy"-supporting Mayor, whose incompetence and misfeasance has resulted in what is happening on the city's streets today. 

But Oakland is far from the only example.

Here is another one of the latest, excerpted from an article in lifenews.com (not from mainstream media, which continue to do what they can to prop up what is left of this "movement":

PROVIDENCE, RI, January 30, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Demonstrators from the Occupy Wall Street movement threw condoms on Catholic schoolgirls, refused to allow a Catholic priest to give a closing prayer, and shouted down a pro-life speaker at a Rhode Island right to life rally on Thursday, according to its organizer. The event marked the third time protesters associated with the movement have disrupted a pro-life meeting in a week.

 

About two-dozen members of Occupy Providence hiked from Burnside Park to the 39th Annual Pro-Life State House Rally organized by the Rhode Island State Right to Life Committee on Thursday. 

 

The pro-life organization’s executive director, Barth E. Bracy, told LifeSiteNews.com that, near the end of the rally, the Occupiers “strategically fanned out with military precision.”

 

That’s when they “started showering condoms down on some of the girls from a Catholic high school.”

They gathered around speakers at the podium, shouting them down or otherwise jostling them and members of the audience.

 

Bracy, who finished only a quarter of his keynote address before being drowned out by chants and catcalls, said the Occupiers – who carried a large sign reading “Occupy Providence” and wore distinguishing arm bands – physically bumped several people. “They’re touching you. They’re swarming you,” he said.

 

The Providence chapter openly planned its actions on its Facebook page, Bracy said.

 

Bracy said he was disappointed when he tried to ask a man from the national Occupy Wall Street movement, who identified himself as “Dallas,” what opposing the right to life had to do with economics. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/why-does-occupy-wall-st.-support-big-abortion “You can’t have a reasoned conversation with these people,” he said, “They simply try to taunt you. They’re smug, snarky, arrogant. You won’t get a straight answer.”

 

Dallas told Bracy he was on a 13-city national tour to teach Saul Alinsky tactics to local organizers.

What else do you need to know about this pathetic bunch of sorosean radical leftists?

And what else do you need to know about media, once you realize that unless it is buried so obscurely that I could not find it (which is pretty damning in and of itself), today's Providence Journal has no account at all of this incident on its web page?

Tell me:  If this were a Muslim group, and a bunch of anti-Muslim antagonists disrupted an Imam's speech, drowning him out and forcing him to stop a quarter of the way through, do you think it would have been reported? 

The moral of this story is that, based on the reporting in today's media, it is ok to crap on people and trample their rights --- as long as they are the people you don't like.

Shame on the Providence Journal.  I would also say shame on the "Occupy" protesters for being intolerant bullies, but it would be a waste of time.  How can you expect shame from people who don't seem to have any?

Ken Berwitz

According to a tiny little Associated Press piece by Pete Yost, Democrats are trying - again - to blame President Bush for Operation Fast and Furious.

It isn't the Obama administration that sold 2,000 assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels, resulting in hundreds dead (that we know of so far), including two US agents.  It isn't that Attorney General eric holder has repeatedly lied about when and what he knew about this disastrous fiasco. 

No no no.  It is that the original idea was conceived during the Bush administration, tried on a tiny scale, using a method that in no way was similar to Operation Fast and Furious, was found to be unworkable, and was promptly aborted. 

That, you are being asked to believe, is where the blame for Operation Fast and Furious lies.  

It is increasingly hard to escape the conclusion that if these people did not lie, they would not have anything to say at all.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest entry in our "real racism" series.  It comes to us from what might nominally be thought of as an unlikely place:  East Haven, in the usually blue state of Connecticut.  

East Haven, apparently is a haven for hatred of Latinos:  a little oasis where they can be harassed and/or beaten at will, by members of the police force, while other members look the other way and the mayor's reaction to being questionned about it is sneering sarcasm.

Excerpted from the lead editorial in last Wednesday's Hartford Courant's editorial - complete with its extraordinary title, which is right on the mark:

The Mayor Is An Idiot

 

For those who are wondering why the East Haven Police Department is out of control, one possible answer is that Mayor Joseph Maturo is an idiot.

What other possible explanation is there for Mr. Maturo's comments Tuesday night following the arrest of four East Haven police officers for violating, often brutally, the civil rights of Latinos? A New York television reporter asked Mr. Maturo what he was doing for the Latino community. (See the interview, by all means, at http://www.courant.com.)

 

Mr. Maturo responded by saying that he that he might go home and have tacos for dinner.

In 2009, when a Catholic priest, Father James Manship, was arrested for filming an interaction between cops and minority store owners, some mayors might have discerned a possible problem. Mr. Maturo apparently did not. Rev. Manship's actions led to a probe by theU.S. Justice Department, which issued a scathing report accusing the East Haven Police Department of "systematically discriminating against Latinos," conduct that was "deeply rooted in the department's culture."

A related federal grand jury investigation resulted in the arrest of the four officers. On Tuesday, Mr. Maturo said he didn't believe the charges and stood behind the cops.

Mr. Maturo doesn't speak for Italian Americans, most East Haven residents or state residents, but he managed to embarrass all of us. His pathetic attempt at an apology doesn't wash. He ought to resign.

I watched video footage of maturo on Today this morning, in which he explained his comment by pointing out that people sometimes say stupid things. 

Yes, he is right.  We all say stupid things sometimes.  But his "stupid thing" was said in the course of blowing off the arrest of four of his city's police officers for racial crimes. 

That is a lot more than just stupid.  It clearly suggests maturo, at the very least, couldn't care less if Latinos in East Haven are abused - and at worst, that he's just fine with it.  Personally, I have no doubt that both shoes fit.

Real racism is ugly and disgusting.  Mayor maturo has displayed both.  Vividly.

I don't even want him to resign; I want the people of East Haven to rise up and demand his ouster. 

It is the least they can do, after electing this sack of manure in the first place.

Ken Berwitz

I have received this email from three different sources in the past 36 hours, so it is entirely possible you've already seen it.

But, if not, maybe it will give you a chuckle - though through gritted teeth:

President Obama walks into a bank and says to a cashier,
"Good morning Ma'am, could you please cash this check for me"?

Cashier:  "It would be my pleasure sir. Could you please show me your ID"?

Obama:  "Truthfully, I did not bring my ID with me as I didn't think there was
any need to. I am President Barack Obama, the president of the United
States."

Cashier:  "Yes sir, I know who you are, but with all the Government regulations,
monitoring of the banks because of imposters and forgers, etc., I must
insist on seeing ID."

Obama:  "Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you.
Everybody knows who I am.."

Cashier:  "I am sorry, but these are government and bank rules and I must follow
them."

Obama:  "I am urging you please to cash this check."

Cashier:  "Look, this is what we can do: One day Tiger Woods came into the bank
without ID. To prove he was Tiger Woods he pulled out his putting iron
and made a beautiful shot across the bank lobby into a cup. With that
shot we knew him to be Tiger Woods and we cashed his check."

"Another time, Roger Federer came in without ID. He pulled out his tennis
racquet and served an ace shot directly into the center of our bank logo
90 feet away. With that spectacular shot we cashed his check. So, what
can you do to prove that it is you, and only you?"

Obama stood there thinking, and thinking and finally says:  "Honestly, nothing comes to mind.  I can't think of a single thing I can do."

Cashier:  "Will that be large or small bills, Mr. President?"

Ken Berwitz

You cannot make this stuff up.

From Howard Kurtz's (predicably supportive) piece about Debbie Wasserman Schultz in (the just as predictably supportive) Newsweek:

A few weeks ago, in talking about the day a crazed gunman shot Rep. Gabby Giffords in the head, Wasserman Schultz pivoted to how “the discourse in America” had taken “a very precipitous turn towards edginess and a lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.” Republican national chairman Reince Priebus demanded that she apologize for her “reckless comments blaming the Tea Party for the horrific Tucson shooting.”

Wasserman Schultz makes no apologies. Nibbling a sandwich in her House office, she says: “I make strongly worded statements so people pay attention a little to what I’m saying.”

jared lee loughner's shooting spree, which killed a number of people and severely injured Gabrielle Giffords, had nothing to do with the Tea Party.  That was a lie, and remains a lie.

Evidence shows that loughner had it in for Giffords since 2007 - two years before the Tea Party even existed.  No one can find anything, either verbal or written, to indicate that he had any feeling at all about the Tea Party, or that he ever saw Sarah Palin's "bullseye" sheet of vulnerable congressional districts, one of which was Ms. Giffords'. 

But all this is irrelevant to Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  She is perfectly willing to lie to our faces and leave that lie hanging out there.  Why?  Because then "people pay attention a little to what I'm saying". 

Not for nothing do I call her Dim Bulb Debbie.  And, based on Howard Kurtz's article, that's about the best thing I can call her.

Ken Berwitz

Here, pulled from realclearpolitics.com (which, of course, pulled the information from each polling organization), are the final polls before Florida's Tuesday primary:

Poll	Date	Sample	MoE	Romney	Gingrich	Santorum	Paul	Spread
RCP Average	1/24 - 1/29	--	--	40.9	29.4	12.9	10.3	Romney +11.5
Insider Advantage	1/29 - 1/29	646 LV	3.8	36	31	12	12	Romney +5
PPP (D)	1/28 - 1/29	733 LV	3.6	39	32	14	11	Romney +7
Rasmussen Reports	1/28 - 1/28	750 LV	4.5	44	28	12	10	Romney +16
Quinnipiac	1/27 - 1/29	539 LV	4.2	43	29	11	11	Romney +14
SurveyUSA	1/27 - 1/29	500 LV	4.5	41	26	12	12	Romney +15
NBC News/Marist	1/25 - 1/26	366 LV	5.5	42	27	16	11	Romney +15
Miami Herald/Mason-Dixon	1/24 - 1/26	500 LV	4.5	42	31	14	6	Romney +11
Sunshine State News/VSS	1/24 - 1/26	865 LV	3.3	40	31	12	9	Romney +9

See All Florida Republican Presidential Primary Polling Data 

Note:  Do not be fooled by the top two polls. Insider Advantage and PPP, which completed interviewing on Sunday and create the impression Gingrich is surging.  It is an artifact of the order realclearpolitics.com put them in.  Interviewing for both Quinnipiac (Romney +14%) and SurveyUSA (Romney +15%) were also conducted through Sunday.

What does all this mean?  If you believe political polls, Romney is in like Flynn. 

But, then, there is this little matter of the actual vote.

Let's all wait until tomorrow night and find out.  Fair enough?

Ken Berwitz

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

A document the Department of Justice sent to Congress Friday shows that Eric Holder’s deputy chief of staff was made aware on the day of U.S. border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder that a weapon traced back to Operation Fast and Furious killed him. But when asked Sunday, a Justice spokesperson would not would not answer The Daily Caller’s question about whether Attorney General Eric Holder himself was informed of the connection on that day.

Can anyone possibly believe that holder's deputy chief of staff knew about Agent Brian Terry's murder the day it happened, but didn't make eric holder aware of it?  

In this regard, let's remember that holder claimed he didn't know a thing about Operation Fast and Furious before April of last year - after which five emails, written directly to holder and specifically detailing Operation Fast and Furious, were uncovered - along with video of holder talking about the operation under its original name (Project Gunrunner) in 2009.  

eric holder is an incompetent, a liar and a disgrace.  Every day he remains the Attorney General of the United States disgraces his office and his country.

It also disgraces our media, who - with precious few exceptions - are so invested in propping up holder's boss, President Barack Obama, that they have moved heaven and earth not to report the massive, devastating, information uncovered about Operation Fast and Furious.

And the biggest disgrace of all?  President Obama himself.  I am certain Mr. Obama knew exactly what he was getting when he appointed holder AG.  And even if he didn't then, he certainly does now. 

Every day President Obama leaves eric holder in place as AG, is another reason he should be removed from office in November.

Ken Berwitz

Jesse Jackson, yesterday, on the exchange between President Obama and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer:

“…while it’s on my mind, Gov. Janice K. Brewer, the finger person.  Gov. Janice K. Brewer, who gave President Obama the finger, governor of Arizona, call 1 800 253 0883.  Keep that line real busy.  1 800 253 0883.  We’ll give you the number later a little later today and this week on the email number of her press secretary.  We want to keep Arizona. . . until she can put her hands in her pocket and have some good. . . do you know how insulting it is to put your finger in somebody’s face?  Try it with the cameras rolling, she knew the cameras.

“She knew what she was doing.  She was telling him off.  She was cutting him down to his size.  She must never get away with that.  Even George Wallace did not put his finger in Dr. King’s face.  Say, enough is enough.”

Jan Brewer "gave President Obama the finger"?  Nope.  That expression has a specific meaning - a raised middle finger - and she never did it.   

Jesse Jackson either is lying or doesn't know what he's talking about.  What a shock!  When does that ever happen?

Can anyone convince this man to just be quiet and go away?

Ken Berwitz

What do you get when you combine a left wing city and a far left mayor who, as an extra added attraction, is too cowardly to move against her lunatic-fringe left wing friends?

You get Oakland.  The last bastion of the "Occupy" movement.

Excerpted from an article at contracostatimes.com:

OAKLAND -- Occupy Oakland protesters broke into City Hall, stole an American flag from the City Council chamber and set it on fire Saturday night, punctuating a wild day in which police deployed tear gas, arrested more than 200 marchers and dodged hurling objects.

 

Demonstrators spent the day trying to break into a convention center and temporarily occupying City Hall and a YMCA, all the while snaking around lines of riot-clad police periodically shooting bean bag projectiles, among other uses of nonlethal force.

 

Saturday marked the first major clashes between protesters and police since November and left three officers with minor injuries, as protesters threw bottles, metal pipes, rocks, spray cans and "improvised explosive devices," police said.

 

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan spoke moments after the City Hall invasion, saying the city would ask for "stay away" orders against many of the protesters who have repeatedly been arrested in Oakland.

 

"This particular faction of Occupy ... they're very violent and I'm going to be asking for a lot more mutual aid," Quan said, adding that the weekly marches prevent the city's police force from patrolling other parts of Oakland. "They are hurting the neighborhoods by continuing to do this on Saturday nights."

 

Oakland police had to ignore 200 lower priority calls for service Saturday night, more than the normal 60 because resources were tied up with the Occupy protests, Sgt. Christopher Bolton said.  

Who do you blame for this lunatic-left anarchy? 

First, of course, you blame the protesters themselves.  "Occupy" has become a convenient rationale for this anarchic, USA-hating bunch, and they use it whereever and whenever they can.

After that? You blame Mayor jean quan.  This is the genius who expressed her support for the "Occupy" movement, remember?  Well, this is how they have paid her back.  They have again trashed the city of Oakland, rioted in the streets, and thoroughly disrupted the lives of normal people who want nothing other than to go about their daily business. 

