Ken Berwitz

Regular readers of this blog know I never capitalize ron paul's name.  That is because I do not capitalize the names of people I have no respect for, and ron paul very definitely is one of them.

I have written extensively, for over four years, about his disgusting history of racism and anti-semitism.  This commentary, written in December of 2007, discusses a letter I wrote to Andrew Sullivan detailing paul's past.   It provides a very complete profile of who and what he is.

But, it can be argued, people sometimes change.  Evolve.  Grow.  And maybe ron paul has done just that by coming to his senses in these areas.

In answer, let me post the following excerpts from Ben Shapiro's latest blog at bigpeace.com

Ron Paul, who has consistently engaged in anti-Semitic nonsense over the course of the past few decades, has largely attempted to hide his anti-Semitism throughout his campaign. No longer. Ron Paul has issued this Arabic-language flyer outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Michigan:

Ken Berwitz

It is now a week since the Republican debate, in which Newt Gingrich told moderator John King:

“You did not once during the 2008 campaign ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. If we’re going to debate about who is the extremist on this issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies.”

And it is also a week since virtually all of our wonderful "neutral" media, after hearing him say it, did nothing other than ridicule Gingrich and promptly bury his comment.

The problem?  Gingrich was 100% correct.

Newt Gingrich was talking about BAIPA (The Born Alive Infant Protection Act) which states that if a baby survives an abortion - and therefore is a live birth, outside the womb - the doctor is compelled to do everything he or she can to keep the baby alive.  His reference was to the fact that, when Barack Obama was in the Illinois state senate, he did everything he could to prevent that act from becoming law - then lied about it, was caught in his lie, and had to admit he did it afterwards.

Here, courtesy of BAIPA activist and nurse, Jill Stanek, is a chronology of Barack Obama's actions and statements regarding BAIPA:

Following are Obama’s actions and votes on Born Alive. The bill number changed every year it was reintroduced.

2001

Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Obama’s “no” vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committeehere, March 28, 2001
Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90
Obama’s “present” vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001

2002

Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Obama’s “no” vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 6, 2002
Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35
Obama’s “no” vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002
Listen to audio from Obama’s 2002 IL Senate floor debate wherein he argued that while babies might be aborted alive, it would be a “burden” to a mother’s “original decision” to assess and treat them.
Meanwhile, the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act with a “neutrality clause” added passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, the U.S. House overwhelmingly, and was signed into law August 5, 2002. The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the bill.

2003

Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. This year Born Alive was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.

As can be seen on the vote docket, Obama first voted to amend SB1082 to add the “neutrality clause” from the federal version of Born Alive to the IL version to make them absolutely identical. (DP#1 means “Do Pass Amendment #1.)

Then Obama voted against the identical version. (DPA means, “Do Pass as Amended.)

Additional corroboration of Obama’s vote: IL State Senate Republican Staff Analysis of SB 1082, March 12-13, 2003, bottom of page 2

For 4 years following his 2003 vote Obama misrepresented it, stating the wording of the IL version of Born Alive was not the same as the federal version, and he would have voted for it if so. As recently as August 16, 2008, Obama made this false assertion.

But when evidence presented was irrefutable, Obama’s campaign on August 18, 2008, admitted the truth to the New York Sun.

The nonpartison group FactCheck.org has since corroborated Obama voted against identical legislation as passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and then misrepresented his vote.

Does this show that Barack Obama supported infanticide?  You're damn right it does.  How much clearer can it be?

Let me put this into plain and simple language:  If an abortion fails and there is a live baby outside the womb, a doctor who does not treat or care for that baby but just lets it die, is committing negligent homicide.  And negligent homicide perpetrated on an infant is infanticide.  All the too-clever-by-half wordsmithing by all the left wing Obama aplogists combined, times 1,000,000, does not change what it is.

But our media - the same media which have gone ballistic over whether women should be treated to free contraceptives from Catholic organizations, and over the "Transvaginal" ultrasound non-issue in Virginia - buried Mr. Gingrich's absolutely correct accusation, along with Barack Obama's support of infanticide, without batting an eyelash.

Just when you think this sorry bunch could not be further in the tank for Barack Obama, you find out there is a new, even lower, bottom to that tank.

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

Ken Berwitz

Isn't it remarkable how different people can come to different conclusions about the same thing?

Take the primaries in Michigan and Arizona, for example.  Here are a few excepts from the analysis that NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, Brooke Brower and Carrie Dann have put up on MSNBC's web site:

Romney wins ugly in Michigan… But that win silences the talk about a white knight riding to the GOP’s rescue… February took a toll on Romney… Did Santorum lose Michigan more than Romney winning it?... On to Super Tuesday… And Snowe’s retirement gives Democrats a better than 50%-50% chance of holding the Senate in November.

Winning ugly: With so much riding on last night's outcome in Michigan, Mitt Romney got exactly what he needed to avoid political disaster -- a win. After all, a win is a win, and Romney pocketed two of them with a blow-out victory in Arizona (47%-27% over Rick Santorum) and a nail-biter in Michigan (41%-38%). But it wasn’t pretty for the former Massachusetts governor in the state where he grew up, where his father had served as governor, and where he won by nine percentage points in 2008.

But that win silences the talk about a white knight riding to the rescue: The biggest impact of Romney’s narrow victory in Michigan: It silences the talk of a white knight riding to the GOP’s rescue. And the campaign has to ask itself: How did they come this close to disaster… in MICHIGAN????

February took a toll on Romney:  Bottom line: He started the month looking strong and ends it looking weak.

Did Santorum lose Michigan? As for Santorum, you could make the argument that he lost Michigan more than Romney winning it.  

Hooboy.  To read that, you would swear that Romney lost rather than won last night.  After all, he "won ugly", it was more than Rick Santorum lost than Romney won,  Romney didn't really win anyway, since he and Santorum are splitting the delegates, and in any case Republicans may be stuck with Romney instead of the "White Knight" they are all yearning for instead instead of this bum. 

If I were a Republican strategist and I believed what Todd & Co. wrote, I think I'd do a Lenny Skutnick into the Potomac River - not to rescue anyone, but to swim to the middle and let the tide take me away.

Ok, now let's look at John Podhoretz's analysis of that same Michigan Primary result, this time via excerpts of John Podhoretz's analysis for the New York Post:

The line among the politicos on the Right who oppose Mitt Romney is that the heart and soul of the Republican Party doesn’t like and doesn’t trust the Republican frontrunner. Well, it’s true that professional conservatives (those conservatives who make their living in and around politics) genuinely don’t like him. And non-professional conservatives who live and breathe politics 24 hours a day, and therefore know more about what’s going on than most ordinary voters, don’t trust him.

 

But the argument that these people represent the views and beliefs of the Republican rank and file is going to have to undergo some revision after Romney’s victories in Michigan and Arizona last night.

 

Yes, his home state of Michigan was closer than Romney expected it would be a month ago (although not two weeks ago, when one poll had Rick Santorum winning there by 12 points). But the key detail in the exit polling from Michigan was this: Romney won the votes of self-described Republicans by 10 points, 47 percent to 37 percent.

 

Santorum slaughtered Romney among those Michigan voters who said they wanted a “true conservative,” by a margin of 57-17. But those voters made up only 12 percent of the electorate.

 

Most Republican voters are out-and-out conservatives (indeed, 42 percent of all Americans describe themselves as conservative) — but they’re not necessarily tribal conservatives who are searching for someone ideologically pure to follow. Romney was more than conservative enough, it would appear, for a near-majority of Republicans in Michigan and Arizona.

That certainly puts a different face on yesterday's result than the MSNBC crowd gives it, wouldn't you say?

But whose analysis is closer to reality?  The one by Chuck Todd et al., or the one by John Podhoretz?

You read them both.  You decide.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest news from Egypt, that bastion of triumph for President Obama's foreign policy, where he worked long and hard to push out Hosni Mubarak so freedom and democracy would take his place.