"Hey, why not?  The police might arrest us - they still think law and order means something in this town.  But what's she going to do about it, besides whine that we should be nice?  Nothing to worry about from her."

A "stay away" order?  That's jean quan's answer?  Wow.  Maybe next time she'll be even tougher and and make it a "stay away and write I'm sorry 100 times" order.

Oakland, sad to say, deserves this.  They elected a useless leftist to be their mayor.....and they got exactly what they bargained for. 

Maybe next time they'll know better.

Ken Berwitz

Did Arizona Governor Jan Brewer really stick an angry finger at President Obama?

Well, if you look at that now-famous still photo of their meeting you "know" she did.  There it is, right in front of your eyes.  And our wonderful "neutral" media have certainly made sure to portray it that way.

But did she really? 

Funny thing about still photography:  sometimes it can catch an image that requires seeing "before" and "after" to fully understand.  Illustratively, we have all seen pictures of a baseball player making a leaping catch, or a basketball player taking a jump shot.  Do we conclude that these players float on air, or that immediately before and immedately after the picture was taken their feet are back on the ground?

With this in mind, please click here and you will link to Ken Shepherd's blog at newsbusters.org, which contains the Associated Press's raw video footage of Mr. Obama and Ms. Brewer's meeting. 

You will see that when they first meet, at :11, Ms. Brewer is all smiles as she greets Mr. Obama and shakes his hand.  We cannot see Mr. Obama's face, but based on the length of time the handshake continues (seven seconds until the next camera shot, and they are still shaking hands), coupled with Ms. Brewer's unchanging demeanor, it is reasonable to assume he was as cordial as she was.

Then, at about :30 in the video, the AP inserts the still picture of Ms. Brewer with her finger pointed at Mr. Obama. 

I urge you to take very close look.  I am not certain, but it appears that both of them may be smiling - Ms. Brewer more broadly than Mr. Obama, but both of them smiling nevertheless.

Please understand that I am not at all trying to "sell" this read of the picture.  I cannot tell for sure.  And we all have read the reports that, at some point, the conversation became testy.  But I have to say that, based on their looks, the nature of this finger-pointing thing is very, very iffy to me. 

I only wish there were footage -  say, five seconds before and after the still picture - so we could have a true sense of what went on there.  Truth be told, we will never know for sure.

Ken Berwitz

Do you "know" that political conservatives are more likely to be ignorant and prejudiced? You do if you read yahoo news. 

Excerpted from the yahoo article:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.

Controversy ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics.

"They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Let me get this straight:  Gordon Hodson, someone I (and I bet you) have never heard of, sends an email to livescience.com about a study we are not privy to anything but bits and piece of, and this is worthy of a feature article smearing everyone who doesn't toe the liberal-left ideological line?  You're kidding, right?

Well, yahoo.com is not kidding, because it published the article.  So let's look into this more extensively.

To start, it might be worth noting that livescience.com defines itself as a partner of MSNBC, and that it has a link to Elizabeth Warren's web site.  That should explain a lot right there.

Regarding the article itself, livescience.com's home page uses a "teaser" which says "low intelligence may lead to a craving for order, authority and hierarchy".  Thus, presumably, high intelligence must lead to a craving for lack of order, lack of authority and no hierarchy.  Do you agree with that premise?  Me neither.

Then, when you click on the teaser and get to the article, there is a little blurb which says that "a new study finds links between low intelligence and racism, prejudice and homophobia" - which is then tied to political conservatives as if they are synonymous. 

Does this sound like a legitimate research study, or a term paper for a political science class at Berkeley?

But, to be fair, we should see if the findings support such a claim.  So let's continue by considering how the article identifies this dreadful scourge of conservatism:

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

Un-frigging-believable. 

Can you tell me how conservatism would be linked to a belief that family life suffers when mum (mum???) isn't around during the day, or that schools should teach children to obey authority?  Do these geniuses think that no social liberals would agree with those statements?  Do you have to be conservative to believe family life suffers when one of the family members isn't there?

And then we have the racist component - which, as described, is beyond pathetic.  First the article cites an overtly racist question -- and then it renders the question valueless by assuring us that people are racially biased no matter how egalitarian they are.  If that is true, what is the difference how an overtly racist question is answered?  Everyone is racist anyway.

Now for the funniest part:  Hodson himself admits the study is BS:

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

"There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said

Well, well well. 

Here's something for Mr. Hodson, and livescience, and yahoo.com, to think about:  Using exactly the same premise - averages, over large groups rather than individual assessments - it can be proven that Black people are not as educated, not as successful and are more criminal than White people.  On average, every one of those claims is just as empirically true as the "findings" about social conservatives. 

But... but... I'm sure Mr. Hodson would say ...what were his own words?  Oh yeah....that such findings aren't implying that all Black people are uneducated, unsuccessful and criminal, and all White people are educated, successful and law-abiding.  It's just averages over large groups.

If so, he would be right.  Being Black does not make a person anything but Black.  Therefore, looking at overall averages, with no context at all to them, is ridiculous.  What does it tell you about the next Black person you meet?  Nothing, that's what. 

Just as looking at overall "averages" based on arbitrary definitions of political conservatism, doesn't tell us anything at all about individual political conservatives.

So what is the point of this "study" - other than finding a gratuitous, nonsensical way to stereotype political conservatives, which yahoo.com was more than happy to put on its web site?

If you come up with one, do let me know.

Ken Berwitz

What happens when a supposedly reliable news agency puts out a major-league hit piece on a rising political star (do you need me to tell you this is about a Republican), and the piece is just plain full of crap?

Here's your answer.

On Thursday, Reuters distributed an article by David Adams that, in essence, said Florida's Republican Senator, Marco Rubio, may be discussed as a VP prospect, but he won't be picked. 

Among the reasons are that he is a big spender who bought a big house with a big mortgage and a big home equity line, but is having all sorts of trouble making the payments, as well as paying off his student loans from years ago.  Worse, he has been a habitual user of party-issued credit cards for personal expenses, who has had to reimburse the Republican Party about $16,000 - so far. 

Talk about taking the shine off of Rubio's rising star!

But there is a problem.  A ton of what was written in that article was either distorted or flat-out untrue.

Reuters had to - red-facedly and then some - issue a revised version which...in the news organization's own words:

(Removes words "and at times has had difficulty paying his mortgage," paragraph 7; removes "he did not make payments on a $100,000-plus student loan" and instead states "he did not pay down the balance of a $100,000-plus student loan," paragraph 10; removes "he was caught up in an Internal Revenue Service Investigation" and instead states "his name surfaced in an Internal Revenue Service investigation," paragraph 12; removes "voted against Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's Supreme Court nominee" and instead states "opposed President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor," paragraph 41; removes "voted against Obama's healthcare overhaul" and instead states "opposed Obama's healthcare overhaul," paragraph 41)

Ken Berwitz

According to an Associated Press article, members of the Muslim brotherhood and secular protesters have been fighting each other in Cairo's Tahrir Square, each demanding things be done their way.

With the Muslim brotherhood, and the even more fundamentalist Salafists, winning 75% of the seats in Egypt's parliament, who do you think is going to come out a winner?  Fundamentalist Islam or the well-bred, well-fed, English-speaking, westernized protesters?

Oh, did I mention that the current status of Egypt's 33 year peace with Israel is that it is on ice, until there is a national vote -- of the same people who put the fundamentalists in control of the country?

Thank you, President Obama, for working so hard to force Hosni Mubarak out of power and leaving the vacuum that is being filled this way.  I'm sure you are thrilled at how things are working out. 

And thank you, Accomplice Media, for largely burying what is happening in Egypt, so as not to sully the sterling reputation of the man they love -- as demonstrated by the fact that the Associated Press keeps putting out stories about what is happening there and you keep declining to pass them along.

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

This one pretty much speaks for itself.

Excerpted from an article at buzzfeed.com:

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told (MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell).

Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.

Ms. Warren is not wealthy?  She's not part of "the 1%"?  You have to wonder if she is dense enough to believe that, or is she just trying a standup comedy routine in case the senate gig doesn't work out?

But, either way, it doesn't matter.  Because the mainstream media will not be nailing her for it.  And what is left of the "Occupy" crowd will not be picketing her, any more than they picket people like George Soros or Michael Moore, or Russell Simmons, etc. etc. etc.

Elizabeth Warren's hypocrisy, like that of so many in the media, and the "Occupy" movement she claims to have created the intellectual foundation for, is breathtaking.

Ken Berwitz

After all this time, and all that brillant left wing propaganda, you might think Rachel Maddow would be a little more well known - at least to folks smart enough to become contestants on Jeopardy.

But, as seen on this video from Breitbart.tv, when three Jeopardy contestants were shown a picture of Ms. Maddow, none of them could identify her.  There was complete silence until the buzzer sounded.

Maybe they were mesmerized by her look. 

Maybe the sight of her immediately put thim in deep in thought over some gem of wisdom she had imparted which especially touched them.  Or, maybe they just didn't know who the eff she was.

I don't know about you, but I'm betting on door #3.

What does this mean?  Nothing, of course.  But you have to admit it is pretty funny. 

I bet they'd have recognized Sean Hannity......

Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama, yesterday, explaining why there are about 15 million more people on food stamps now than the day he took office:

"First of all, I don't put people on food stamps. People become eligible for food stamps. Second of all, the initial expansion of food-stamp eligibility happened under my Republican predecessor, not under me. Number three, when you have a disastrous economic crash that results in 8 million people losing their jobs, more people are going to need more support from government."

Ok, let's take these one at a time.

It is, of course, true that a President does not put people on food stamps, within the narrow context that he does not personally sign them up.  But the economy that the President and congress oversees does put people on (or take people off) food stamps.  And, as you can see from the chart below, the huge surge in food stamps coincided with Democrats taking over both houses of congress in 2007, then President Obama taking office in 2009:

While it is true that the initial part of this surge occurred while President Bush was still in office, a) it took place after Democrats gained control of congress, thus wrote the budgets , and b) it continued, unabated, through three years of the Obama administration - the first two of which had a virtually veto-proof Democrat house and senate which could have done pretty much anything it wanted legislatively.

Now I have a question; a very basic one: when does Barack Obama take responsibility for this? 

Yes, there was a period of slightly under a year during which 8 million people lost their jobs.  But Mr. Obama has been President for 2 /2 years AFTER that period, most of it with a Democrat congress to back him up.  What did HE and THEY do about it?  

Well, let's see what happened.

Currently, we have something like two million fewer job-holders in this country than the day Barack Obama took office.  Obviously that is not good.

But let's give Mr. Obama a free pass and blame President Bush, and President Bush alone - not the Democrat congress - for the period of greatest job loss during the Obama presidency - about 4,000,000 - which occurred from January through June of 2009.  

So what happened after that?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since July, 2009 - i.e. after the loss of all those jobs, and months into implementation of the so-called "stimulus package" (I'm not even going to start on ObamaCare) - we have gained back all of 1,407,000 jobs. 

This is supposed to be the good news? 

Mr. Obama has given us the worst recovery from a recession in my lifetime.   And he gave it to us at a cost of 5 TRILLION dollars in additional debt. 

Again:  this is supposed to be the good news? 

Simply stated, Barack Obama has been disastrous for the economy of this country.  Not President Bush, not Republicans, not Waldo, not Dora the Explorer, not JoJo the Dogfaced Boy, not anyone else.  Barack Obama.  Period.

And all his whining, all his excuses, and all his blaming of everyone else, does not change this.  Not one bit.

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I blogged about the pending lawsuit, currently being considered by Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi, which might result in President Obama not being allowed on Georgia's state ballot.  That being the case, I think it would be a good time to remind readers of just how much we do not know about the man we elected President in 2008, and who currently sits in the Oval Office.

Here is a list compiled by Jim ONeill of Canada Free Press last March.  To my knowledge it is as accurate now as it was then (keeping in mind that, if the experts referenced in yesterday's blog are correct, the supposed original birth certificate Mr. Obama issued last April is very likely a photo-shopped fraud):

• Obama’s birth certificate—Not released
• Obama/Dunham marriage license—Not released
• Noelani Kindergarten records—Lost
• Soetoro/Dunham marriage license—Not released
• Soetoro adoption records—Not released
• Punahou School records—Not released
• Noelani 3rd Grade records—Not released
• Occidental College records—Not released
• Social Security documentation—Controversial
• Selective Service documentation—Controversial
• Passport—Not released
• Columbia College records—Not released
• Harvard College records—Not released
• Illinois Bar Records—Not released
• Medical records—Not released
• Illinois State Senate schedule—Lost
• Law practice client list—Not released

The bottom line is that we know more about where Waldo is than we know about who we elected President of the United States.

Maybe Judge Malihi of Georgia will do us all a major service, and force Mr. Obama to let us in on who and what he he is.  

It's long past time that someone did.

Ken Berwitz

Last night's Republican debate was the last for about a month.  (Can I get a hallelujah?).

Based on how it turned out, unless some major unforeseen factor comes into play before Tuesday, or there is a remarkable voter surprise during the primary, it looks to me like Mitt Romney has not only weathered the Gingrich surge, but is poised to make a major move toward securing the nomination.

In my opinion Romney, who needed to stanch Newt Gingrich's momentum, had his best debate of them all.  And Gingrich, while making salient points and generating several strong applause-lines (which he will do in every debate), wound up eating Romney's dust.

Romney out-and-out nailed Gingrich on the immigration issue.  This little vignette occurred after Gingrich, several times, accused Romney of trying to push grandmothers and grandfathers out of the country:

GINGRICH: Well, so we have gone — we’ve gone from your Washington attack when I first proposed this and you said it was outrageous; it would be a magnet to you’re accepting the fact that, you know, a family is going to take care of their grandmother or their grandfather.

The idea that you are going to push them out in some form by simply saying they can’t go get a job — I think the grandmother is still going to be here. All I want to do is to allow the grandmother to be here legally with some rights to have residency but not citizenship, so that he or she can finish their life with dignity within the law.  (APPLAUSE) 

ROMNEY: You know, our problem is not 11 million grandmothers. (APPLAUSE)  Our problem is — all right.  Our problem is 11 million people getting jobs that many Americans, legal immigrants, would like to have. It’s school kids in schools that districts are having a hard time paying for. It’s people getting free health care because we are required under the law to provide that health care.

And the real concern is the people who want to come here legally. Let’s let legal immigrants come here. Let’s stop illegal immigration.

(APPLAUSE) 

And Romney's strong statement of support for Israel  - every bit as strong as Gingrichs's - probably went a long way towards attracting Jewish voters (and securing Sheldon Adelson's financial support if he is the nominee). 

Arguably, Gingrich's worst moment - and one of Romney's very best - was when he went into his all-too-typical whine mode after being challenged on an accusation about where Romney had invested his money.  Here is the transcript of Gingrich's whine, and Romney's "perfect squelch" response:

BLITZER: Let’s get to the issue of transparency, because voters out there, they want to know as much about you four gentlemen as possible before they vote.  Tax returns — let me bring this to Speaker Gingrich.

Earlier this week, you said Governor Romney, after he released his taxes, you said that you were satisfied with the level of transparency of his personal finances when it comes to this. And I just want to reiterate and ask you, are you satisfied right now with the level of transparency as far as his personal finances?

GINGRICH: Wolf, you and I have a great relationship, it goes back a long way. I’m with him. This is a nonsense question.

(GINGRICH: Look, how about if the four of us agree for the rest of the evening, we’ll actually talk about issues that relate to governing America?

BLITZER: But, Mr. Speaker, you made an issue of this, this week, when you said that, “He lives in a world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts.” I didn’t say that. You did.

GINGRICH: I did. And I’m perfectly happy to say that on an interview on some TV show. But this is a national debate, where you have a chance to get the four of us to talk about a whole range of issues.

BLITZER: But if you make a serious accusation against Governor Romney like that, you need to explain that.

GINGRICH: I simply suggested –  you want to try again? I mean –

ROMNEY: Wouldn’t it be nice if people didn’t make accusations somewhere else that they weren’t willing to defend here?

(APPLAUSE)

Game, set, match. 

Romney then went on to point out that his money is in a blind trust, therefore he could not have known how it was being invested - which is true of anyone holding a blind trust.

Regarding ron paul:  He did his usual imitation of Maxine, the cantankerous, sarcastic character from Hallmark Cards (though Maxine's clothes fit better).  He was sometimes funny, sometimes insightful - especially on money issues, which is his strongest area - and a welcome departure from the battle royal between Romney and Gingrich. 

I am noticing that, more and more, paul keeps invoking his background as a physician.  I doubt that it will change many people's votes, but who knows?  ron paul, I expect, will get his usual substantial-but-nowhere-near-enough vote count, and continue to be a loser.

Rick Santorum is something of another story.  Yes, I know he has not done well in the primaries (Iowa had caucuses, not an actual primary vote), he has a major ace in the hole:  if Gingrich should leave the race Santorum is the guy who will pick up the lion's share of his support.

For that reason, if Rick Santorum was as strong last night as most analysts think he was, he has given a major boost to Mitt Romney, because the better Santorum does next Tuesday, the more votes he extracts from Gingrich.

A new Rasmussen poll came out yesterday which indicates that in the past few days, Gingrich's post-South Carolina surge is disappearing as fast as it grew.  Four days ago Rasmussen had Gingrich leading Romney by 42%-33%.  But now Romney is ahead 39% - 31%:  a 17% turnaround in no time flat. 

If most Florida voters saw the debate as I did, and Rasmussen's poll is accurate, Mitt Romney will be a far happier man next Tuesday night than Newt Gingrich.

So will I.

One other thing:  Last night Dick Morris pointed out that, in addition to there being no more debates for almost a month, just about every February primary (Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Maine, Arizona and Michigan) will be held in a place where Romney would expect to do well.  So if Romney comes out of Florida with a big win, he should do very, very well for the next month.  After that, it probably would be too late for Gingrich or anyone else.

On the other hand, this is politics.  So anything can happen at any time.

We'll see.....

What possible reason would he have had for not doing so….?  

Ken Berwitz

The BS regarding Warren Buffett's secretary, Debby Bosanek, and her federal tax rate, continues unabated.

This time the Obama administration's media propagandist posing as a journalist is ABC reporter Bianna Golodryga.

Excerpted from Brent Baker's blog at newsbusters.org:

President Obama, Golodryga helpfully explained in advancing Obama’s agenda, called for a minimum 30 percent tax rate on millionaires “after Republican candidate Mitt Romney revealed he made almost $43 million over two years, paying a tax rate of 13.9 percent in 2010, not Debbie’s 35.8 percent.”

That 35.8 percent claim for secretary Debbie Bosanek is highly dubious. She may be in that bracket, but is that really her effective rate on all of her income and not just her marginal rate? Does she rent and not get a mortgage interest deduction? Does she have any deductions for dependents? Golodryga did not say on air nor in the ABCNews.com version which at least mentioned Buffett is “a Democrat and Obama-supporter.”

The average effective federal income tax rate for taxpayers is 11 percent, I noted in my January 24 post, “Nets Use Romney’s Taxes to Advance Obama’s False ‘Fairness’ Narrative,” which includes a table showing those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay an average effective income tax rate of 7 percent, 8 percent for those taking in $75,000 to $100,000 and 12 percent for those between $100,000 and $200,000.

So who are you going to believe?  Warren Buffett, President Obama and Bianna Golodryga, or your most elemental common sense and logic?

Before answering, let me ask you something:  why do you suppose Ms. Bosanek's tax returns, the basis for all of this, have not been released? 

Whatever you do, please do not tell me it is private information.  Not after Bosanek's tax rate has been used to make these almost certainly fraudulent claims.  Besides, if Debbie Bosanek was not on board, she would not have proudly sat in Queen Michelle's box during President Obama's Sleight of the Union speech.

It is hard to decide what the worst part of this fiasco is: 

-Warren Buffett's unsubstantiated, apparently false, claims about his secretary's tax rate,

-President Obama's relentless use of Buffett's unsubstantiated, apparently false, claims to make demands about the rate other people should pay, or

-our Accomplice Media's willingness to parrot the unsubstantiated, apparently false, claims over and over and over again, as if they are unquestionably true, despite how easy it is to see that they almost certainly are not.

When do media go back to being the watchdogs who report on, and protect us from, BS like this?  When do they go back to acting like professional journalists instead of ridiculous propagandists?

The day after Barack Obama leaves office?

Ken Berwitz

Investors Business Daily analyzed President Obama's claims about the distribution and fairness/unfairness of federal taxation.  It determined that Mr. Obama had constructed a house of cards.  Yesterday's lead editorial blew the roof off of that house.

Please do yourself a favor and use the above link to read every word.  But, for now, here are the first few paragraphs:

If President Obama wants to create a fairer country, shouldn't he start by fairly portraying our tax code? Instead, he used his State of the Union speech to peddle a number of blatant tax falsehoods.

In his speech, Obama repeatedly turned to the tax code to explain what's wrong with the country. It favors the rich, he said. It benefits companies that send jobs abroad. It subsidizes the dirty old oil industry. It's the cause of our deficit problem. And worst of all, plenty of people and businesses aren't paying their "fair share."

None of it is true.

But that hasn't stopped Obama from repeating them every chance he gets, hoping that no one will notice or that his critics will get tired of correcting the record.

Since we don't fall into either category, here are the facts behind Obama's State of the Union tax deceptions.

As you no doubt realize, the remainder of the editorial goes into specific detail regarding how completely false the President's claims are. 

Does IBD have a point?  Well, read it and see.  I strongly suspect you will come to the conclusion that, like so much of what Barack Obama says, it is a fantasy, designed to prey upon the (I certainly hope) dwindling segment of people who still trust him.

How can  anyone believe a word this man says?

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest news on Operation Fast and Furious (F&F) - based on the latest of Matthew Boyle's invaluable series of blogs on this horrific scandal, which you can read at dailycaller.com:

House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa told The Daily Caller that Attorney General Eric Holder owes an apology to the Mexican government and to the families of Operation Fast and Furious victims south of the border.

 

“Justice has blood on their hands,” Issa said Wednesday during an exclusive interview with TheDC, referring to the U.S. Department of Justice.

 

Fast and Furious was a program of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, overseen by Holder’s DOJ. It sent thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels via straw purchasers, people who legally purchased guns in the United States with the known intention of illegally trafficking them somewhere else.

 

At least 300 people in Mexico were killed with Fast and Furious weapons, as was U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. At this point, the identities of the Mexican victims are unknown.

 

Both President Barack Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized to Terry’s family almost immediately. Napolitano attended Terry’s funeral with a letter from Obama in hand, and the president made an additional phone call expressing his condolences.

 

But Holder never apologized to Terry’s family until after Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn pressed him during a Nov. 8, 2011 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about why he had not done so. Holder finally wrote an apology letter to Terry’s family mere days later, but leaked it to Politico before Terry’s mother Josephine read it.

 

Florida Republican Rep. Allen West, one of the many members of Congress who think Holder should lose his job, called Holder’s decision to leak the apology letter “reprehensible.”

This is a scandal of huge proportions.  It involves hundreds of deaths, directly linked to an operation run by the Department of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), under the control of Attorney General eric holder, and  - for something of this magnitude, which directly affects our relationship with a border country - almost certainly President Barack Obama as well. 

It also involves Attorney General holder lying to our faces regarding what he knew about F&F, and when he knew it - as proven by the 5 memos, each specifically discussing F&F,  which were sent directly to holder over a year before he claimed to have first heard of it.

Yet other than the series by Mr. Boyle - an invaluable series for which he should be thanked every day - and the excellent articles by CBS's Sharyl Attkisson, F&F has been virtually buried by our so-called free press. 

I blog a lot about media bias.  But there is none as egregious as the media bias regarding Operation Fast and Furious.  It is so deep that two major networks - ABC and NBC - have not done so much as a single story about F&F on their nightly news shows. 

That's right.  ABC and NBC have not done a single story on Operation Fast and Furious.  Therefore every person who relies on either of these networks for news has no idea this horror show even exists, let alone who is responsible for it.  And they are far from the only major media venues which have engaged in this coverup.

Even after over 90 members of the house of representatives - more than 20% of the entire body - has either demanded eric holder's resignation, given him a vote of no-confidence or both, even after two US Senators, two sitting Governors and every major Republican presidential candidate have done the same, they still do not report the story.  They pretend it does not even exist.

How profound is the media bias for Operation Fast and Furious?  Let's do a comparison and see:

-At Abu Ghraib, a number of terror suspects were treated badly.  Most of the bad treatment (i.e. being stripped naked, walked around with a leash like a dog, having women's panties put on their heads), while certainly not very nice, involved the kinds of stupid things you might associate with a fraternity initiation. 

The media reaction, however, was to turn Abu Ghraib into a huge cause celebre for years, and condemn President Bush, his administration and Republicans in general for it countless numbers of times.

-In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration decided it would be a good idea to sell thousands of automatic rifles to Mexican drug cartels, which they would then trace the whereabouts of. 

In terms of how harebrained this was, you can stop right there:  arming drug cartels to the teeth is about as harebrained as it gets.  But, even worse, they didn't bother to trace any of the weapons either.  

The result?  Two US agents and hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens are dead - so far - with who knows how many more to come.   

But for F&F, media reaction - with a few notable exceptions, but not many - has been to bury this story as if it meant nothing.  As if it were nothing.  As if the arming of drug cartels and the killing of hundreds of innocent people didn't amount to a thing.

Would they have done this if the President were Bush instead of Obama?  If the Attorney General were Gonzalez instead of holder?  Refer to the Abu Ghraib comparison above, and you'll have your answer. 

I ask myself:  how can media have fallen this low?  How can these people call themselves journalists?  How can they even face themselves in the mirror?

And I ask those same questions of the Obama administration people who not only caused Operation Fast and Furious, but now benefit by media's misfeasance and malfeasance in covering it up.

Ken Berwitz

Sometimes I get sick and tired of this administration's BS. 

And, these days, the administration's Buffett BS makes me sicker and tireder than almost anything else - especially after hearing the so-called "Buffett Rule" invoked last night, while Warren Buffett's secretary sat like a queen next to Michelle Obama (who, it seems more and more, thinks she really is the queen).

How dare Mr. Obama demand adherence to the "Buffett Rule", when Buffett himself, with a level of hypocrisy that is absolutely stunning, has tax accountants fighting for every dime, and his company, Berkshire Hathaway, has been in court for years challenging how much money it pays in taxes. 

From an article in the (decidedly left wing, Obama-supporting) Huffington Post:

Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year.

And how dare we be expected to accept Warren Buffett's absolutely unsubstantiated claim that his secretary, Debby Bosanek, pays income tax at a higher rate than he does?

If Buffett is going to make such a claim, and Barack Obama is featuring it to promote his "tax the rich" proposals, then, damn it, WHERE ARE WARREN BUFFETT'S AND DEBBIE BOSANEK'S TAX RETURNS?  Why are they being withheld, so that we cannot see for ourselves? 

Normally I would not ask for private information such as this.  But since Buffett and his Democrat pals, have turned it into an issue, and the President is making it the basis for demands that other people pay different tax structures, they owe it to us to make those tax returns public.

What are we supposed to do?  Simply take the word of a partisan Democrat like Warren Buffett, who (like many big-time Obama supporters) is making a huge $$$$$$ windfall off of this corrupt administration, and not expect any evidence?

How is Buffett making all that $$$$$ off the Obama administration?  Here's one way:  because Barack Obama has refused to allow the Keystone pipeline to go forward, oil will have to be transported by the much more costly, and much less safe, use of trucks and rail.  And do you know who owns the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad, which, in the absence of a Keystone pipeline, would transport the oil?  

Warren Buffett, that's who.  And he will make an effing fortune because of it. 

Tens of thousands of jobs lost, a major rift with one of our strongest allies, who now will sell at least part of that oil to China, but Buffett the Billionaire will get even richer.  Can you imagine what our media would say about this if this were a Republican President and it was his sugar daddy reaping all those bucks?

How bad does this have to stink before our Accomplice Media start noticing the stench?  How far in the tank (in this case, the oil tank) are they for Barack Obama and his crony capitalist associate Warren Buffett?

Tell me they will finally stop acting like Obama propagandists and start acting like actual journalists.  Then maybe I won't be sick and tired any more.

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

UPDATE:  I just read a fascinating - and, to the Obama/Buffett/Bosanek axis, devastating - analysis in Paul Roderick Gregory's just-released piece for Forbes Magazine.  In it, Mr. Gregory estimates that, for Buffett to be telling the truth about Debbie Bosanek, she must be earning something between $200,000 and $500,000 a year.  Please, please, use the link I have provided and see for yourself.

In other words - and hardly surprising, given who she works for - Ms. Bosanek, while not as rich as Buffett (who is?), earns a big, fat, major-league income, far beyond what the vast majority of people in this country will ever see the best year of their lives.

Please tell me you are not surprised.  Please tell me that you didn't think Debbie Bosanek was taking home the salary of an average secretary at an average office.

 Incredibly, this means that the Buffett BS just became even smellier than it was before.

Now, more than ever I want to see HIS tax return and HER tax return.  Don't you?

Ken Berwitz

Nancy Pelosi, yesterday, on John King's CNN show:

Pelosi:  “He’s not going to be President of the United States. That’s not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn’t going to happen.”

 

King:  “Why are you so sure?”

 

Pelosi:  “There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that’s their prerogative. I don‘t even think that’s going to happen.”