According to Hamza Hendawi's article for the Associated Press:

-Egypt's upper house, which is now run by Muslim brotherhood and Salafist fundamentalists, selected fundamentalist Islamis Ahmed Fahmy as its speaker;

-An additional 90 members of parliament are not elected, they are appointed - most likely by Egypt's next President.  And, unless a major miracle takes place (which it will not), Egypt's next President will be every bit as fundamentalist Islamic as the parliament for exactly the same reason the parliament is - namely that freedom and democracy are unknown to Egypt which has never had a day of either in its history, but even illiterate Egyptians (something like one third of the entire population) know all about the Koran.

-And the "freedom and democracy" activists who President Obama, with incredible naivete, thought would be running the show by now?  They got exactly nowhere in the latest elections - the same place they got in the previous ones.  Evidently, outside of Tahrir Square and a few Cairo internet cafes, speaking English and having active twitter and facebook accounts is not especially impressive to the Egyptian populace. 

I hope this is not a surprise to you.  I would think that anyone with a reasonable elementary school education could have seen this result coming.  Apparently it takes an Ivy League education and a political career of non-accomplishment to come up with the assumptions which were made at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I hope President Obama and his administration are enjoying Egypt's "progress" over the past year.  Because it is what they worked so hard to replace Hosni Mubarak with.

On the other hand, Egypt is now far less disposed to have friendly relations with Israel than the previous administration.  So at least Mr. Obama can certainly find some common ground there.

Ken Berwitz

Mitt Romney, the Weeble candidate, again wobbled but did not fall down.

He won Michigan by 3% (41% - 38%) over a combination of Rick Santorum, and an intense effort by Democrats to cross over, vote for Santorum and throw the Republican nominating process back to square one.  I have no doubt this effort - which is perfectly legal (stupid as hell, but legal), made the win a good deal tighter than it otherwise would have been.  But Romney won in spite of it.

In Arizona, Romney more than won, he predominated, with 47% to Santorum's 27%. 

Newt Gingrich and ron paul, neither of whom spent time and money in these two states, were far behind.

How will Romney's sweep change the dynamics of  Saturday's Washington caucuses, then next week's "Super Tuesday", with primaries in Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, Idaho, Vermont, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and caucuses in Georgia and Massachusetts? 

Well, Ohio is the big prize.  And until yesterday, Santorum appeared to be ahead by a pretty good-sized margin;  7% and 11% in the most recent polls, but down from his whopping 18% lead two weeks ago in the (more accurate than most) Rasmussen poll.

I don't predict elections.  But if I had to place a bet, I would be betting on Romney taking a big, immediate jump forward in Ohio (and the other states as well) at Santorum's expense, and winning most states handily next week - including Ohio.

Santorum, like Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich and Cain before him, had a quick upward surge, which already was starting to fade.  Add to that his talent for making self-destructive statements (Sending your child to college is an act of snobbery?  Attacking John F. Kennedy's position on church and state is good politics?).  Top it off with his double loss yesterday, and it should not surprise anyone to see Santorum fall as quickly as he rose. 

Interestingly, if that happens, Newt Gingrich (who is even more of a Weeble Candidate than Romney) re-emerges into second place:  a very weak second, but second, nonethless.

It looks more and more like Romney is the nominee.  Which, if you ask me, should give a lot of Republicans cause to wipe their brow and say "whew, we dodged the bullet".

Ken Berwitz

Mona Charen is one of the better columnists out there.  And her latest commentary, published today, is absolutely terrific.

It is about Syrian murderer bashar al-assad's "useful idiots" in the west.

Did you doubt that he had them?  I hope not.  Because I can assure you with 100% certainty that if there is a US and/or Israel hating regime, there are useful idiots ready to congratulate and support its head of state every way they can.

You can read Ms. Charen's entire piece by clicking here.  But let me give you a taste below:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a firm statement to the Syrian elite this week, urging them to overthrow the regime of Bashar Al-Assad. “The longer you support the regime’s campaign of violence against your brothers and sisters, the more it will stain your honor,” she advised.

A mere eleven months ago, when peaceful demonstrators in the streets of Dara and other cities were met with bullets, Secretary Clinton referred to Assad as a “reformer.” 

 

Rare is the sceptered thug who does not attract fawning admiration from some in the free and democratic West.

 

The more repressive and vicious the regime, the more some in the West will strain to find benign intentions in their leaders.

 

Well, it may be churlish to begrudge people their optimism. But Assad has wielded absolute power in Syria for twelve years, and not a single reform has materialized.

 

None of that prevented Hollywood’s glamour couple, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, from visiting with the Assads to discuss their “refugee work.” Just-released photos captured rock star and “human rights” campaigner Sting and his wife enjoying a good laugh with the Assads in 2008. Vogue magazine, apparently immune to shame, ran a fawning profile of the dictator’s wife, “a rose in the desert.” “Asma al-Assad,” Vogue told its readers, “is glamorous, young, and very chic — the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies.” Along with fetching views of Asma, Vogue featured shots of Bashar playing on the floor with his children.

 

When images of bleeding and dead children — shot by Assad’s troops — began to cascade out of Syria, Vogue quietly removed the piece from its website.

 

Then-speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi visited Assad in 2007 (against the wishes of the Bush administration) and came away satisfied with his cooperation. “We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process.”

 

But no visitor was more enthusiastic about Bashar Assad than President Obama’s informal envoy, Senator John Kerry, who made six visits to Damascus between 2009 and 2011. In 2010, he said “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region.” Even after the tanks rolled into cities and began blasting away civilian demonstrators, Kerry stuck to his self-delusion: “My judgment is that Syria will move; Syria will change, as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West and economic opportunity that comes with it. . . . ”

 Thank you, Ms Charen, for using your head, instead of treating it like - in the words of Tom Hanks, playing Jimmy Dugan in A League Of Their Own - "that lump two feet above your ass".  How pathetic that so many supposedly intelligent people use the two interchangeably.

Ken Berwitz

Last Thursday.  President Obama made his much-awaited, much-publicized major "energy" speech.  It was so insipid and so laden with excuses that our wonderful "neutral" media did him a favor by barely covering it, even after promoting it to us for days and days (it's good to have the referees on your side, isn't it?). 

Don Seymour, who blogs at Speaker of the House John Boehner's web site, decided that it needed a tad more publicity than that.  So he put up a terrific interactive graph, which shows the movement of gas prices throughout President Obama's presidency, complete with points along the way where you can link to the stories which reference each of Mr. Obama's actions which have resulted in our near-record high  - and most likely continuing to rise - gas price levels.

Here it is.  And, if you have friends or relatives who buy into Mr. Obama's explanation that the cause of higher energy costs is everything and anything other than his actions as President, I suggest you walk them to your computer, show them this chart, and end the discussion right then and there.  (If the link points do not appear on the graph, you can see them by clicking here):

In yesterday’s speech defending his failed energy policies – under which gas prices have nearly doubled and are rising faster than ever – President Obama called for the kind of “all of the above” energy strategy long-championed by Republicans. But far from supporting “all of the above,” the Obama administration has spent more than three years blocking efforts to expand energy production and bring down gas prices, while pushing job-crushing tax hikes and taxpayer-backed loans to companies like Solyndra. Here’s a look:

 

Ken Berwitz

For over a year I have written about two US agents who apparently were killed by guns sold to Mexican drug cartels as part of the hugely scandalous Operation Fast and Furious debacle. 

One of them, Border Agent Brian Terry, has been written about by a good many in the blogosphere - which, of course, is as it should be. 

But US Customs Agent  Jaime Zapata?  Next to nothing about him.

Now, finally, this injustice is being reversed and we are starting to hear his name. 

Last week the estimable Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News - who to her eternal credit is on top of this ugly story -  wrote about agent Zapata's death, the Fast and Furious connection to it, and the incredibly poor treatment his family has received - i.e. a gun trafficker named manuel barba, who probably sold the weapon which killed Agent Zapata, was caught, tried, and convicted to 8 1/3 years in jail without the Zapatas even being notified by authorities.