Newt Gingrich, this morning, on the Today Show:

"I have no idea what's in Nancy Pelosi's head.  If she knows something, I have a simple challenge: Spit it out”

Nancy Pelosi, through a spokesperson, later today:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s office on Wednesday said the minority leader doesn’t have any dirt on Newt Gingrich.

"The 'something' Leader Pelosi knows is that Newt Gingrich will not be President of the United States. She made that clear last night," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said in a statement.

 

“Leader Pelosi previously made a reference to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware,” Hammill said.

Let's be very clear about what happened here.  Ms. Pelosi plainly indicated that "there is something I know", which, for sure, would prevent Newt Gingrich from becoming President. 

Not at all surprisingly, her comment was immediately splashed across the media.

Now, a day later, after Ms. Pelosi was directly challenged by Gingrich to "spit it out"?  She folds like a $5 suitcase.  She doesn't even have the guts to deny it in person - instead she trots out one of her acolytes to barf out a mealy-mouthed lie on her behalf.

Now you know why this blog's title refers to her as Nancy Pathetic.

Could she be more pathetic then that?  Could she be more dishonest? 

What if this were, say, Michele Bachmann talking about Barack Obama?  How much of a field day would the media have with it?  How many of them would use it to impugn her intelligence?  Her honesty?  Her character?

Now:  Will tonight's major network's news shows report the Nancy Pathetic episode way they would have reported it about Ms. Bachmann?  Will they even report it at all? 

We'll see.  But I think I already know.  And I think you do too.

Ken Berwitz

Of all the reviews I've read about President Obama's Sleight of the Union message, the one which summed it up most compactly was Rich Lowry's:

The president steered clear of some of the nation's gravest domestic questions. You would never know we are accumulating debt at a $1.3 trillion annual clip. You would never know that health care costs are soaring and a vast political and constitutional fight is ongoing over his health care law (mentioned once, only very briefly, in passing). You would never know that Medicare and Social Security will soon be groaning under the coming wave of baby boomer retirements. You would never know the tax code is a hideously complex, economically inefficient monstrosity. 

 

All of that was left aside, so the president could strike an uplifting, inoffensive tone proposing a raft of superficially unobjectionable new government actions. It was one thing for Bill Clinton to take this tack in the late 90s when the economy was roaring. It was evasive and irresponsible for President Obama to do it now in our current straits.

I mentioned yesterday that this is the Sleight of the Union speech, because Mr. Obama would have to use sleight of hand to contort the awful economic situation he is overseeing into some kind of wonderful emerging boom period - which it is not, nor is it anywhere close.  In that regard, the speech itself was about as good as Mr. Obama (or, more exactly, his speechwriters) could make it. 

Yes, it was overlong (probably, in part, so Republican Governor Mich Daniels' response would be too late for most people to watch).  But it certainly hit all the right buttons - as long as you ignore the facts that were left unmentioned, that is.

The essence of Mr. Obama's message?  "Here are a bunch of wonderful things that we all want.  If congress will just send me bills that do these wonderful things, I will sign them immediately". 

Don Meredith, the late quarterback and then sportscaster, had a saying about this kind of fluffy BS:  "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas".

Sure, Mr. Obama.  It is the fault of our awful congress.  All those congresspeople have to do is write legislation that makes everything just great, you will happily sign the legislation, and all our problems will be solved.  Just like that.  You are our perfect God ensconced in the heavenly White House, waiting, waiting, waiting, for those mere congressional mortals to take care of the trivial details of your grand design.  Tra la, tra la, tra la la la.

Just curious, Mr. President:  If it were that simple, how come, when you had two years of virtually veto-proof Democrat majorities in both houses of congress, none of it happened? 

Who do you blame, Mr. President?  Was the congress awful when it was your congress?  Is the congress awful now, when your party still controls the senate along with the White House? 

As I blogged last night, Barack Obama will get a nice, maybe week-long, bump from his Sleight of the Union message.  That is because some people will smile happily and glow over his feelgood fantasy - just like theatergoers walking out of a performance of Mary Poppins at the New Amsterdam Theater on 42nd St. in Manhattan.   

But just as those theatergoers are then confronted with the polluted air, the honking horns and the street crazies, so will voters be confronted with the high unemployment and trillion-plus dollar deficits. 

Fantasy over.  Back to reality.  

Ken Berwitz

Chris Matthews has to fit at least one of those three descriptions.  Maybe all of them.  Here is the latest reason why,

During yesterday's "Hardball" show on (where else?) MSNBC, he said this about Mitt Romney's taxes:

Today, Romney released his 2010 tax return on his website along with an estimate, his estimate of his taxes for last year. The returns show that Romney had a combined income of over $42 million for those two years, that's total. He paid over 6 million in taxes, gave 7 million to charities, and he had a tax rate just under 14 percent for 2010 and an estimated tax rate of 15 percent for this past year. That means he made an average of $57,000 a day over the past years while the average American household makes just over 50,000 bucks a year. Most notable is the fact that Romney paid a much lower tax rate than most Americans because his income came solely from investments...14 to 15 percent in taxes compared to what most people who work hard, do well in this country pay about 35, and above if you count state and local almost 50. 

Tell me: how many people do you know who pay 35% in federal income taxes? 

Let me help you out.  Unless you know someone who voluntarily pays more than he/she has to, the answer is almost definitely nobody.  Not even close.

Noel Sheppard of newbusters.org compiled the facts about who actually pays what federal income tax - the actual, checkable facts as opposed to the hot, steamy load dropped on us by Chris Matthews.  Here are a few of them:

-The 35% tax bracket begins at $379,151.  Unless most people in this country have an adjusted (after-deductions) income of at least $379,151, therefore, most people do not pay 35% in taxes. 

This means that Chris Matthews is either ignorant of reality, or that he knows reality and is lying to our faces - presumably because he is so hopeless a shill for Democrats in general and President Obama in particular that he would rather spew this absolute BS at us than tell the truth;

-In 2009 (which, I believe, is the most recent year for which data are available) the average filer of income tax paid 12.8%.  Therefore Chris Matthews' claim of 35% is almost 3 times as much as what people really pay.  And Mitt Romney pays 9% more than the average taxpayer.  In fact, 97% of the country pays a lower rate of taxes than Mitt Romney does.

Again, this means that Chris Matthews is either ignorant of reality, or that he knows reality and is lying to our faces - presumably because he is so hopeless a shill for Democrats in general and President Obama in particular that he would rather spew this absolute BS at us than tell the truth.

So what is Chris Matthews? 

-Is he an ignoramus?  I would say that's at least a possibility. 

-Is he a liar?  I would say that is an excellent possibility. 

-Is he a shill who cares less about facts than about promoting Democrats in general and President Obama in particular?  I would say that's a near certainty.

The bottom line:  In baseball, when you go three for three you're having a great day.  In BS, when you go three for three......you're probably hosting a show on MSNBC.  Sort of leads us right back to Chris Matthews, doesn't it?

Ken Berwitz

Helluva speech.  I mean that.  Whoever wrote it deserves a raise.  There is no doubt that President Obama is going to get a nice, juicy bump in the polls for the next week or two.

And what a message!  I found out that our economy is in tip-top shape, our relations with the international community have never been better, and Israel has every reason to love our President.

I also found out that President Obama is committed to lower taxes, fewer regulations and to significant incentives for business to stay domestic instead of outsourcing.   Funny thing:  until now I was under the apparently mistaken impression that this was the Republican agenda.

And I found out that the only thing holding so many of these great aspirations back is that congress has not yet sent the bills to President Obama's desk, where he is sitting in eager anticipation, with pen in hand at the ready.  That was interesting too, given how many such bills have already come out of the house of representatives only to be deep-sixed by the senate.  I bet Mr. Obama is furious with the party that is in charge of the senate for screwing things up so comple....oh wait.

I'll have more to say about the specifics of the speech tomorrow, as well as Governor Daniels' response (which I have not heard yet).

Ken Berwitz

Let's steel ourselves for President Obama's Sleight of the Union message, with a little humor.

'This list of "paraprosdokians" comes to us from our dear friends Myra and Bob.  If you google the word (and, yes, it is a real word) you can find other such lists, but this one is particularly good.  I guarantee you will enjoy it (or should I say them?):

PARAPROSDOKIANS: (Winston Churchill loved them.)

Here is the definition: "A figure of speech in which the latter part of a sentence or phrase is surprising or unexpected; frequently used in a humorous situation." "Where there's a will, I want to be in it," is a type of paraprosdokian.

1. Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

2. The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on my list.

3. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

4. If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

5. We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.

6. War does not determine who is right - only who is left..

7. Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

8. Evening news is where they begin with 'Good Evening,' and then proceed to tell you why it isn't.

9. To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism. To steal from many is research.

10. A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a work station.

11. I thought I wanted a career. Turns out I just wanted paychecks.

12. Whenever I fill out an application, in the part that says, 'In case of emergency, notify:' I put 'DOCTOR.'

13. I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

14. Women will never be equal to men until they can walk down the street with a bald head and a beer gut, and still think they are sexy.

15. Behind every successful man is his woman. Behind the fall of a successful man is usually another woman.

16. A clear conscience is the sign of a fuzzy memory.

17. You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.

18. Money can't buy happiness, but it sure makes misery easier to live with.

19. There's a fine line between cuddling and holding someone down so they can't get away.

20. I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not so sure.

21. You're never too old to learn something stupid.

22. To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.

23. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

24. Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

25. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.

26. Where there's a will, there's relatives.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest installment of my series on real racism.

It comes to us via the following quotes from Black congressperson Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), made today in an interview with dailycaller.com:

“...black people hold the president in such high esteem, that they would not dare march on the White House even though unemployment is at 15 percent and higher and if there was a white president we would do that because we’ve had white presidents since George Washington.”

"The point was that if we had anybody else in the White House, with this level of unemployment, that you know, you would see a lot more African Americans, African American organizations and retro organizations speaking out against it. But because he is revered, you know, he gets I guess the benefit of, you know, understanding that the situation was terrible when he came in. So, we’re not doing that.”

In other words, Emanuel Cleaver is telling us, in so many words, that President Obama is failing Black people, but Black people will not speak out against his failures because he is also Black. 

If Barack Obama were White, Black people would be speaking out, but he is being given a free pass based on the color of his skin.

If you are looking for an example of racism - real racism, not the concocted variety - there it is in all its "glory".

How do you like it?

Ken Berwitz

Ken Berwitz

This will be a very short blog, because it speaks for itself.

Ken Berwitz

"The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency vested with the power to safeguard employees' rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions."

That statement comes straight from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) web site.  It says that it protects employees who do, and do not want to be unionized, and it will act against unfair labor practices committed by  both private employers and unions.  That sounds pretty lofty, doesn't it?

Well, this is the Obama administration.  So you can forget "lofty", or anything close. 

Remember when President Obama made three "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) while the senate was not in recess? At that time, you might have thought that things couldn't get any worse. 

Well, let me again remind you that this is the Obama administration, so no matter how bad things look, they can get worse.  And they did.

It turns out that at least one of the three illegal, non-recess "recess" appointments is a union big-shot who will continue to be paid by the union while he sits on the NLRB.  Incredible, unethical, disgusting......but true.

From Lachlan Markay's piece at biggovernment.com:

Richard Griffin, the former general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers, will receive regular payments under two different IUOE pension plans. The payment amounts are not listed on the disclosure form. He will also receive a single lump sum payment equal to three weeks of salary (one week for each of the three years since he enrolled in the plan). Griffin’s annual salary as the IUOE’s general counsel was $376,778, according to the disclosure form.

In his capacity as general counsel, we have noted, Griffin advanced policies that helped insulate corrupt union leaders from challenge.

Let me get this straight:  The NLRB's job is, in part, to protect workers from unions.  But President Obama has - illegally - appointed someone who not only was a union big-shot, but will continue to be paid by the union while he votes on NLRB matters.

That is roughly the equivalent of making a member of the New York Yankee fan club part of the umpiring crew for the next Yankee-Red Sox series.

My thanks to Lachlan Markay and biggovernment.org for bringing this to our attention.

And my disgust with mainstream media for first giving the illegal appointments one-day-and-out news treatment, then not bothering to notice the obvious pro-union (therefore pro-Obama) prejudice of at least one of those appointments - and, for all we know, two or all three of them.

How can anyone trust a thing this administration does?  How can anyone believe a thing these so-called "journalists" report?

Ken Berwitz

Sleight of hand:  the ability of a magician to use his "quick fingers" (prestidigitation) to make things appear, disappear, etc. 

The technique is great when it is used by, say, David Copperfield or Penn & Teller.  But maybe not so great when it is being used by the President of the United States to fool people into thinking things are different than they really are. 

And President Obama is about to try just that in tonight's State of the Union speech. 

Here is the first part of an excellent editorial in yesterday's Investors Business Daily.  Please read this excerpt - and then use the link I've provided to read the rest:

Leadership: If State of the Union speech leaks are any indication, the president wants his re-election campaign to be about fairness. But why should anyone believe him, since his own policies have made America much less fair?

'We can go in two directions," Obama told supporters in a State of the Union preview over the weekend. "One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few."

But Obama has miserably failed even by his own definition of fairness. Under his administration, the only ones winning are the rich and well connected. Everyone else continues to suffer.

Corporate profits under Obama have climbed 68%, and companies are sitting on a record pile of cash — more than $2 trillion. The Dow is up about 50%.

Those gains haven't trickled anywhere. Median family income is down 5% since the Obama "recovery" started in June 2009 — a steeper drop than occurred during the recession itself, according to Sentier Research.

The ranks of the long-term unemployed have grown by 1.5 million, and almost a million have dropped out of the labor force altogether. Even union membership has dropped since he took office.

And income inequality is on the rise, according to the commonly accepted measure used by the Census Bureau. (It was flat during Bush's eight years.)

Obama can't blame Bush for any of this. It all happened on his watch, after the recession ended.

These are the facts.  They are as real as the coin a magician might show you in the palm of his hand.

So what does Mr. Obama have to do?  He has to use sleight of hand. 

Just as the magician might create an illusion to eventually pull that coin from behind your ear, or out of a sealed box, or from an audience member's handbag, so must Barack Obama create an illusion in which this horrible economy is somehow going to look wonderful (except, of course, what he blames President Bush for:  or, more exactly, President Bush's ghost, since he has been out of the White house for three years). 

Can Mr. Obama pull it off?  Is he that good at sleight of hand?  Are the Accomplice Media that adept at turning his lemon of an economy into lemonade?  Can they fool enough gullible voters into thinking that he has performed well enough to be re-elected?  

Stay tuned.....

Ken Berwitz

Every now and then you come across a blog that goes beyond simply making points and acts as a blueprint that should be used by a candidate.

John Hawkins, writing for townhall.com, has written such a blog.  In it, he proposes 15 questions that should be asked of Barack Obama. 

The bad news is that these questions should already have been asked by our media.  Over and over again.  In some cases, for years.

But with an Accomplice Media, perpetually committed to watching Barack Obama's back, that largely has not happened.

The good news, however, is that the questions remain just as important -- and if the eventual Republican nominee asks them, and demands answers, they will be out there in spite of the Accomplice Media's best efforts.

You can read Mr. Hawkins' piece by clicking here. You would cheat yourself not to.  But, for the meanwhile, I'll give you just 3 of the 15 questions, so you can get a sense of just how powerful they are, how imperative it is that they be asked.....and how effective they will be in a campaign against Mr. Obama:

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been killed with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware that was going on and if so, shouldn’t you resign?

5) When you took office, gas was $1.79 per gallon. Since then, you've demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWR, and killed the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.34 per gallon. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?

15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we've had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn't that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing?

See what I mean?

Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from the Associated Press, via CBS News:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie moved to diversify the state’s all-white Supreme Court on Monday by proposing two firsts: the nominations of an openly gay black man and a Korean-born law enforcer to fill two vacancies.

Christie announced the nominations at a Statehouse news conference attended by both nominees and their families. If confirmed, Bruce A. Harris would become New Jersey’s first openly gay justice, and Phillip H. Kwon would become its first Asian representative and the first person born outside the United States to be sworn in.

My reaction:  who gives a damn about their sexual orientation or what country their ancestors came from?

Are they qualified for the job, and is there a reasonable expectation that they will be competent justices?  If the answers to those questions are "yes", then everything else is details.

Can't we get by this stuff for once and for all?

Ken Berwitz

Our wonderful "neutral" media certainly do love protests, don't they? 

For example, an "Occupy" protest can consist of no more than a couple of hundred people - sometimes even just a few dozen - and it's all over the news (except when crimes like rape and murder occur among the "Occupy" protesters, at which time the media spigot suddenly turns off).   Heck, Time Magazine even named "the protester" its person (persons?  thing?) of the year. 

But here is news about a protest that occurs every year, draws a huge crowd to Washington D.C., has speeches by major politicians.....and is virtually ignored by these same media.

Excerpted from Tina Korbe's piece at hotair.com:

Yesterday marked the 39th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, and the pro-life movement is out today in full force to remind observers of the sanctity of life.

Thousands will gather in the District for the annual March for Life.

It’s been deemed the largest and longest-running peaceful human rights demonstration for the unborn, with more than 100,000 expected to attend.

To put this in perspective, the original Occupy Wall Street march consisted of about a thousand protesters. Eventually, tens of thousands of Occupiers joined the movement — and, collectively, were responsible for 417 incidents of violence, vandalism or other outrageous behavior. About four months after they started, the Occupy Wall Street protests have all but fizzled. For this, Time magazine named “The Protester” its 2011 Person of the Year.

In contrast, the March for Life is expected to draw 100,000 protesters this year alone. The March is known for its peaceful nature. It begins every year with a prayer vigil, for goodness’ sake! Plus, protesters have persisted in their efforts for nearly 40 years. What keeps them going? Danielle Bean, an On Faith panelist for The Washington Post and the editor-in-chief of both Catholic Digest and Faith and Family sheds some light on that subject:

Here’s hoping these pro-life marchers receive the media attention they deserve. I’m talking to you, Time editors.

I wonder how many people know that a March For Life even exists -- let alone how many years it has existed and how many people participate in it each year.  But I certainly don't wonder about whether they are aware of the "Occupy" protesters. 

And why is this so?  Could it have something to do with the fact that most media elites are pro-choice, so they consider a March For Life event as, at best, meaningless and, at worst, worthy of their contempt? 

 It is precisely this kind of selective news reporting that infuriates the people media do not favor; that got Newt Gingrich his standing ovation and runaway primary victory in South Carolina.  

Incidentally, for readers unaware of my personal position, I support all birth control, and all abortions to the stage of development when there is a beating heart and brain activity - at which point I consider it a child.  After that I support abortion only in life and death circumstances for the mother.

There is more to my position, but that should be enough to show my disgust with media's ignoring of the March For Life is based not on partisanship (i.e. support for the marchers' position), but on my belief that news should be covered fairly.

Ken Berwitz

What does Mitt Romney have to do to "newtralize" Newt Gingrich and re-establish himself as the frontrunner for the Republican Presidential nomination?

Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen of politico.com have listed out a few ideas on what they think Romney will do and, somewhat surprisingly given the web site's decided lean toward Democrats, they are pretty good:

Gingrich has used his debate skills — and his instinct to hit the raw nerves of conservatives — to camouflage considerable weaknesses as a candidate.

“You lead with your strengths,” a top Gingrich adviser told POLITICO, “to minimize his weaknesses.” When Gingrich does this, the adviser said, “people are willing to overlook Newt’s past.”

Mitt Romney’s top priority for the next week before the Jan. 31 Florida primary, one of the former Massachusetts governor’s advisers said, is to rip that disguise from Gingrich and expose what the Romney campaign and many Republicans outside it consider disqualifying flaws.

The Romney assault, likely to include upward of $10 million in spending directly by the campaign and super the PACS built to protect it, will include:

• Hitting Gingrich on the issue of character as “an issue, not a subtext,”
• Reviving the “unreliable leader” attack that worked so well in Iowa.
• Making private pleas to Washington officials who worked with Gingrich to detail in public how wildly unpredictable he was in Congress.

Would these strategies be beneficial to Romney?  Yes, every one of them.

But, in my opinion, they miss the most important issue - the one which, more than anything, propelled Gingrich back into the lead:  tapping into Republicans' deep outrage and frustration with the mainstream media.  Republicans' feeling that many in today's media have virtually shut down any vestige of objective journalism, in their effort to attack and condemn Republicans, while protecting Democrats - most conspicuously President Barack Obama.

How does Mitt Romney deal with that?  In my opinion, he has to communicate something along the lines of:

"As you, of course, know, Newt and I disagree on a lot of things. 

"But one thing we completely agree on is that a large part of the media in this country do not give Republicans a fair shake, and have not done so for a long time. 

"Newt has spoken out about this very strongly.  Good for him;  he has had every right to do so. 

But Newt has also spoken out very abrasively.  So much so that media then lashes out at him again, he lashes out at them again, and so on.

There is no doubt that this is very satisfying to a great many Republicans.  Me included.  And I don't at all blame them for feeling this way.  But two things have to be said:

"One is that, however much some of the media deserve the tongue-lashing Newt is giving them, his way of handling the situation is not helping anything.  Other than expelling some righteous anger, what does it accomplish?

"The other is that it is precisely this contentious, combative style that has always made Newt's dealings with others, whether Democrats or even fellow Republicans, more difficult and less successful.

"Newt Gingrich was so abrasive, so hard to work with, that his own party tossed him out as speaker of the house.  Can anyone seriously think if he brings this same behavior to a negotiation with congressional Democrats, or foreign powers - even friendly foreign powers - it will make things better?  Get more results?  Of course not.

"Now, compare that to my record in business, in politics, and internationally while heading the Olympics.  Look at my record of achievement, which I accomplished not by infuriating people, but by finding ways to work with them. 

"That is what gets results.  That is what generates success instead of failure.  That is what I bring to the table.  That is the difference between Newt Gingrich and me. 

"And that is why you should, by all means, enjoy Newt's angry outbursts.....and then vote for Mitt Romney."

Would it work?  Would it reverse the current Gingrich surge?  I don't know.  But I think it's his best shot.

What do you think?

Ken Berwitz

Congratulations to the New England Patriots - though they may have won the AFL championship game over the Ravens on a blown call.  With less than a minute to go Ravens receiver Lee Evans - to me, any way - caught a pass in the Patriots' end zone for a touchdown, but the officials ruled it incomplete and would not review it.  l in the end zone for a touchdown.  Subsequently, the Ravens' field goal kicker missed a relatively easy chance to tie the score and that was that.

Congratulations to the New York Giants - who, five games ago, looked far more like a team that fell apart and was heading to oblivion than they did a Super Bowl contender - for beating the San Francisco 49ers**, in San Francisco.

The last time the Giants played in the Superbowl, 2007, they were also against the New England Patriots - who came into the game undefeated.  Happy to say, New England wound up minus the "un". 

As a Giants fan I, needless to say, am rooting for a repeat performance.

So to hell with the Super Bowl commercials! When is kickoff time?

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

**I originally wrote that the New York Giants beat the San Francisco Giants, not 49ers.  No excuses:  I was thinking "Giants" and that's what popped out.  My bad.

Ken Berwitz

Tomorrow President Obama will give his fourth state of the union address.  You will most assuredly hear about how far we have progressed from the mess President Bush left him, but how much of a distance we have to go, so Mr. Obama needs four more years to finish the job.

This is why I am so appreciative of the column Joseph Curl has written for today's Washington Times, in which he enumerates the real state of the union - i.e. the one Mr. Obama will not be talking about.  Here are some of the lowlights:

-Unemployment:  6.8% on the day Mr. Obama was elected, in the 7's the day he took office, and now.....down to 8.5%.  That's right, down to 8.5% (under Obama it has risen as high as 10.2%).  And as bad as those numbers look, they are even worse.  The 8.5% level is artificially low because millions have given up looking and dropped out of the work force:  add them in and unemployment is actually at 11%.  Further, the number of low-paying jobs is up and the number of self-employed workers is down. 

-The per-gallon cost of gasoline is more than double what it was when Barack Obama took office (an average of $3.39, up from $1.68);

-Electricity bills have jumped almost 30% since Mr. Obama took office;

-Food stamp usage is up 46% since Mr. Obama took office (When Newt Gingrich calls him the food stamp President, he could not be more accurate);

-In addition, household income has dropped, median income has dropped, credit card debt is up, etc. etc. etc.

And all these great "improvements" came at a cost, in less than three years, of FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS MORE IN DEBT - far and away the largest debt increase handed us by any President in the history of the United States - with trillions more on the horizon.

This, of course is before we get to the Obama administration's disastrous foreign policy escapades, our nonexistent borders, the unwanted ObamaCare crap sandwich forced down our throats (with almost 2,000 "waivers" for his pals), and major scandals, like the Green Scandal, the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, etc.

Do you blame President Bush for this?  If so, you will be thrilled with what you are going to hear tomorrow night.

If, on the other hand, you think that Presidents are responsible for the policies they implement, and after three years, two of them with a virtually veto-proof Democrat congress, President Obama just might be culpable instead, I suggest you watch the state of the union address with a barf bag within arm's reach.  You may very well need it.

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

According to today's Arizona Daily Star, Rep Gabrielle Giffords (D-AR) has decided to leave the house of representatives, so that she can continue her rehabilitation.

Speaking  frankly, Ms. Giffords should have done so months ago.  But it is understandable that she tried to hold on in the hope that her progress would be faster than it apparently has been. 

In any event, better late than never.  It is obviously the right thing to do.

Given what Ms. Giffords has gone through - being shot in the head at close range by a deranged lunatic - the fact that she is alive at all is something of a wonder.  And the fact that she has gotten to this level of functionality is something of a miracle altogether. 

But Ms. Giffords has, no doubt agonizingly, concluded that she has not made sufficient progress to fully represent her Arizona congressional district - at least not as of now.

I hope you join me in wishing Gabrielle Giffords a complete recovery, as soon as possible, and - if she still wants it at that time - a triumphant return to the world of elective politics.

All the very best to you, Ms. Giffords.

Ken Berwitz

Joe Paterno died today at the age of 85.  The apparent cause was an agressive form of lung cancer.  That is what we are being told.

Just a short time ago, however, we were told his lung cancer was treatable.

Did Mr. Paterno die because, after being fired in shame and humiliation after decades of stellar service and uparalleled success with the Penn St. football program, he simply lost the will to live?

We'll never know.

Joe Paterno's "crime", if there was one, was not doing enough to report sexual accusations against his assistant Jerry Sandusky.  Not that he didn't report the charges, he did.  But the argument was that he should have done more than simply going to the school authorities.  It should be noted that the police did not pursue the charges against Sandusky at the time.

Was Joe Paterno set up?  Was he destroyed so that the school authorities could deflect blame, thereby covering their own backsides?  You decide. 

In my opinion, Joe Paterno deserved a better fate.

May he rest in peace.

Ken Berwitz

The headline on MSNBC's web page says "Conservatives, Evangelicals Rebuff Romney".

This being MSNBC, I'm not surprised that they missed the real story.

Do you really believe that Newt Gingrich, on his third marriage, with a history of philandering that just about everyone is aware of, and as a former Protestant (Baptist) who converted to Catholicism, somehow - in the past few days - became a favorite of conservatives?  Of evangelical Christians?  This is what MSNBC (and, to be fair, a good many other media) sees as the story of South Carolina?

Let me help them out. 

The polls, which suddenly - and, in this case, correctly - showed a major surge for Newt Gingrich, did so immediately after the CNN debate.  Most commentators seem to agree that every one of the four candidates did well in that debate.  At any rate, the then-leader, Mitt Romney, certainly did not do anything so egregiously wrong that he would fall off a political cliff for it and send Newt Gingrich soaring above him.

The reason Newt Gingrich was a runaway winnner in South Carolina relates to something he did right.  And you can take the word "right" to mean either correct or politically right, because both are true.

When John King led off the questionning by asking Gingrich about the charges made by his ex-wife -- charges she claimed, and most media were happy to repeat, that were supposed to derail his candidacy on the spot -- Gingrich attacked King (and, in effect, mainstream media in general) for asking the question in the first place.  He expressed anger and disgust that, with all the issues that are actually important to voters, this is what King would ask first.  And Gingrich did so in an especially strong and blunt manner. 

It got him a cheering, standing ovation.  

Was Mr. Gingrich's reaction premeditated?  Thought out beforehand and rehearsed?  Almost certainly it was.  And I don't doubt that many in the audience, and at the ballots yesterday, knew it. 

But his reaction tapped into a deeply held belief by most Republicans, especially most conservative Republicans, that is so strong it overcame Gingrich's dissolute past, his departure from his Protestant roots, and his apparent lack of spontaneity; a belief that CNN, and most mainstream media do not want to recognize or deal with.

For years I have have been writing about what I call our wonderful "neutral" media - more recently the "Accomplice Media" - and its overtly partisan reporting of news.  I have written literally thousands of blogs showing:

-How media systematically attack Republicans for the same things they ignore about Democrats. 

-How media immediately note when a corrupt official is Republican, but either downplay party affiliation or ignore it entirely when the miscreant is a Democrat.   