The house and senate oversight committees have worked dilligently to bring Fast and Furious into the light of day - with almost no support from what passes for our media.  Rep. Issa, who chairs the house committee on oversight and Sen. Grassley who is ranking Republican member on the senate committee, have repeatedly had the disgraceful toady and Obama sock-puppet, Attorney General eric holder on the carpet - during which time he has had to admit he lied about his knowledge of Fast and Furious.  Now they want him again, to talk about manuel barba's connection to the death of Agent Zapata.  

Michelle Malkin has an excellent column today, detailing this part of the story - do yourself a favor and click here to read it, because you are unlikely to see it in too many other places.  Sadly - pathetically - other than  Ms. Attkisson, Ms. Malkin and a few others, virtually no one else is making sure that Jaime Zapata and Brian Terry's stories are heard. 

Incredibly, neither NBC nor ABC has ever done one story specifically about Operation Fast and Furious.   These two agents, along with hundreds of Mexican citizens, are dead - the result of the Obama administration literally arming drug cartels - and these two networks's (alleged) news shows cannot find a reason to report it to their viewers?  How sick is that?

So thank you Ms. Attkisson and CBS News.  Thank you Ms. Malkin.  And shame on most of the rest of media, for being so beholden to Barack Obama, eric holder and the Democrat Party in general, that they will protect them even from a murderous scandal like this one.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) email -this one from James Carville.

As usual, the email is in rust, and my comments are in blue.

Enjoy....

XXX,
 

The GOP’s contraception hearing was a top secret treehouse: No Girls Allowed.  A lie.  Women (not girls, James) were “allowed”, and testified that afternoon.  They’ve branded birth control pills a weapon of mass destruction.  That doesn’t even qualify as a lie, it’s just silly. Their idea of a health care system is a Band-Aid and a bottle of aspirin.  Ok, we now have the full monty – from lie, to silly, to a combination of both.
 
I laugh to keep from throwing stuff. These guys are dangerous. They will do anything to win – whether it’s waging war on women or imploding our economy.  Er, there is no war on women.  And the imploded economy occurred on Barack Obama’s watch.  You may recall that Mr. Obama, along with his virtually veto-proof congress, passed the “stimulus package” and “ObamaCare which, coupled with his “no-oil, just bankrupted green companies” energy policy, has done more to hurt our economy than Republicans could even if they wanted to.  They’ve released the right-wing hounds on President Obama and our Democratic Senate. We have a whopping 23 seats to defend. They only need to win 4.  Would you feel better if Republicans held the 23 seats and you needed the 4?  Stop whining about your majority, for God sake.  Nobody likes a sore winner.
 
We can beat them – if we smash this FEC goal here and raise $228,000 by midnight tomorrow. Help send these boys packing to the unemployment line.  Yesterday John Kerry emailed that you needed $300,000 to stop Republicans.  Today it’s $228,000.  Evidently you got only $72,000 in the past 24 hours, and need multiples of that amount to meet your goal by tomorrow.  Somehow I think we’ll be told you made it no matter what you take in……
 
It’s your choice, and it’s your call. No pressure.  Good.  Because you’re not getting a cent from me.
 
Well, maybe just a little bit.  You’re still not getting a cent from me.
 
Let’s kick them out! Your $5 or $10 now will help make sure Democrats hold the White House and Senate – and stop the right-wing assault on reality!  Now it’s a reality thing?  Interesting.  Earlier you said the money was needed to defend your party’s president and your party’s senate seats.  If they’re not held by Republicans, how can you “kick them out”?  They aren't in.  This is your idea of reality?
 
Karl Rove’s flitting from billionaire to billionaire, then pollinating candidates like an overgrown bumble bee.  Ahh, the requisite Rove/billionaire ploy.  Yawn.  Tell it to george soros.  The Chamber of Commerce is already running ads – in February. And the DSCC isn’t?  Citizens United: The gift that keeps on giving to the GOP.  And what about the big unions, James?  Who are they gifting?
 
But here’s a little secret: Republicans are worried. They know if our grassroots activists get engaged, it’s game over. A million small voices will drown out Karl Rove’s buzzing – and keep the Senate and White House blue.  Assuming every small voice is a Democrat voice, you’re right.  But, of course, we both know that isn’t anywhere remotely near being true.
 
But that will take you. Can you give $5 or $10 right now to send Republicans packing? The DSCC must raise $228,000 by midnight tomorrow to hold the White House and Senate.  If you don’t get the $228,000 by tomorrow you lose the White House and Senate?  Why do Democrats – and you’re far from the only one – keep spouting this eminently ridiculous BS?
 
They say if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all, If you lived by that rule, James, you could have starred in The Artist without even acting.   but you know me. I have trouble keeping my mouth shut.  Hey hey hey.  You waited until now to give us the single most honest thing you’ve said in this email.  Let’s hit this goal, fight back hard, and win in November.
 
Thanks for reading – and giving.  You’re welcome.  Don’t hang by your thumbs waiting for money, though.  My contribution is right on this page, in blue.

Ken Berwitz

The movie "Act of Valor" was released this weekend:

-It is a celebration of the capability and success of our military - complete with footage of active-duty Navy SEALs.  It speaks to duty, honor and patriotism.

-It is the only movie I am aware of in the past decade that makes a positive statement about the United States military. 

-And it is the only movie about our military in the past decade that is a box office success.

According to the usually reliable boxofficemojo.com web site, Act of Valor had a production budget of about $12 million.  It was released this past Friday.  As of Sunday, it had grossed $24, 476,632 - which, when all other costs are added it, probably makes it about break-even right there.  In just three days. Is there any doubt it will make a pile of money?

And why is it going to do so well?  Because -- are you listening, Hollywood? -- PEOPLE WANT TO SEE MOVIES THAT SPEAK WELL OF, NOT POORLY OF, OUR MILITARY.  

Did you catch that?  Was it loud enough?

Hollywood has spent the last ten years making one anti-military movie after another - and losing their shirts on just about every one.  Green Zone, In the Valley of Elah, Rendition, Redacted, etc.  One box office stinker after another.  And I couldn't be happier.

Will this finally at long last wake up the left-wing robots in Tinselville?  Will we now see a rash of feel-good movies about the military, hurriedly put together, if for no other reason, just to get in on the $$$?  I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't bet against it.

If the weekend gross for Act of Valor doesn't teach that bunch of doctrinaire zombies a lesson, nothing will.

Ken Berwitz

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow and Democrat strategist Karen Finney.  What a pair. 

Both smart.  Both educated.  Both successful.  And both far left, partisan, and so full of crap that you feel like you should rub the TV screen with toilet paper after watching them.

Read this transcript segment, in which they talk about the proposed Virginia legislation which would require pregnant women to have, then view, an ultrasound image of the fetus before an abortion, and see why:

MADDOW: I know as the Democrats' communications director you'd never call anybody Gov. Vaginal Probe, but I wonder (laughs) ...

 

FINNEY: I never would, honestly Rachel, I never would have thought that we would be in a position to actually call someone Gov. Vaginal Pro-, Transvaginal Probe. I mean, did you ever think you would be having this conversation on your show?!

MADDOW: Never. Never in my life. Never, not just in my show, never in my world! Like really, never! But I've been training myself to say these things. I'm still all red, but, I, gah!

 

MADDOW: Do you think that Gov. McDonnell's prospects for being the vice presidential nominee are totally scuttled by this? Or do you think that actually this in some weird way in this year of Republican politics, this might not be that bad?

 

FINNEY: You know, it's hard to tell based on the line of action that Republicans have chosen to take. I mean, if you, think about the level of activity that we've had over the last several months and weeks. I mean, essentially the Republican Party has now aligned itself with the Vatican. And you have 98 percent of Catholic women, you know, use contraception. So the Vatican can't even convince its own women in America of their policies and the Republican Party thinks that's the place to go?!

 

FINNEY: I mean, and I think they're also not paying attention to the fact that women have very much been awakened over the last several months. Again, look at these Republican legislatures and these sort of anti-women bills, you know, having to prove that you were raped in order to, you know, use Medicare, Medicaid, to have an abortion. I mean, some of the, you know, redefining rape, letting women die. I mean, the level of conversation we've been having. And then, contraception!