-How Barack Obama has been given a free ride on virtually everything he does that a Republican would have been attacked for, including:

...his disastrous mishandling of Afghanistan,

...his disastrous misreading of the so-called "Arab Spring", which is resulting in Egypt and Libya quickly moving toward shari'a law status,

...his so-called "stimulus package", which has never resulted in unemployment being anywhere but higher than it was when the legislation was enacted,

...his "ObamaCare legislation, which is killing businesses and which every major poll shows that most people do not want,

...his immigration policy, which seems designed to give amnesty to as many illegals as possible so they can then show their appreciation at the ballot,

...the green scandal and its multi-billion dollar soaking of the taxpayer on behalf of big-money Obama supporters,

...the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, with hundreds of deaths directly attributable to it, but which two networks - NBC and ABC - have chosen to completely censor from their nightly newscasts, down to

---the 90 or so rounds of golf Mr. Obama has played since taking office

...the multi-million dollar vacations, made far more expensive to the taxpayer by Mr. Obama's penchant for sending his family along on separate jets with separate staffs and security, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc etc.

These, and so many other examples, have built up a well of anger and resentment in on the right , and - make no mistake about this - among many independents as well, that Mr. Gingrich's outburst cut straight to the core of. 

That is what Republican voters reacted to yesterday.  That is why Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

Ken Berwitz

Did Excerpted from kevin hall's blog at iowarepublican.com (and countless conservative web sites --- but NOT from any mainstream web site on the first two pages of google search, even though there is an Associated Press article about it): 

Barack Obama’s 2008 Iowa New Media Director was arrested Friday for attempting to use the identities of Secretary of State Matt Schultz, and/or his brother Thomas, with the intent to falsely implicate the Secretary Schultz in illegal or unethical behavior. Zach Edwards, 29, of Des Moines, currently works for Link Strategies, a Democrat-affiliated organization with ties to Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. Edwards is the Director of New Media for Link Strategies.

 

The Secretary of State’s office discovered the alleged crime and reported it to authorities. Edwards turned himself in to the Iowa DCI agents Friday afternoon. He was charged with identity theft, a misdemeanor, and booked into the Polk County jail. Edwards posted $2,000 bail and was released later on Friday. He faces up to two years in prison.

 

Zach Edwards’ bio on Link Strategies website says he joined the Obama campaign in early 2007 as an intern in Nevada. He eventually joined the New Media department and directed their operations in five other primary states. He was the Iowa Director of New Media for Barack Obama’s general election campaign. After the election, Edwards joined Link Strategies, “where he provides innovative web-based research tools, video analysis and production, and web-based communication tools to assist our clients,” according to the bio.

 

Those clients include Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. On the Link Strategies testimonial page, Harkin credits the political consultant group for his electoral success.

You know the question I'm going to ask, don't you?  It's not like I haven't asked it before.

If the situation were reversed - i.e. if Zach Edwards were a Republican, arrested and charged with attempting to falsely implicate a Democrat Secretary of State with ethics violations - do you think you'd be able to scour through google's first couple of pages without finding anything about it in the mainstream media?  Not even (so far, at least) in The Des Moines Register, the state capital's leading newspaper?

You know the answer as well as I do.

If Zach Edwards did what he is charged with - and it certainly appears likely - I hope he gets the full two years.  But I know that is unlikely.

I also hope that Barack Obama's Accomplice Media act like real journalists and report it.  But, given their performance so far, that is unlikely to the point of being virtually impossible.

What proud "journalists" they are.  What credits to their profession.

One last thing:  have you ever heard of SOSP (the Secretary of State Project)?  Its existence may bear heavily on this story.  I promise that, if you keep reading this blog, you will know all about it in the next couple of days.

Ken Berwitz

Can anyone in his/her right mind really believe that - other than at election time - Barack Obama cares more about the great masses of US citizens than he does about the super-elites he loves to hobnob with? 

Well, for the woefully naive people who do, John C. Goodman, writing at townhall.com, has a terrific column at that should disabuse them of their malfunctioning logic.

Here are the first few paragraphs:

Ever since the First Couple entered the White House, their social life has swirled around the very rich. Hollywood actors, pop star singers, Wall Street hedge fund managers, billionaire investors — these are the fabled "top 1 percent" in terms of income and wealth.

The Obamas invite them to White House dinners. They vacation with them on Martha’s Vineyard. They party with them. They sup with them at $35,000-a-plate fundraisers.

(Have these affairs ever included an auto worker? A mine worker? How about someone who is unemployed and looking for a job? What about someone who has lost his home? As far as I can tell, the bottom 99 percent never seems to make the cut.)

Here is what we are being asked to believe. During his three years in office, the president has come to realize that all of the people he plays golf with, has dinner with and collects millions of dollars from have too much. All of the people he never sees, never talks to and never socializes with have too little. So the president’s campaign-for-re-election theme will be: take from his friends and give to all those strangers.

Is any of this believable?

By all means, use the link and read every word of Mr. Goodman's piece.  He goes on to show - using specific, easily checkable information - just how badly President Obama is socking it to the middle class, while piously protesting that his rich pals - including, among many others, the $$$ bundlers who his energy secretary gave huge loan guarantees to for solar companies that went bankrupt - have too much and must be punished.  

To believe this BS, you would need a gullibility level about 14 standard deviations above normal.  I hope, for your sake, you don't have one.

Ken Berwitz

Michael Nutter is the Mayor of Philadelphia.  And I like him more and more every day.

Months ago Mayor Nutter spoke out directly, honestly and forcefully about the flash mobs that were plaguing center city Philadelphia (and other cities around the country) by using smart phones and/or social media to suddenly gather in a specific area, commit as many acts of violence and theft as they could in a few minutes, then melt away before the police were able to respond. 

And because Mayor Nutter, like the vast majority of "flash mob" participants, is Black, he was able to speak out in a way that would almost certainly have caused a White Mayor to forever be condemned as a racist.  Such is the relationship between truth and racial politics these days.

In any event, three Latino teenagers were shot and killed in Philadelphia last week.  They were in a car with four other teens, cruising through the neighborhood - on a school night - looking for three brothers they intended to attack over some kind an argument earlier in the day. 

Mayor Nutter's reaction to this ugly tragedy was every bit as direct, honest and forceful as it was for the flash mobs.  And, after the inevitable controversy over what he said.....Mr. Nutter was strong enough to say it again.

Excerpted from Nicholas Ballasy's blog at dailycaller.com:

Philadelphia Democratic Mayor Michael Nutter told The Daily Caller that he “absolutely” stands by calling parents “idiots and assholes” for not knowing their children’s whereabouts and who “they’re associated with” before they turn to crime on the city’s streets.

 

“I absolutely stand by it. I said it. I meant it and it’s the reality of that particular situation. It’s still very, very painful to know that someone would shoot into a car of defenseless teenagers and you know, there are any number of components to this, why were the teens out in the first place?” he told TheDC during an interview at the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting Friday.

 

“I’m not one who blames the victim,” he said, “but you know everyone has a level of responsibility here and parents must know where their kids are and what they’re up to, who they’re associated with and other things that are going on.”

 

Nutter had told Fox 29, “The first way to stop this kind of stuff is for young people to be home when they’re supposed to be home, and for adults not to act like idiots and assholes out in the streets of our city shooting at kids in a car.”

Good for you, Mayor Nutter!

Thank you for not taking the easy way out by blathering about how you deplore a culture of violence, and how there have to be more social programs to help young people, blah blah blah, yada yada yada apropos of nothing.  Thank you for BLAMING the people who did it.  Thank you for BLAMING the parents who allowed their children to be out in a car during a school night with mayhem on their minds. 

Hey, who knows?  Maybe you'll start a trend. 

Maybe your words will shame some parents into acting like parents, and wake some teenagers up to the potential consequences of such mindless, self-destructive behavior.

Maybe your words will shame some of the mayors of other cities which suffer the same problems as Philadelphia into acting like actual leaders, and demanding acceptable behavior from their citizens.  Maybe then, instead of making a few useless, mealy-mouthed pronouncements without ascribing blame to anyone, then promptly forgetting anything ever happened - thus pretty much guaranteeing that the carnage will continue - they will speak out like you did. 

Wouldn't that be a refreshing change?

Ken Berwitz

The previous blog talked about media bias. 

Sad to say, one of the most visible examples of this reality is how media have handled the war in Afghanistan under President George Bush compared to that same war under President Barack Obama.

Remember the avalanche of media criticism against President Bush when he ordered a troop surge in Iraq?  Remember how long it took those same media (not all of them either) to finally, grudgingly, acknowledge how successful it was?

Now fast-forward to today and see the difference.

Afghanistan is President Obama's war.  Yes, it started under President Bush.  But Mr. Obama campaigned on the premise that, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan was a "necessary war" - thus a war he would have fought with or without Mr. Bush initiating it.  And after three years with Mr. Obama as commander in chief, thus making the decisions on how to pursue the war, it is his. 

President Bush quickly accomplished the objectives of the Afghanistan war - removing the taliban from governance of the major cities (the only places where governance is even possible in this godforsaken country) and shutting down the training bases the taliban had enthusiastically allowed osama bin laden to maintain, where al-qaeda recruits were trained and terrorism such as 9/11 was conceived, planned and rehearsed.  Mr. Bush did this with an initial complement of maybe 5,000 - 6,000 troops.  And maintaining this far more desirable status quo for the next 7 years was accomplished with less than 30,000 troops.

President Obama's goals for Afghanistan, however, were far more grandiose than President Bush's.  And his military people told him they required a major troop surge - which he dithered about for almost four months, and then agreed to only half  the number of soldiers recommended (i.e. the military equivalent of being a little pregnant).  In all, under President Obama we have deployed far more troops - at one point about three times as many - as there were under President Bush.

And how has this worked out? 

-We have suffered more than twice as many combat fatalities during Mr. Obama's three years as Commander In Chief as there were during President Bush's seven years.

-The taliban are significantly stronger now then they were when Mr. Obama became commander in chief. 

-The people - most of them, it seems - hate our guts.

-And since they know we will pull out in the near future, few if any will help us.  Why would they, when after we are gone they will be left to the tender mercies of the the taliban - which will be sure to show its "appreciation" for their collaboration with the USA?

 Now:  how have our wonderful "neutral" media handled this?  How have our ragingly leftward college campuses reacted?  What have the most implacably anti-war Democrats in congress said about it?

The answers, in order, are damn little, damn little and damn little.

Would they have looked the other way at this absolute mess, this foreign policy disaster, if it were President Bush?  DID they look they other way when it WAS President Bush -and the results were so dramatically better? 

The double standard is breathtaking.  It makes you wonder just how far partisanship can go. 

Lamentably, the answer just might be that there aren't any limits at all.

Ken Berwitz

Newt Gingrich is not my preferred Republican candidate, for a variety of reasons that I've made pretty clear over the past several months.  But I greatly value Mr. Gingrich's outbursts at the media, which have become something of a standard element in his debate strategy.

I know that, with one or two possible exceptions, they are not spontaneous.  Illustratively, the last one, aimed at John King when he asked about the charges made by Gingrich's ex-wife Marianne, certainly was not.  But that's just fine with me anyway because whether spontaneous or premeditated, they provide great value in several ways:

-They enable Mr. Gingrich to make important points about media bias at the time such bias actually occurs, thus maximizing the impact those points have;

-They enable Mr. Gingrich to expand specific outbursts to more generalized points about how media tailors the news, even the Republican debates themselves, in a way that enhances the damage candidates might do to each other while protecting Barack Obama.

One excellent example was George Stephanopoulos spending major time on the gay marriage issue (which, while important, is way down the list for most people) at the expense of the economy and energy policy (both of which are a) at the top of the importance list, and b) areas in which Mr. Obama is especially weak).  And there have been numerous others to choose from.

-The reactions from media people who Mr. Gingrich attacks - often either visible frustration or feigned hurt but almost never a credible defense (because they don't have one) - demonstrate how on-target his outbursts are.

Not everyone has the speaking talent, and/or off-the-top-of-his-head command of facts, to attack media this effectively.  But Newt Gingrich is a master at it.  And by laying their partisanship this bare he - I certainly hope - is opening a lot of people's eyes to just how entrenched that partianship is and how second-naturedly the so-called media elites show it.

One other thing.  At the beginning of this blog I noted that Newt Gingrich is not my preferred Republican candidate.  But I should also note that, in an election pitting Mr. Gingrich against Mr. Obama, I would vote for Mr. Gingrich every time. 

Newt Gingrich may have enough personal baggage to fill the Orient Express.  But Mr. Obama has enough political baggage to fill the Orient.

Ken Berwitz

When you prevent all access to your birth certificate for years, then you suddenly come up with an "original" version that appears to be a photo-shopped phony - but your Accomplice Media stands behind you by refusing to seriously pursue the issue - you will probably think you're home free.  And you will probably be right.

But maybe not.

Excerpted from Bob Unruh's article at worldnetdaily.com:

Ken Berwitz

The latest Operation Fast and Furious (F&F) update comes under the heading "you're not going to believe this, but...."

Excerpted from William La Jeunesse's article at foxnews.com (not NBC or ABC, neither of which have yet to find a reason F&F should be reported):

The Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona is refusing to testify before Congress regarding Operation Fast and Furious, the federal gun-running scandal that sent U.S. weapons to Mexico.

 

Patrick J. Cunningham informed the House Oversight Committee late Thursday night through his attorney that he will use the Fifth Amendment protection.

 

Cunningham was ordered Wednesday to appear before Chairman Darrell Issa and the House Oversight Committee regarding his role in the operation that sent more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa Cartel.  Guns from the failed operation were found at the murder scene of Border Agent Brian Terry.

 

Cunningham is represented by Tobin Romero of Williams and Connelly who is a specialist in white collar crime.  In the letter, he suggests that witnesses from the Department of Justice in Washington, who have spoken in support of Attorney General Eric Holder,  are wrong or lying.

Are you having as much trouble with this as I am?

If you read the entire article - as you most definitely should - you will see that the Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona is going to plead the fifth, because the people who are speaking on behalf of the Attorney General of the United States are "wrong or lying," and trying to set him up as the fall guy - presumably in place of holder himself.

Of all the corrupt dirty goings-on in this thoroughly corrupt, dirty administration, Operation Fast and Furious may well be the single worst.  Or, put another way, if it isn't, try to fathom how corrupt and dirty the one(s) that are worse than this must be. 

But - as noted above, and in previous blogs - neither NBC Nightly News (Brian Williams)  nor ABC World News (Diane Sawyer) has found any of this newsworthy enough to report.  Not for the entire year, as F&F got worse and worse, almost by the day.

Keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em.  With that in mind, NBC, ABC and a raft of other supposedly mainstream media are doing a bang-up job of keeping 'em ignorant about Operation Fast and Furious.

What proud "journalists" they must be.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a part of a conversation dailycaller.com's Vince Coglianese had with two young men, their souls enlightened by puffing on weed, who were among the 300 to 1,500 or so protesters (depending on who you speak with) on the Capital Building's west lawn earlier this week.   You can read the entire piece by clicking here.

Please be aware that their language is not comprised of what you would call tea party pleasantries:

Are you out here for the legalization of marijuana?

“I’m all for the legalization of marijuana, and much much more,” the hemp-hooded protester from Maine coughed out.

What else?

“End the war. A living wage, man. I want a living wage. It’s a God damn shame,” he lamented. “My father, his father grew up in a day where you went and got a job, and you had that job for the rest of your life.”

“Man, there’s no job security, there’s no living wages. There’s no future, man. What am I passing down to my children?” he wondered aloud as Frankie, his cohort from the Bronx, passed him their shared blunt.

“I’ve always been American, but I never lived the American dream,” explained an even more relaxed Frankie, “because of each and every single president that I’ve had.”

How old are you?

“I’m 21.”

Is having a job a part of the American dream?

“See, living free… living free and working for it… and living free and working for it is basically living the American dream,” Frankie explained. “I succeeded,” he admitted. Frankie revealed that in addition to high school, the Occupy movement has clearly been an educational experience for him.

“When I was in the Bronx, I was doing shit that I wasn’t supposed to be doing,” confessed Frankie, “but I still got — I still graduated high school, I never went to college, I’m occupying and I have much more knowledge for my kids to even fuckin’ find out for me in the future.”

Let's see: 

-One young man is sitting on his butt at a protest rally, smoking pot, and demanding a living wage while crying that it's a "God damn shame" he doesn't have one.

-His fellow protester, Frankie, is 21 years old, has no college, unknown high school grades (somehow I'm betting against the honor roll), is an admitted pothead, and, like his friend, is also spending the day sitting on his butt and smoking pot.

In an era of high unemployment (fed by a President whose policies toward business and energy seem designed to keep it that way), these two "Occupy" protesters crap away the day getting "shmacked" as Frankie puts it.  Then they complain that the world is not banging on their door with significant job offers?   That they're being deprived of a living wage?  Of the American dream?

By who, guys?  Think about it.

Ken Berwitz

At some point you just have to laugh.

The New York Times' lead editorial today starts as a frontal attack on Newt Gingrich's hypocrisy, and ends up as an all-purpose attack on Republicans in general. 

Please allow me the fun of posting a few parts of the editorial in rust, with my answers to the "points" it makes in blue:

Thirteen years later (after Gingrich is supposed to have demanded an “open marriage” – a charge made by his embittered ex-wife which he denies, and the Times offers nothing to back up other than her say-so), campaigning for president, Mr. Gingrich is still trying to tell Americans how to run their lives.  The Times, of course, has skewered Barack Obama every one of the numerous times he has told us how to run our lives, along with Michelle Obama who is telling parents what they should and shouldn’t feed their children, right?  Oh, wait….  He supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  The Times, of course, vilified Barack Obama for his support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) right?  Oh, wait…  He lectures black people about valuing jobs and children in the purgatory of housing projects for lacking a work ethic. The Times, or course, has mercilessly attacked President Obama for his complete failure to improve the lot of Black people over the three years he has been in office, with Black unemployment hovering around the 16% level, double that of Whites, right?  Oh, wait….  He signed a personal pledge to, at long last, “uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse.”   The Times, of course, wrote a series of condemnatory editorials about Bill Clinton’s serial philandering with a succession of women over many years, one of whom - Gennifer Flowers – he was caught on tape specifically telling how to lie about it.  Right?  Oh, wait…

For too many Republicans, it’s not enough that Americans are free to pray in the house of worship of their choice; they want all children to be required to pray in school. Name one Republican candidate that demands schoolchildren be required to pray in school.  You can’t, can you?  But I can name one sitting President who demands that they be required not to, even on a voluntary basis.  Funny how that somehow eludes you.  They want to impose their own ideas about sexuality and abortion on everyone. I agree that both of those impositions are wrong.  But there are countless Democrats demanding exactly the same thing, which is why, for example, gay marriage has always lost in every state where it has come to a vote – even in the bluest of blue states.  Funny how that somehow eludes you.  And they love to accuse Democrats of being insufficiently pious. (Rick Perry’s exit from the race on Thursday may mean no more ads accusing President Obama of a “war on religion” and liberals of believing faith is a sign of weakness. Or, it may not, depending on how desperate the other candidates get.) They?  They, as in all Republicans?  You only cite Rick Perry.  Explain to us why, if his positions were that popular with Republicans, Perry’s candidacy fell through a trap door and died.  Then explain to us why Newt Gingrich got all that applause when he told off John King for bringing up his ex-wife’s charges; why they weren’t booing and hissing him instead.  We'll wait..........................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

When Republican officials then get caught violating one of the Ten Commandments, they make an enormous show of contrition and repentance and ask for the public’s forgiveness.  And Democrats don’t?  Like Bill Clinton?  Like Jesse Jackson?  Like John Edwards?  Etc. etc. etc. etc.  I’d say that your partisanship was showing here, but I won’t – because doing so might erroneously suggest that it isn’t showing everywhere else as well.

Like I said, you have to laugh.  Through clenched teeth, maybe, but you have to laugh anyway.

Ken Berwitz

If the cook on the horribly ill-fated Costa Concordia is telling the truth (and why wouldn't he?) the one "witness" who has spoken out on behalf of the ship's captain is lying.

Excerpted from an article at CNN.com:

The captain of the Costa Concordia ordered dinner for himself and a woman after the ship struck rocks off Italy's coast, a cook from the ship told a Filipino television station.

 

In an interview with GMA Network, cook Rogelio Barista said Capt. Francesco Schettino ordered dinner less than an hour after the accident.

 

"We wondered what was going on. ... At that time, we really felt something was wrong. ... The stuff in the kitchen was falling off shelves and we realized how grave the situation was," Barista told GMA.

 

Schettino ordered dinner around 10:30 p.m. Friday, Barista said. Authorities say the ship struck the rocks at 9:41 p.m.

Was the Captain too taken with his attractive young female dinner partner - and possibly what he perceived as the "dessert" he would get - to worry about little trifles like the ship hitting an obstruction or what that might mean to its seaworthiness and the well being of its 4,000+ passengers and crew?

Is the attractive young female dinner partner now covering up for the Captain she might have been sharing "dessert" with? 

Your call. 

Ken Berwitz

In the previous blog I talked about how Barack Obama gets a free pass from our Accomplice Media.

But - as I would hope you already know - it is far more than on his counterproductive, partisanship-over-everything-else, energy decisions.

Read the following excerpts from Lori Regan's article at American Thinker, and see for yourself (then, by all means, use the link to read Ms. Regan's entire article, because there is much much more there):

As I watch the media circus surrounding Marianne Gingrich's interview regarding her relationship with her ex-husband and GOP candidate, Newt Gingrich, I am once again reminded of the double standard afforded to the Democrats and Barack Obama in particular.  Coming on the heels of the Herman Cain melee in which the press had a field day parading one accuser after another before video cameras, it is difficult not to repeat the question of why the Democrats get a free pass.  Why are calls for Mitt Romney to release his tax return not met with calls for Barack Obama to release his college transcripts -- something that is just as customary for presidential candidates?

However, of greater importance in my view is the silence, save for a few journalists and pundits on the right, regarding exposing a videotape recorded in 2003 of Barack Obama at the farewell dinner for terrorist-supporting Palestinian Rashid Khalidi. 

While the birthers' demands did draw some media attention, it was mostly negative and only made fun of the supposedly crazy loons on the far right who apparently were representative of all petty and irrational conservatives.  No one seemed to notice that Obama had not written a single article while serving as editor of The Harvard Law Review, and no one pressed the issue of Obama's suppressed college and law school transcripts since it was a given that his brilliance was perhaps surpassed only by the likes of Albert Einstein.

But there is a videotape sitting in the vaults of the Los Angeles Times, and every American should be screaming from the rooftops for its release. 

So why is the videotape of such paramount importance?  Simon quotes from an article published in the L.A.Times discussing the tape and its contents:

[A] young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Furthermore, rumors abound regarding additional messages that may or may not have been openly shared at the dinner in Obama's presence.  Ted Belman reported at Israpundit that he has a reliable source that "the audio tape clearly picks up the toast 'death to Israel'."  Did Obama drink to the death of an American ally that he has been actively intimidating, browbeating, and dissing since he phoned Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on his first day in office?  Does Obama liken Israelis living in the West Bank to Osama bin Laden, whose death he claims as his greatest foreign policy accomplishment?

It is hard to assess which outrage is greater:

-That Barack Obama happily spent almost 20 years in a church that expressed unadulterated hatred for Israel and adoration for hate-filled anti-Semites like (Louis Farrakhan, the career Black supremacist, who was named its man of the year in 2007), that Mr. Obama was umbilically tied to terrorist william ayers - and overtly lied about their relationship in a way that any real journalist could have checked in thirty seconds, that Mr. Obama counted the terrorist, Jew-hating rashid khalidi as one of his dearest friends....

-....or how many supposed "journalists" are part of an Accomplice Media so devoid of ethics that they have either minimized or altogether buried every one of the facts enumerated above.

These frauds may call themselves journalists.  Some may even buy into their own BS and believe they're journalists.  But they are not.  They are partisan shills who pretend to be journalists while, in reality, acting as propagandists for one side over the other.

They have no credibility, no ethics and no shame.

Ken Berwitz

How bad is Barack Obama's decision to squash the Keystone pipeline?  Read this excerpt from Michelle Malkin's latest column and you'll get the picture:

"President Obama's decision on the Keystone XL pipeline is a major setback for the American economy, American workers, and America's energy independence," Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said.

"The rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is a missed opportunity to drastically turn this economy around. This pipeline would have created thousands of new jobs and helped to ensure our energy independence," Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., lamented.

"This delay is just playing politics with American jobs and American energy security," Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, pointed out.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle scratched their heads as the job-snuffer-in-chief bolted to Orlando's fantasyland to promote economic growth. But there's no more fitting place on Earth for the man whose escapist administration occupies the land of make-believe and no consequences. (Bonus moment: Obama got to shake hands with Mickey Mouse, who infamously turned up on a Florida ACORN voter registration form in 2008. Constituent outreach at its most surreal.)

On the very same day he quashed Keystone, Obama released his first campaign ad of 2012 -- hyping his stellar record on energy jobs. It's Opposite Day at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 365 days a year.

Notice anything about the politicians Ms. Malkin is quoting?  They are all Democrats.  And I have no doubt there are plenty of other Democrats who, either out of concern for how destructive this decision was, fear of losing their elections over it, or both, would say the same thing.

Mr. Obama kills off tens of thousands of jobs, screws over an ally (who now will most likely sell the oil to China instead) and insures that we remain as dependent as ever upon oil from countries which want our culture to disappear.  Then, as Ms. Malkin points out, he cavorts off to another of his endless rounds of campaign stops, where he collects tons of money - often tens of thou$ands per person - from the rich fatcat Democrats our media would have you believe are only attached to the Republican Party.

What are the rich Obama-$upporting Democrat fatcats getting for their money?  Well, think Solyndra.  Think SunPower.  Think Evergreen.  Think LightSquared.  And then think about the fact that (other than Solyndra - only grudgingly for a short period of time) if you heard about them at all, it almost certainly was from a non-mainstream media source.

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

And how can Barack Obama have the nerve to claim his policies benefit the energy needs of this country - a lie which can only be perpetuated with the aiding and abetting of an Accomplice Media.

Ken Berwitz

Let me start by saying this is the best Republican debate I've seen so far.

Maybe it was because CNN's John King allowed the participants enough time to introduce, and expand on, their thoughts.  Maybe it was the fact that we are down to four candidates, which enabled King to do so.  Maybe it was a combination of both.  But who cares; we finally got at least somewhat of an in-depth look at each of the major candidates.

I understand why Mr. King and CNN thought it would be a good idea to start by allowing Newt Gingrich to answer his ex-wife's charges, which were aired earlier in the day.  And I understand why Mr. Gingrich was incensed enough about it to blow King and CNN away with a vengeance, on the grounds that there were far more important things to discuss.  Both had a point.  But I admit to enjoying how completely Gingrich took the mostly leftward media elite apart.  If ever a group deserved it, this is the one.

Individually, every one of the four performed well:

-Mitt Romney in particular sounded more poised and more animated than I have heard him before.  His defense of capitalism and unapologetic pride in his personal success were terrific.  And he addressed several issues relating to his time as Governor of Massachusetts more cogently than he did in previous debates.

-Newt Gingrich again demonstrated his amazing capacity to remember details on early everything, and extemporize about them with a level of analysis most people can only dream of.  As an idea man, there are few like him.

-Rick Santorum is less dynamic than the others, but presented his beliefs and made his points very clearly, featuring his consistency and steadiness as a major strength.

-ron paul was engaging, knowledgeable and persuasive. 

-And the audience was more than appreciative of these performances - as it should have been.

Most importantly, while there certainly was a lot of cross-criticism, every one of the four made sure to concentrate more on what is wrong with the Obama administration than with each other.

I feel that we learned more about each candidate than we knew - no small accomplishment after so many previous debates.

Good show.  Congratulations to them all.

Ken Berwitz

Want to see every Republican candidate's high school pictures, along with their awards, accomplishments, etc. - even Fred Karger who is as unknown (and unsupported) a candidate as there ever was?

Well, The Atlantic put a slide show together that has them all.  

Click here and enjoy the fun - as you remember your own high school pictures and cringe accordingly:

Ken Berwitz

Every time I think that the Operation Fast and Furious story could not get worse, it does.

Here are the first paragraphs of Sharyll Attkisson's latest investigative report on this horrific scandal, along with links to other equally informative, and horrific, stories about it:

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks." 

More Fast and Furious coverage:
Memos contradict Holder on Fast and Furious
Agent: I was ordered to let guns "walk" into Mexico
Gunwalking scandal uncovered at ATF  

Translation:  The Obama administration proactively armed Mexican drug cartels, a US border agent (Brian Terry) was almost certainly killed with one of those weapons, as was US Customs agent Jaime Zapata, as were at least 300 Mexican citizens (so far).......all for the purpose of building a case for limiting legal gun ownership in the USA.  

I do not have the words to articulate my revulsion over this sick, stupid, deadly political game - a game that certainly was directly overseen by the lying incompetent Attorney General eric holder, and almost certainly was signed off on by his puppeteer, President Barack Obama.

Congratulations (again) to Sharyl Atkisson and to CBS News, for acting like journalists following a story, instead of like backside-kissing acolytes whose only interest is in protecting Barack Obama and his administration from being called to account for this scandal.  If there were any journalistic justice at all, Ms. Attkisson would be the odds-on favorite for this year's pulitzer prize.

And to NBC and ABC, neither of which has run even one story on Operation Fast and Furious despite the trail of death it has caused, and despite the fact that over 20% of the entire house of representatives is currently on record as giving AG eric holder a vote of no confidence and/or demanding that he resign specifically because of the lies he has told about it?