Let's start with the fact that the Virginia legislation these two snarkmeisters are referencing, which I blogged about just yesterday, does not require a transvaginal probe.  Let's also note that, even if it did, transvaginal techniques are commonplace, even routine, during gynecological examinations. 

This renders Maddow and Finney's entire discussion absolutely ridiculous, right from the starting gate.  But let's plod on anyway.

Next we have Rachel Maddow suggesting that Virginia Govenor McDonnell's support of the legislation might scuttle his chances at being picked as a Vice Presidential candidate.  I don't even begin to know where to go with that.

Then Karen Finney chimes in with her opinion that - horror of horrors - for this issue, Republicans are on the same page as the Vatican.  Those of us old enough to remember how intolerant, Catholic-hating bigots used the same kind of "reasoning" to insist that John F. Kennedy should not be elected President are, I would hope, cringing at those words.

But Finney is not through.  Next, she tosses out the claim that 98% of Catholic women use contraception.  This "statistic" is based on a survey by the Guttmacher Institute - which, you should be aware is closely aligned with Planned Parenthood.  And the question is designed to get the highest possible response rate (i.e. if a Catholic woman or her partner ever in her life used a contraceptive even one time it counts as much as if she did so every time). And, as icing on the cake, even that exaggeratedly high percent is then misread by Finney (and others) to raise the result to 98%.  (The misreading of this 'statistic" was so ridiculous that the Guttmacher Institute had to issue a  "clarification" of its data. 

Then Finney goes into a "women are awakened' routine, as if women, in toto, are up in arms over the Virginia legislation.  This reminds me a lot of the famous comment film critic Pauline Kael is supposed to have made after Richard Nixon won re-election in 1972:  "I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him." 

Note to Ms. Finney:  Maybe the women in your circles are all aflutter over Virginia's legislation, but that hardly is a microcosm of the entire country.  If you read the polls you will find that there are almost as many women against your abortion position as there are in support of it.   Besides, how many of your friends - female or male - would have been voting Republican this year under any circumstances?  I'm betting the answer is pretty close to none of them.

And, as a grand finale, Finney ends by associating the requirement that pregnant women have an ultrasound image taken, with rape and with what amounts to negligent homicide (i.e. letting women die). 

That, folks, is what passes for "intelligent discourse" on the Rachel Maddow show - and, more generally on MSNBC.

Are you impressed?

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday dailycaller.com told us about how David Brock, who runs the far-left mediamatters.org web site - which is umbilically, and probably illegally tied to Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular - had to pay off $850,000 in what Brock himself described as blackmail money to a former lover, who threatened to go public with embarrassing information regarding who was funding his site.

Today dailycaller.com gives us a taste of what the lover, William Grey, was probably threatening Brock with:  that $365,000 in funding came from organizations tied to bernard madoff, the corrupt-beyond-belief fraud who stole untold billions from the investors who trusted him. 

As readers of this blog certainly know, madoff was a big-time contributor to Democrats, so it is no surprise that organizations which also did so would flock to his stewardship of their money.  The fact that dailycaller.com is breaking this story, and not the so-called "mainstream media" which - pure oversight I am sure - barely ever reported madoff's $$$ allegiance to the Democrat Party, tells you plenty about what passes for "journalism" these days.

You can read all about the media matters madoff money mess by clicking here.  Do it, and see the kind of information that is systematically denied by so many major "news" sources.  Then we can wonder together how the people at those sources face themselves in the mirror each morning, and try to convince themselves they are journalists rather than propagandists.

Ken Berwitz

My two previous blogs talked about:

-The Obama administration's current attempt to reduce health care benefits to military veterans; especially older military veterans;

-Its inexplicable, utterly stupid (not to mention obviously damaging) attempts at accommodation with the taliban; a fundamentalist Islamic hate group that will see this as nothing other than weakness on our part which should be answered with more attacks and more dead Americans.

At the end of each blog, I asked whether our wonderful "neutral" media would be covering these obviously major stories.

Here's part of the answer: 

-If this morning's Today show had so much as one word about either story in its first hour, I missed it. 

-Ditto for the New York Times, where I also could not find a thing about either story -- but I did find one about how the "contraceptive" issue, which was concocted by Democrats as a diversionary tactic so voters would pay less attention to the mess Obama & Co. have foisted on us, is working very well for Democrats. 

That is roughly the equivalent of an auto repair shop owner spending the last couple of weeks going out at night to bash car fenders with a crowbar, then seeing the Times run a story about how much more business he is doing.

Journalism?  Integrity?  Neutrality?  Telling two sides of the story?  Never heard of 'em.

Ken Berwitz

President Obama's new pals?  The taliban.

This is not a joke blog, this is for real.

Read the following excerpts from this Investors Business Daily editorial.  You will not believe your eyes:

War On Terror: As the Taliban assassinate U.S. military officers and poison troop chow in Afghanistan, the president secretly plans the release of Taliban prisoners from Gitmo.

Whose side is this commander in chief on? Just days before members of the Taliban took credit for infiltrating the Afghan Interior Ministry and murdering two American officers, the Obama administration was finalizing a secret deal with the terror group.

"If all goes as hoped," reported Reuters, "U.S. and Qatari negotiators will meet soon to nail down final details for transferring Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo prison — a momentous step for President Obama, the Afghan war and perhaps U.S. foreign policy as well."

The deal reportedly includes a political office for the Taliban in Qatar and possible power-sharing for the banned terrorist group in Kabul. What does the U.S. get out of the deal? More treachery and bloodshed.

The administration thinks the sooner it stands up an Afghan army and national police, the sooner it can pull out troops. Obama has announced a formal 2014 withdrawal. But by telegraphing his plans, everybody in Afghanistan knows we're leaving.

And now there's no reason for a local Afghan Muslim not to side with the Taliban, either openly or secretly, especially in light of reports the administration is in political talks with the Taliban.

Afghans working for the army or police have good reason to fear the Taliban will soon be back in power. If they don't want to end up buried in a soccer field, they'll throw in with the Taliban — and help them kill as many American "infidels" from the inside as they can.

The enemy must be doubled over with laughter at the stupidity of this administration.

President Obama is making friends and doing favors for the most intolerant, hate-filled, murderous, anti-Western people on the planet?  With the people who are in a constant effort to kill USA citizens, military or civilian, and dance in the streets when they succeed?

You could not make this Obama-In-Wonderland scenario up if you tried.

And as our wonderful "neutral" media fall all over themselves telling us how off the rails Mitt Romney and/or Rick Santorum are,  Barack Obama's stupidity - yes IBD has that word dead right - regarding the taliban goes virtually unreported.

I don't know what I feel more:  Incedulity regarding this President's ludicrous, destructive actions, resentment over mainstream media's virtually limitless capacity to protect him, or despair for the future of this country. 

Ken Berwitz

President Obama is proposing a screwing of the military.  On health care, no less.  One that should make decent citizens sick to their stomachs. 

Read the following excerpts from Bill Gertz's article for freebeacon.com and see for yourself.  Have a barf bag handy; you'll need it.

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

“Under the new plan, the Pentagon would get the bulk of its savings by targeting under-65 and Medicare-eligible military retirees through a tiered increase in annual Tricare premiums that will be based on yearly retirement pay.

Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.

The new plan hits active duty personnel by increasing co-payments for pharmaceuticals and eliminating incentives for using generic drugs.

Got that?  They are going to screw our military men and women - especially the older ones.  Royally. 

Why?  To force them to go into ObamaCare, which neither they, nor the general public, wants any part of.

A lot of words went through my mind as I read this article.  Disgusting, outrageous, and despicable jump to the front of the line, followed by a string of shorter words I would rather not use.

Why is Barack Obama doing this?  Does he hate our armed forces that much?  Is it that he is so embarrassed by the failure of his military adventures in Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya  that he intends to take it out on soldiers and their families?

And how about the mainstream media?  Will they SAY SOMETHING about this? 