Think about that description of backside-kissing acolytes whose only interest is in protecting Barack Obama and his administration from being called to account, then think about that old saying "if the shoe fits, wear it".  See if you find there is a perfect fit.

Ken Berwitz

Is this a new kind of campaigning?  Getting in front of a crowd rooting for their home football team, and assuring them that their team is going to lose?

Welllll, if you're Joe Biden.......

From Carla Martinucci's blog for the San Francisco Chronicle:

Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed San Francisco when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.”

Biden spoke at a closed event in the city’s financial District at the Bently Reserve when he made the gaffe, according to a White House pool report released today.

Biden then tried to cover it up by claiming he was thinking about the San Francisco Giants baseball team.  It is not clear whether Mr. Biden's point was that he mistook the San Francisco baseball Giants for the New York football Giants, or that he believes the the San Francisco Giants are substituting for the 49ers in Sunday's game.

Not for nothing do I call him Jackass Joe.

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday while blogging about the Obama/Holder No-Border Policy, I noted that the administration claims it has deportations at a record high, and that most of the deportations are of illegals with criminal records. I called these claims "a fraudulent concoction, a dodge designed to fool you", and promised a subsequent blog with evidence to back it up. 

Here's some of it.

First let's look at the first paragraphs from a piece written by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) for politico.com, which rips the administration's claims to shreds: 

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano last week announced that the Obama administration has deported a record number of illegal immigrants in the past year.

But the Obama administration is using smoke and mirrors to achieve its so-called historic record. Take away the illusion, and the facts show that the administration conjures up its deportation statistics.

The administration appears to have artificially inflated its deportation numbers. It includes voluntary removals in the deportation statistics. But this is not removal because an illegal immigrant is not then subject to penalties for returning to the United States. For example, a single illegal immigrant can show up at the border and be voluntarily returned numerous times in one year — and counted each time as a removal.

Even The Washington Post found the Obama administration used questionable methods to achieve its deportation numbers last year. Just like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, the Obama administration’s record is a trick. In reality, President Barack Obama and his administration are giving amnesty to illegal immigrants through inaction. It’s no wonder that the president recently admitted to Hispanic voters that his administration’s deportation numbers are “deceptive.”

Take away the hocus-pocus, and it is clear the Obama administration is neglecting to enforce immigration laws. The administration has all but abandoned worksite enforcement actions. Over the past two years, worksite enforcement has plummeted 70 percent.

And just in case that doesn't make things clear enough, we have the following excerpt from last month's report by judicialwatch.com:

The Obama Administration drastically inflated statistics to show that it has deported a record-high number of illegal immigrants with criminal records, according to federal data obtained by a nonprofit university group dedicated to researching the government.

The new documents reveal the figure is actually at an all-time low and rapidly decreasing, leaving the Obama Administration with egg on its face just weeks after bragging about removing an unprecedented number of criminal aliens. In mid-October, Obama’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director jubilantly announced that nearly 55% of the record 396,906 illegal immigrants deported in fiscal year 2011 were convicted of felonies or crimes.

The real figure is less than 15%, according to federal records obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data research center that provides detailed information about the operation of hundreds of government agencies. The number of deported criminal aliens has been declining steadily throughout the past year, the TRAC analysis found, even though fiscal year 2010 had an already low level of 16.5%.

By all means click on the links I've provided and read both pieces in their entirety.  Then click on judicialwatch.com's link to TRAC, which has a chart detailing the specific numbers of how many criminals were deported (which, believe me, is only the tip of the iceberg; there's plenty more where that came from).

Once you read these facts, you realize that the claims Obama & Co. are making about its deportation of illegals are as phony as a three dollar bill.  You also realize that, in reality, this administration has been woefully misfeasant - and malfeasant if you ask me - in its enforcement of immigration law.

So the next time you hear Mr. Obama, or Janet Napolitano, or Harry Reid, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz,  Joe Biden, or any other Democrat spouting this fraudulent BS - and I assure you it will be repeated ad nauseam throughout the election campaign - you will know the truth.  

How can anyone trust a thing this administration says?

Ken Berwitz

There are reports - as yet unconfirmed - that Rick Perry will drop out of the presidential race today and endorse Newt Gingrich.

Perry's decision to drop out, assuming the reports are true, is certainly logical.  Disastrous performances in the first two debates sealed his fate early and decisively.

His endorsement for Newt Gingrich could be significant, in that it might provide the extra votes needed to overhaul Romney in tomorrow's South Carolina's primary.  But, then again, we are still waiting on what Gingrich's ex-wife has to say, and whether it will neutralize any gains from a Perry endorsement - or maybe even create a net loss of votes.

This gets more and more interesting by the nanosecond.

Ken Berwitz

Do you think that title must be in error?  If so, I don't blame you.  We all know that Mitt Romney headed Bain Capital for a good many years, and is continually answering for its performance under his stewardship.

But I assure you there is no error.  The title is correct.  And here's why, as excerpted from Alexander Bolton's article at thehill.com:

Democrats have accepted more political donations than Republicans from executives at Bain Capital, complicating the left’s plan to attack Mitt Romney for his record at the private equity firm.

During the last three election cycles, Bain employees have given Democratic candidates and party committees more than $1.2 million. The vast majority of that sum came from senior executives.

Republican candidates and party committees raised over $480,000 from senior Bain executives during that time period.

 

Recipients include Democratic senators facing tough reelection races this year, such as Jon Tester (Mont.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Bill Nelson (Fla.).

For months, a great many mainstream media venues have portrayed Bain Capital as ravagers of corporate enterprise, perfectly willing to strip and dissect companies for profit, ruining people's lives in the process.   Much of cable news - especially MSNBC which tilts to one side more severely than even the Costa Concordia, has done so in especially gleeful terms.

So what will they say now, as we learn that the people running Bain are far more enamored of Democrats than Republicans?  Will they air investigative reports on what Democrats do that makes the party so desirable for a company like Bain?  Will they demand answers from the four Democrat senators noted above, in which they ask how much each one got from Bain and what they are doing for Bain in return?  

In short, will they treat Democrats' relationships with Bain the way they have treated Romney's relationship with the company?

Don't bet your IRA on it......

Ken Berwitz

According to a story I first saw on drudgereport.com, but is now all over the media, ABC News has conducted a two hour interview with Newt Gingrich's former wife Marianne, that not only is explosive, but could torpedo his candidacy. 

How big is it?  Well, Drudge quotes the former Ms. Gingrich as saying that she can end her ex-husband's career with a single interview

Whether this claim is accurate, or just hyperbole from a disgruntled ex, will be unknowable until we see/hear what she actually has to say.  But there is an issue that has to be dealt with first:  Should ABC News air this interview before, or after, the South Carolina primary?

The Drudge story claims ABC initially decided it would be "unethical" to do so on the eve of the primary - presumably because it would not give Mr. Gingrich time to respond and could affect a lot of votes..

My opinion?  It is no more or less ethical to withhold the information until after the primary. 

-If ABC airs the interview beforehand, and it is as described, it will unfairly hurt Gingrich in South Carolina (and, presumably, afterwards as well), because he will have no opportunity to rebut what his former wife says.

-But if ABC sits on the interview until the South Carolina primary is over, it will unfairly help Gingrich by keeping negative information about him from voters until after they have cast their ballots. 

Which of these is the better choice?  There doesn't appear to be one. 

In my view, if ABC News has a legitimate interview ready to be aired, it should be aired.  And if the timing is inconvenient for one of the candidates, so be it.  That's life in the big city.

Please note that if ABC News had, say, conducted the interview weeks ago, and kept it on ice waiting to spring it at a particularly disadvantageous time (or advantageous depending on which candidate you are talking about), I would have a very different opinion.

But, if this is when they could get the interview, and it is ready to go?  Let's see it.

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

UPDATE:  A number of conservative sources are speculating that ABC's intention was to sit on the Gingrich interview so that he would have a better chance against Romney in South Carolina tomorrow, then unload on him afterwards - resulting in both candidates being weakened against Barack Obama. 

I don't know if this is what ABC had in mind, but - while I can't discount the possibility - I certainly hope it wasn't.

Ken Berwitz

According to the original count, Mitt Romney won the Iowa caucuses by 8 votes. 

Today we find out that, according to the recount - which, for a variety of reasons can never be fully completed and therefore might have inaccuracies - Rick Santorum won Iowa by 34 votes. 

Does it matter?

Not to Santorum, I don't think.  That win would have given him the bragging rights which Romney has exploited, and momentum going into New Hampshire.  Whether it would have generated more voter support and/or more contributions - enough to make a major difference - we will never know for sure.

But for Romney, it does make a difference. 

He has spent weeks touting his "win" in Iowa and then in New Hampshire as evidence that he is the inevitable Republican nominee.

I'm no fan of NBC's Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd, but his analysis of this is spot-on.  Todd says that just a day or two ago we were talking about Romney leading handily in the South Carolina polls, probably winning there, thus 3 for 3 heading into Florida (where he is strongly in the lead), and becoming something of a fait accompli nominee. 

But now, if the Gingrich surge continues and he should win the South Carolina primary, it makes Romney only 1 for 3, with that lone win in his own backyard.  That is a huge difference.

Does it matter?  Well, in a business where perception is just about everything I would have to say it can matter a lot.

A surprise loss in South Carolina could not only reinstate this as a wide open race, but quite possibly send the Romney campaign into a quick downward spiral.  

Keep watching.....

Ken Berwitz

From my pal Toyman Bob:

Biting the bullet - cutting expenses. I HOPE YOU WILL PARTICIPATE AND DO YOUR PART

The President ordered the Cabinet to cut $100 million from the $3.5 trillion federal budget.

I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same thing with my personal budget. I usually spend about $3000 a month on gasoline, groceries, household expenses, utilities, etc., but it's time to get out the budget cutting axe, go through my expenses, and cut back
like a true American.

I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio, 1/35,000 of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $3000 a month, I'm going to have to cut that number by almost nine cents. Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $2999.91, but that's what sacrifice is all about. I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries.

(Did the president actually think no one would do the math? Please send this to everyone on your list so people understand what a load of crap this is --- as if they didn't already know

Ken Berwitz

Since we've talked about Egypt today, I thought you might be interested in how things are going in Libya as well.

Excerpted - surprisingly, given its political bent - from an article in the latest issue of Time Magazine:

Throughout Libya, Gaddafi's fall has emboldened Salafis, who were persecuted and imprisoned under the now deceased leader. They have increased their public presence, taken over mosques, and even hoisted the flag of al-Qaeda over the courthouse in Benghazi where the revolution began eleven months ago. In the capital of Tripoli, Salafis have destroyed more than six shrines. In one incident, dozens swarmed mausoleums belonging to two Muslim mystics and dug up their bodies so that worshippers could no longer visit their tombs. They also burned the relics around the shrines.

There are many different varieties of Islam.  Some most assuredly are tolerant and peaceful -- religion is what each individual makes it.

But these are the people taking over in Libya.  And they are neither.

Just like the people taking over in Egypt. 

This is some helluvan Arab Spring. 

And don't forget whose demands for Hosni Mubarak to resign in Egypt, and whose bombing of Libya, brought it to fruition.

Now grow old waiting for Barack Obama's Accomplice Media to pick up on this disaster, aided and abetted all the way by Barack Obama & Co., who think they know foreign policy (and everything else) better than the rest of us.

Ken Berwitz

Am I missing something, or isn't this exactly what the so-called "Occupy" protesters were railing about, as Democrats across the country - very much including President Barack Obama - stood in support of them?

According to Michelle Malkin's mind-numbing piece at her web site (along with  numerous other sources), President Obama will make his acceptance speech not at the convention center in Charlotte, NC, but at the Bank of America Stadium.  That's right, Bank of America, one of the Democrats' most hated financial venues.

And why are they doing it?  Well, the party line is that it will give many people an opportunity to hear their fearless leader speak in person.  If you believe that, I can get you into the Green Bay Packers' Super Bowl victory party for half price.

The actual reason is....well, I'll let Ms. Malkin tell you:

...it’s the heavyweight contributors, not the hoi polloi, to whom convention organizers are catering as they struggle to raise some $37 million to cover the coronation celebration’s costs. The self-proclaimed Party of the 99 Percent is reportedly busy creating special-access VIP packages for the 1 percent — under the illusion of throwing open its doors to the masses. DNC officials refuse to disclose fundraising updates until after the convention, even as they champion their own “openness and accessibility.”

And no doubt, Obama will use his stadium-size pulpit to “stand up” to the very same “fat cats” who’ll be watching him while sipping Courvoisier in their DNC-appointed luxury seats.

Are you surprised?  I hope not; not after that Greek-columned obnoxiathon Obama gave us at Invesco field in 2008 - at a cost of over $5 million dollars so it could be made sufficiently regal for His Majesty. 

Suppose the Republican Party moved its acceptance speech to the Bank of America stadium so it could accommodate the richest-of-the-rich moneybag set?  Do you think our wonderful "neutral" media would have something to say about it? 

Like maybe lead story features for two weeks about how money-grubbing Republicans are hopelessly committed to the rich, and how obtusely they flaunt it in our faces?  Do you think that same media would buy the claim that it's just so the little people can get seats too?

Well, let's see how they handle things when it is Democrats.......as if you don't already know.

Ken Berwitz

Some years ago a bank (regretfully, I don't remember which one) ran a commercial promising fast results on loan applications.  To make its point, it characterized competitors by showing a doddering old patrician-looking bank officer promising that the loan application would be reviewed "any day now.....annnnnnnnyyyy dayyyyy".  Years later, Federal Express used a similar commercial to tout how fast it made deliveries.  Obviously, both commercials used humor to make their point.

I was reminded of those commercials - minus any vestige of humor - as I read the following squib from today's Washington Post about President Obama and the Keystone pipeline:

The Obama administration will announce this afternoon it is rejecting a Canadian firm’s application for a permit to build and operate a massive oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border, according to sources who have been briefed on the matter.

However the administration will allow TransCanada to reapply after it develops an alternate route through the sensitive habitat of Nebraska’s Sandhills. Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns will make the announcement, which comes in response to a congressionally-mandated deadline of Feb. 21 for action on the proposed Keystone pipeline.

Yep, sure.  TransCanada can reapply with an alternative route.  And if it happens to do so before election day, you can bet there will be another problem, requiring another application.  The Obama administration will get to it "any day now.....annnnnnnnyyyy dayyyyy".

Reality check:  Under Barack Obama, this pipeline is not going to happen.  Period, end of story. 

The Keystone pipeline would create tens of thousands of jobs, solidify our relationship with Canada, provide an easier, cheaper way to transport oil, and would allow us to lessen our dependency on getting it from countries that hate our guts and want to obliterate our way of life - all at exactly no cost to taxpayers.

Little wonder that Barack Obama and his administration are so adamantly against it.

Can we move up the 2012 elections?  Please?