Or will they cover for President Obama again.  As they have throughout the Operation Fast and Furious scandal?  Throughout the Green scandal which, other than a few days on Solyndra, has largely been buried,?  Throughout the gas/oil price spikes they are happy to blame on anyone but Barack Obama - the same ones they blamed squarely on his predecessor, George Bush?

The truth?  I am already getting a horribly disheartening premonition that they will again look the other way on Barack Obama's behalf, and leave our military men and women to twist in the wind.

How I hope I am wrong.  How I hope they talk about this miscarriage of justice and of honor.  How I hope they join the many military organizations which, according to the article, are up in arms, and bring such pressure on President Obama that he is forced to backtrack on this incredibly bad decision.

I'll wait and see.  But I have to admit that, based on experience, I have no confidence at all that they will finally step up to the plate and act like journalists rather than Democrat propagandists. 

Ken Berwitz

David Brock, the founder of mediamatters.org, was blackmailed by a former boyfriend, who threatened to divulge who was funding the organization.  And Brock paid $850,000 to keep him quiet. 

The source?  David Brock.

Read all about it in Jana Winter's article for foxnews.com article today.  Meanwhile, here are a few excerpts:  

Media Matters chief David Brock paid a former domestic partner $850,000 after being threatened with damaging information involving the organization’s donors and the IRS – a deal that Brock later characterized as a blackmail payment, according to legal documents obtained by foxnews.com.

 

In an acrimonious lawsuit settled at the end of last year, Brock accused William Grey of making repeated threats to expose him to the “scorn or ridicule of his employees, donors and the press in demanding money and property.”   Brock claimed in legal papers that he sold a Rehoboth Beach, Del. Home he once shared with Grey, in order to meet Grey’s demands, which he called “blackmail” in the lawsuit.

 

Grey threatened to go public about Brock and Media Matters’ finances after he accused Brock in a civil suit filed in Washington of taking $170,000 in possessions, including an $8,000 Louis Vuitton suit bag, paintings, a rug, a chandelier, a painted bust of a Roman soldier and a a pair of carved wooden chairs upholstered in purple fabric.  Those possessions were displayed in the Washington townhouse where the couple entertained liberal movers and shakers in happier times.

A few questions:

-What do you suppose would be so damaging to David Brock and mediamatters.org, that he would be willing to pay almost a million dollars in blackmail to prevent it from seeing the light of day? 

-Since the fact that Brock paid this money has become public knowledge, does that mean Grey will talk? 

-Or will someone  - maybe at Fox, maybe at dailycaller.com, which already has blown the lid off how closely associated mediamatters.org is with the Democrat Party and how that makes its 501(c)3 tax exemption laughable, maybe at one of the other many, many enemies Mr. Brock and his web site have made - now find it on their own?

I wonder how Mr. Brock feels now that it's his head on the chopping block. 

And who knows where this will lead?  If the Brock blackmail story is this interesting now, who is to say it won't get one whole lot more interesting in the near future? 

Stay tuned.....

Ken Berwitz

Here, as a public service, is the latest Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) email, just sent out.  This one has John Kerry's name on it. 

The email wording, is in rust.  And my comments (did you think I wouldn't have comments???) are in blue.  See which you think make more sense:

XXXX,

 

Remember Rick Santorum's big bucks backer who got nostalgic saying women used to hold an aspirin between their knees for birth control?  Er...you're lying already.  It was not a nostalgic comment, it was a joke.  And you of course, know this full well.

Foster Friess isn’t just incredibly clueless or the owner of an awful sense of humor. He’s also taking out his checkbook to spend mounds of cash to paint the Senate red, and he’s not alone.  Well, I agree Freiss’s “humor" was awful in this instance, and he’s seems willing to contribute a lot to Rick Santorum.  So you did reasonably well here.  Congratulations:  it is the high point of your email.

Karl Rove is spending $120 million. Friess plans to target 10 states. Flip four, and Republicans take charge. We wouldn't have a firewall to stop their dangerous agenda. Finding an aspirin would be the least of our worries.  This aspirin thing seems very important to you, since that’s the second time you referenced it.  Again, it was nothing other than a joke to Freiss.  And it wouldn’t be a Democrat email without a reference to the Karl Rove all-purpose bogeyman scare.  As far as targeting states, isn’t that exactly what Democrats are doing too?  How do you run a series of state campaigns without targeting a series of states?

I know what it’s like to fight a tide of outside cash, and that’s why I’m asking for your immediate help. BS and double BS.  You grew up rich, married even richer, and then divorced your wife to marry even richer than that.  You could personally finance your senate campaigns, never take a penny from anyone, and be rich at the end anyway.  The DSCC’s crucial FEC deadline is 48 hours away, and they still need $300,000. Fall short, and say hello to the Aspirin Agenda. Aspirin agenda?  This is going from obsessive to pathological.  Hit this goal, and we can hold accountable the extremes of the far-right fringe.  If $300,000 is all it takes, just tell wife Teresa to write a check, like she does to pay for all those homes you and she live in, the ones that the regular people you are trolling for contributions from will never get a sniff of in their lives.  Then you can go off on your yacht - the one you docked in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts to save taxes on the backs of your constituents - and forget the whole thing.

Click here to give $25 or more to the DSCC. We can re-elect President Obama and our Democratic Senate, but only if we raise $300,000 in the next 48 hours!  Wow.  Without $300,000, the election is over on Wednesday.  Who knew?

Thanks to the Citizens United ruling, Foster Friess, Karl Rove and other top Republicans can spend freely in support of candidates. As can – and do – rich Democrats.  I’m sure you left that out by mistake.  American Crossroads and our Republican Senate counterparts are both running attack ads right now.  Unlike this email, the numerous other similarly attack-oriented emails we have seen and the ones run by your left wing network of outside groups?  Are you seriously trying to suggest that Democrats are not running attack ads, just like Republicans?  It is amazing how stupid you think the people on your email list are.

And we know what these Republicans want. A nation where it’s hard to get preventative care, but easy to lose your health coverage. Where we put the rights of big polluters above the rights of women.  As we know?  But I don't know.  So do you have any specifics on this?  Just a quick note before you answer:  if the reference is supposed to be to ObamaCare, please keep in mind that most citizens join Republicans in not wanting it. 

The Republicans have Foster Friess. But we have something far more powerful – half a million passionate people who won’t rest until we move this nation forward. More than 90% of gifts to the DSCC come from grassroots donors.  And how much of the money george soros, the “Sub-prime” Sandlers, Steven Spielberg, bill maher, etc. etc. etc. give comes from grassroots donors?  You must be watering those roots with champagne.  Lots of it.

The DSCC needs those grassroots donors now! Click here to give $25 or more. We can keep the White House and Senate blue, but only if we raise $300,000 in the next 48 hours!  Again with this two day time limit?  Give the money fast, don’t think, just do it?  Geez, Senator, what do you think this is?  Your vote on the “stimulus package”?

Giving to the DSCC just might be the single best way to put Foster Friess – and every other retrograde Republican - in their place.  In their place?  Uh…..where would that be?  Please give now.

Sen. John Kerry

Ken Berwitz

It is the same formula.  Over and over and over again.

Step #1:  The left puts out a position - often without any basis in fact (why should they if Step #2 and Step #3 take place?);

Step #2:  A large number of mainstream media venues -  dutifully, in lock step - report it;

Step #3:  There are follow-up reports, panel discussions,  etc. about it; 

Step #4:  By the time anyone has a chance to provide facts and commentary that give another side, it has become ingrained in the minds of the population.  They "know" it.  And now, to find out otherwise after the fact makes them feel like fools, so a great many stick to their first impressions no matter what.

The key?  Step #2:  Because, without it, people might have a shot at considering whether there is more than one side to the position.

Which leads us to the latest example of this formula:  the "transvaginal rape" claims being made about Virginia's proposed abortion legislation.

Virginia's legislation would require that women seeking an abortion have a pre-abortion ultrasound done so they could see what they are exorcising from their bodies.  This greatly disturbs, and threatens, the Abortion At All Costs (AAAC) advocates - Planned Parenthood being the single most prolific of them.  Why?  Because if a woman sees that what she is carrying does not look like a lump of tissue or a big cyst, but an actual human being, she might think of it as an actual human being.  And that might make her less disposed to having it mangled and sucked out of her body.

We can't have that, can we?

So the AAAC had to come up with something.  What they came up with was the impossibly asinine progression that performing an ultrasound is a "transvaginal" procedure, since it is "transvaginal" it is invasive, since it is invasive it must be just like "rape", therefore Virginia's new law would force women to be raped. 

Think I'm kidding?  Think again.  That is exactly what they are saying.  Read it here, and here, and here, and countless other places as well. 

Now the big question:  Is there any truth to it?

Well, read this excerpt from Kathryn Jean Lopez's blog for nationalreview.com, and decide for yourself.  The bold print is mine:

Go ahead and read the bill that caused the “rape” cries. The word “transvaginal” never appears in it.

The bill was an update on Virginia’s informed-consent law, and didn’t require a particular kind of ultrasound, but mandated that the “standard medical practice in the community” for an ultrasound be followed. So doctors on site, not the governor or the house of delegates or the legendary exorcist Rick Santorum, would be making the calls about exactly what kind of ultrasound would be best for a particular woman. Planned Parenthood clinics already do ultrasounds (it helps with the pricing of abortions, among other things). The law wasn’t meant to do anything but make sure no women fell through the cracks.

And, frankly, even if the bill did mandate an invasive form of ultrasound — sometimes gestational age or other factors will make these the most accurate methods — let’s be honest about it and “women’s health”: It wouldn’t have been state-sponsored rape, as it was being characterized. It’s standard medical care. All things in the OB-GYN world tend to be invasive. Are routine exams rape, too? Can we just drop the nonsense already?

Would you say there are two sides to this story?  I know I would.

But this is the left, and these are our wonderful "neutral" media.  So the flock of shee...er, fully informed populace now "knows" how ugly and invasive Virginia legislation would be --  to the extent that Governor McDonnell, under intense political pressure, has backed off his support and says he will review the legislation further.

Mission accomplished for the AAAC crowd.  And for its accomplice media.

Keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em.  It works every time.

Ken Berwitz

Last week, for reasons which vary depending on who is talking about it (we'll never know the truth for sure), US troops burned a number of Korans in Afghanistan.

Since then, there have been "protests" - actually instances of violent, uncontrolled rage - in the streets of cities and towns throughout the country.  A total of 34 people (that we know of so far - it is a very safe bet the actual total is much higher) have been killed, including two US Army officers in what was supposed to have been a secure compound.

The President of the United States has personally apologized for the burnings.  This has meant exactly nothing to the people, whose conduct seems almost 100% dictated by whatever their religious leaders tell them to do - which, at the moment, is to scream, pump their fists in the air shoot weapons and demand revenge.

The Afghan parliament - which the United States is solely responsible for the existence of instead of the taliban still being in charge - has demanded that the people who burned the Koran be tried in an Islamic court - which is to say they would quite possibly be put to death.

Keep in mind that Afghanistan is a country where killing, death and (non-Islamic) desecration is the norm every day without street protests.  But burn a few Korans - which, if you believe one of the reports, had already been desecrated with "extreme" handwritten notes in them, and it immediately turns into a national conflagration of hatred and fury.

This is the "country" - the hopeless country - that President Obama has decided to nation-build in.

When President Bush invaded Afghanistan it was specifically to remove the taliban from governance and to close up the al-qaeda training camps they allowed osama bin laden to run - the ones that spawned 9/11.  Mr. Bush had no illusions about the prospects for anything further and did not try.  Over the ensuing seven years, he went from less than 10,000 troops there to maybe in the neighborhood of 30,000.

By contrast, Barack Obama - who agreed with President Bush that this was "a necessary war" - decided Afghanistan would be a great place to nation-build. 

It was Barack Obama, not George Bush, who raised the number of troops to near 100,000 in an effort to do so - resulting in far more US soldiers being killed and injured in his three years than in President Bush's seven.

I have no doubt that the Obama people will blame the disaster of Afghanistan on President Bush.  Blaming other people for their mistakes may well be the single most prolific activity of this administration.  But, like so many other alibis and excuses this sorry bunch makes, it will be a lie.

If we had anything even close to a neutral media, the connection between President Obama's incalculably wrong missteps, and what is happening in Afghanistan today, would be lead-story news.

But we don't, and it isn't. 

Just as the Gas price spike, which was virtually 100% President Bush's fault when it happened during his administration, is virtually 0% President Obama's fault today - even though he has very publicly stopped us from exploiting our own vast oil resources for three years - the disaster in today's Afghanistan will be positioned as President Bush's fault as well. 

Sometimes I imagine there once was a real-life "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" event, when most of the neutral journalists in this country were removed, then replaced by one-dimensional robots who are not programmed to give us more than a single side of the story.  And I wonder where we can go to get the real ones back.

I don't know about you, but I miss getting two sides of the story from what are supposed to be professional journalists.  How I wish our mainstream media would start acting like professional journalists for a change, and provide some of it.

Ken Berwitz

I have always liked Billy Crystal a lot.  He is engaging, funny and writes terrific dialogue.

But at the Oscars last night, after a promising beginning (the opening montage showed off all his talents), he zigged and zagged between flashes of the old Crystal, and tired, unfunny material which, along with the thick, embalming-quality makeup, reminded us that he is getting old and past his prime. 

I especially disliked the gratuitously racial comment, thinly disguised as a joke, that he made about The Help (something like "After I saw The Help I wanted to hug a Black woman, but you have to go 45 minutes outside of Hollywood to do it"). 

What exactly was funny about that?  Is he saying Hollywood is all-White?  Or that the many Black domestics you would find in a rich neighborhood in LA are not people?  What was he thinking - and what did it say about the movie industry, so many of whose people live there?  If one of the Republicans he hates so much (keep reading to see why I say this) had made that crack, we would be hearing what a stone-cold racist he was in this morning's news.

Then there was that stupid, tasteless political comment about "a dark knight, an American Psycho and a charismatic crack addict.  You'll get to choose one on Super Tuesday".  

I read before the show that Crystal intended to insert something about "Republican idiots", and this apparently was it.   But the comment was so lame that, even among the Democrat-rich movie crowd, it didn't get much of a positive reaction; just some dutiful laughter which died down very quickly, as if to say 'Ok, you got it in, now please do something - anything - else". 

I still like Mr. Crystal.  But I have to say that I hope his 9th time as host will be his last.

Ken Berwitz

For whatever it's worth, here are my thoughts (not predictions) -- keeping in mind I haven't seen all the movies::

-Best Picture:  It should be between The Artist, The Help and War Horse.  I go with The Artist because it is so offbeat and courageous. 

Best Director:  I expect it will be Michel Hasanavicius for The Artist - who, apart from deserving the honor, would certainly be the most interestingly-named winner of the night.  But I wouldn't count out Hollywood's beloved icon, Martin Scorcese, for Hugo.  Personally, I'm sort of hoping that Woody Allen will pull off the surprise-win of the night, for his wonderfully entertaining Midnight In Paris.  

-Best Actor:  Jean Dujardin for The Artist, but I wouldn't be unhappy if Brad Pitt snuck in for Moneyball.  I still can't figure out what the hooha is about George Clooney's performance in The Descendants.  It is very good, but, to me, nothing special - and as I have previously written, I thought the movie was wildly overrated.

-Best Actress:  The toughest call of the majors.  Meryl Streep was phenomenal as Margaret Thatcher.  Rooney Mara was great as the girl with the dragon tattoo.  But my heart is with Viola Davis - not just because she was nothing short of fabulous in The Help, but because I thought she should have won a couple of years ago for Doubt.  It would give me a very warm feeling to see her standing up there with that Oscar in hand and thanking the people around her.

-Best Supporting Actor:  I have less familiarity with the movies for Best Supporting Actor than I do for the others.  But I sort of root for Christopher Plummer, because he just celebrated his 117th birthday (ok, I may be off by a few months).  Jonah Hill was excellent in Moneyball and maybe he'll pull it out - though he has lost so much weight since playing the part that, if he does, it will look like someone else is accepting it for him.

-Best Supporting Actress:  Octavia Spencer for The Help.  She was in a class by herself.  The others were terrific, but compared to Ms. Spencer they don't get beyond et cetera.

Let me end by saying my wife and I saw "Gone" last night (along with a theater-full of tweens and teens who giggled and shrieked through the whole thing).  Amanda Seyfried is an excellent actor - too good to have been in this silly, preposterous mess.  But at least she and Emily Wickersham (who played her sister) are easy on the eyes.  Heck, it could have been Rosie O'Donnell and Roseanne Barr -- which, now that I think of it, would have changed the genre from thriller to horror.....

Ken Berwitz

Soupy Sales, the late comic and childrens show host, used to have a funny line about his physical condition:  "What I lack in muscle I make up in flab".

Evidently Rick Santorum intends to provide the rough political equivalent of this saying in his campaign.  His version is "What I lack in money and organization I make up in ridiculous comments". 

Case in point, as excerpted from Zeke Miller's blog for buzzfeed.com:

Sen. Rick Santorum struck a sharper tone on the campaign trail today, criticizing Mitt Romney for questioning his conservative values and calling him an "Occupy Wall Street adherent."

"It’s absolutely laughable to have a liberal governor of Massachusetts say that I am not a conservative," Santorum said, attacking Romney's tax plan. “We have a candidate for president who is campaigning as an Occupy Wall Street adherent.”

"He doesn't understand how America works any more than Barack Obama understands how America works," Santorum said, about Romney's plan to cap wealthy individuals' ability to deduct charitable contributions.

He contrasted his record with Romney, "who created the biggest entitlement program in Massachusetts and gave us Obamacare.”

I grant you that Rick Santorum cannot compete with Mitt Romney on money or organization.  But does he really think he can win with this kind of (sanitized word alert) stuff?

Comparing Mitt Romney, who made millions as a venture capitalist, to Occupy Wall Street?  That's like claiming mahmoud ahmadinejad is a major contributor to the Zionist Organization of America. 

Liberality-wise, Romney was no more "liberal" as a Governor of Massachusetts than he had to be to win election in that bluer-than-blue state.  Just as so many of Rick Santorum's earmarks were not "conservative" in any sense, but for projects that would benefit, and ingratiate himself to, his Pennsylvania constituents.

And the claim that then-Governor Romney's one-state form of health care was somehow a blueprint for ObamaCare - while ignoring the huge differences Mr. Romney has explained many times over - is the icing on the cake.

This, to me, is the kind of hail-Mary, desperation dialogue a candidate comes out with after his handlers have told him that he better do something fast, or the game is up.

It suggests to me that Mr. Santorum's internal polling shows Romney, who apparently will win Arizona handily, also pulling away in Michigan. 

The so-called pundits keep telling me how close that race is, but Santorum, in his own special way, is telling me otherwise.  And, on this, I'm inclined to believe him.  We'll know for sure on Tuesday.

One other thing:  this is not to say that, if Santorum somehow became the Republican nominee, I would not vote for him over Barack Obama.  (Note:  I have been told that this wording is a bit clumsy.  I agree. What I am trying to say is that I would vote for Rick Santorum over Barack Obama.)

If given a choice of nothing to write home about versus a lot worse, I will take nothing to write home about every time.

Ken Berwitz

If this doesn't boil your blood, nothing will.

Excerpted from Michael Volpe's blog at dailycaller.com:

The death of a Chicago man killed by a drunk driver who was in the United States illegally has become an unlikely catalyst in the national policy debate over immigration. Eight Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder on January 30, asking them to cut off some federal funding currently sent to Cook County, Illinois.

That funding, disbursed through a federal grant program called the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, pays localities for costs incurred in processing criminal aliens when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants them detained before they can post bail.

Cook County received $2.29 million last year, $3.4 million in 2010 and $4.4 million in 2011.

Yet a Cook County ordinance forbids police from cooperating with those requests, called “detainers,” from ICE officials.

Read that again, in case your eyes blinked in disbelief.  Yes, it says what it says.

Cook County, Illinois is getting millions of dollars in federal grants, for the express purpose of processing illegal aliens on behalf of ICE agents.  But Cook County has an ordinance forbidding police from doing so. And the grant money is being paid anyway.

Paid for WHAT?

And, while we're on the subject, how dare Cook County have such an ordinance in the first place?  Is this still the USA?  Is there still a federal government in place?  Why should Cook County, Illinois get one red cent of any Federal money if it enacts laws that directly circumvent the federal government?  Why aren't those laws declared invalid?  Why isn't the Department Of Justice suing Cook County and demanding this happen? 

Isn't this the same Federal Government, that, through ObamaCare, is demanding that citizens in every county in every state buy health insurance, whether they want to or not?  Coercing the legal citizenry is acceptable, but counties can decide whether or not to cooperate with the federal government on processing illegal aliens?

For God sake, if you didn't know better you would swear some Chicago machine politician was running things in Washington DC, and he put some disgraceful toady of a sock-puppet in charge of the Department of Ju......oh, wait..

Ken Berwitz

I wonder if you remember the name Jon Corzine.

Yes, it is true that he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs, then a Democrat US Senator from New Jersey, then its Democrat Governor.  I know you knew who he was then.

But after losing his-re-election campaign, Corzine became the head of MF Global - an investment company that suddenly declared bankruptcy and collapsed, after Mr. Corzine and his pals "lost" well over a billion dollars of its clients' investments, and then testified under oath that he just didn't know where the money went.

After that, media suddenly stopped talking about him.  You have barely seen his name in months.  So I thought you might not remember.

Well, here's something that might jog your memory; Beth Levin's piece at dealbreaker.com (too short to excerpt):

The last several months have not been the best of times for Jon Stephen Corzine. His fund went down for the dirt nap. He was forced to shelve his dreams of becoming a count. He made the tearful decision to put his Hoboken hideaway on the market, probably to free up some cash should it become necessary to pay legal fees. And while some pissant MF Global clients have in fact served him with papers, today brings the joyous news that any sleepless nights spent worrying over doing time were all for naught.

“Sources tell the FOX Business Network the criminal case right now looks highly unlikely. The investigators are having a very difficult time proving criminal intent in the disclosure of the details leading up to the implosion of MF Global. They see a lot of sloppy bookwork. Sources say Jon Corzine’s firm wasn’t managed very well, but in terms of proving they intentionally misused that money, they are having a very tough time. They doubt a criminal case will result from this.”

"Sloppy bookwork"?  "Sloppy bookwork"???  Who the hell are these "investigators"?  Moe?  Larry? Curly?

This isn't like you or me forgetting to write the supermarket trip into our checkbook.  There are stringent rules governing every money transaction of a company like MF Global.  Legally, there must be a record - a verifiable, tracable record - of every transaction, which means investigators should easily be able to know where the money went.  If there is not a verifiable, tracable record, it means laws were broken and people should be going to jail.

So how is it that Jon Corzine could have disappeared from the media radar for all these months?  And who, other than Fox, is talking about him now?

Think about this:  how many times over the past months, on the network news, in print and on line, have you heard negative stories from those same media about the Koch brothers - who have done nothing wrong, but are hugely successful businesspeople who are politically conservative and contribute to Republicans.  Plenty, wouldn't you say?

Yet there is barely a word about Jon Corzine, the rich former Democrat Senator, former Democrat Governor and current  huge Obama contributor (at least $500,000 that we know about so far - probably a ton more), whose company (mis)managed to lose over a billion dollars of client money.

And don't think he's the only one. 

Remember bernard madoff?  Of course you do.  He stole so many billions that they had to put him in jail, almost certainly for the rest of his life.  And, just like Corzine, madoff was a big contributor to Democrat causes.  But you could look at the countless articles about him until your eyeballs hurt, and barely ever find any mention that he was a Democrat.

It is hard not to at least suspect that Jon Corzine is a classic case of Crony Criminality at work.  Aided and abetted by a shameless Accomplice Media.

Chicago on the Potomac.

Let's hope this gives voters something to think about long and hard next election day.

Ken Berwitz

Earlier this week members of our armed forces stationed in Afghanistan burned a number of Korans.  It is by no means certain that this was done maliciously - there were reports that the specific korans had "extreme" handwritten inscriptions in them - but, of course no one knows for sure.

What we do know is that there have been demonstrations and riots throughout Afghanistan because of it.  And at least two US soldiers have been killed.

President Obama's reaction?  He has apologized on behalf of the USA to Afghanistan for the burning of the Korans. 

When we invaded Afghanistan it was a crime, punishable by death, for any Afghani to convert from Islam to Christianity.  I am not talking about forced conversion, which certainly exists in that sorry excuse for a country, I am talking about anyone who decided on his/her own to convert. (And, sad to say, this is hardly unusual among Islamic countries.)

1. But now, after 10 years, over 2,000 US soldiers dead (about 2/3 of them during Barack Obama's three years as President) and countless others wounded, some horribly, that law still exists.  The Afghani government,a which exists only because we fought and died on its behalf, still makes it a crime, punishable by imprisonment and death, for an Afghani to convert from Islam to Christianity.

My question is this:  If President Obama feels it is necessary to apologize to Afghanistan because our soldiers burned a few Korans, when does he demand an apology for the fact that Afghanistan, under its current laws, will put to death anyone who decides, as a matter of personal conviction and conscience, to convert from Islam to Christianity - the majority religion of the USA? 

I'll wait for his answer.  But I doubt it will come any time soon:  our wonderful "neutral" media certainly won't be demanding it, will they?

Ken Berwitz

When we were kids, one of the games we used to play was appending the words "under the sheets" to the titles of songs. 

In the 50's that meant Elvis Presley sang "Don't Be Cruel...under the sheets", Pat Boone sang "Don't Forbid Me...under the sheets", Frank Sinatra sang "High Hopes...under the sheets" and so on.  We thought it was a lot of fun.

Today I want to play that game again. But the reason has nothing to do with fun.

MSNBC's web site has just put up an article by Paul Ausick and Douglas A. McIntyre, titled "8 reasons why gas will hit $5 a gallon this year".   And, wonder of wonder, miracle of miracles, none of the 8 reasons has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that President Obama and his fellow Democrats have fought tooth and nail against new domestic exploration for oil, whether offshore, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), or anywhere else. 

So, I'm going to play the same game I played all those years ago.  But in this version I will post the beginning of each of the 8 reasons Mr. Ausick and Mr. McIntyre mention, and add "but this would be less of a problem if we were exploiting our own oil resources" to it. 

Let's see what happens when I do:

1. Strait of Hormuz
About 20 percent of the crude oil produced in the world is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran has threatened to shut down shipping traffic through the Strait...but this would be less of a problem if we were exploiting our own oil resources.

2. Iran
Iran contributes to a second problem in terms of global oil supply well beyond that of its ability to interrupt supply...but this would be less of a problem if we were exploiting our own oil resources.

3. Refiners raising prices
Most of the oil refined on the east coast of the U.S. is Brent crude, a type of oil produced from the North Sea. The price of Brent -- more than $124 a barrel -- is almost $16 higher than the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude, the amount most people read about in the media...but this would be less of a problem if we were exploiting our own oil resources.

4. Other geopolitical risks
Iran does not present the only geopolitical challenge to oil production. In Nigeria, which is the 14th largest producer of oil in the world, Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram has continued to attack Christian areas of the country. The Nigerian Army has reacted by attacking Islamists. Militants have continued to attack pipelines, apparently in a move to disrupt the government...but this would be less of a problem if we were exploiting our own oil resources.

5. The EU may save itself
For now, Greece has been bailed out again -- a move that should buoy confidence in the region and encourage demand for oil...but this would be less of a problem if we were exploiting our own oil resources.

 6. U.S. economic recovery
An improved U.S. economy means higher oil prices...but this would be less of a problem if we were exploiting our own oil resources.

7. Summer
In the U.S., summer vacation driving has historically boosted demand for gasoline...but this would be less of a problem if we were exploiting our own oil resources.

8. Supply risk
In December 2011, OPEC members produced nearly 31 million barrels a day, cutting the cartel’s spare capacity capability from 3.18 million barrels per day to 2.85 million...but this would be less of a problem if we were exploiting our own oil resources.

Well, I played the game and that is what I got. 

Maybe it's me.  But, looking at this, I just can't help thinking that if President Obama and his fellow Democrats would stop preventing us from exploiting our own oil resources, these problems would be a tad less daunting.

Evidently Mr. Ausick and Mr, McIntyre disagree, since they can't find even one place to mention it.  And they are far from alone, since most of our wonderful "neutral' media seem just as disinclined to associate the Obama administration's oil policy with higher gas prices. 

Importantly, your decision - not mine, not the media's, but yours - on this matter may well decide who sits in the Oval office come next January 20th. 

So what do you think?

Ken Berwitz

Here's one for both the "you can't make this stuff up" AND "Darwin" competitions.

From Jennie Olson's article for KSTP-TV in Minneapolis-St. Paul:

Police: Columbia Heights Man Caught With Stolen 19-Inch TV in Pants

A Columbia Heights man was arrested for allegedly stealing a 19-inch television – by shoving it down his pants.

Twenty-one-year-old Eric Lee King was walking out of an Eagan business on Dec. 5, 2011, when he dropped a box of candy in the parking lot. An Eagan police officer was in the area and let King know, but King kept walking as if he didn’t hear the officer, according to the complaint.

The police officer said King was walking “straight-legged, shuffling his feet, and not bending his knees.” The officer also noticed that King’s pants were falling down and he was trying to hold them up.

After honking his horn and getting no response, the officer got out of his car and approached King. Police say King squatted down and reached into his pants, so the office handcuffed him for safety reasons.

That’s when the officer saw a large, square item wrapped in plastic shoved down the man’s pants. The item turned out to be a 19-inch flat screen television.

Police say they also recovered a remote, power cords, and a bottle of brake fluid from his pants, along with two blue pills that were identified as the controlled substance Xanax.

King has been charged with fifth degree controlled substance crime and shoplifting.

I hope Mr. Lee has learned a valuable lesson from this:  never carry a box of candy in your pocket if you are going to stuff a 19 inch TV, remote control unit, power cords and brake fluid down your pants. 

Lucky he wasn't stealing from a seafood store.  A live lobster could be a real problem down there.

If he denied stealing the TV, it would have been a classic case of  liar, liar, pants on Fios.

Did the remote control work in there?  Because I can think of a lot of uses for it that have nothing to do with a TV....but certainly give new meaning to the term "power cord".

And the brake fluid?  I think it's a second degree felony to tell you the lines I'm coming up with for that.  I just want to know if it was stuffed in the front or the back of his pants.

Ok, enough.  That's what I can come up with so far.  The next bad line will have to come from you, not me.

Ken Berwitz

As you may be aware, I have always been a huge fan of H. L. (Henry Louis) Mencken - not for his social and political philosophy I assure you, but for his amazing body of brilliant, insightful, often very funny, quotes on just about any subject.  In my opinion he is second only to Mark Twain in the history of the USA.

After reading and listening to months of political "stuff" (the actual word I'm thinking of is one letter shorter) from various candidates, incumbents, and especially the Democrat Party, I thought it would be worthwhile to put up a few of Mencken's quotes about politics and government. 

Here they are.  Read them and decide for yourself if they resonate today:

Ken Berwitz

There is a lot to like about Mitt Romney.  And there are things about him that should make any normal human being wince.

One of the "wince" attributes is his remarkable talent for trying to look like a regular guy by making comments that, in actuality, make him look like an out-of-touch rich guy instead.  Which, let's be frank, describes him very well.

Here is the latest example:  a comment Mr. Romney made to try and ingratiate himself to the folks in Michigan, while speaking at a Detroit Economic Club event.  The idea, apparently, was to show that he bought from all three of what used to be the major US automakers (Chrysler, media barely have advised the public, is now owned by Fiat):

“I drive a Mustang and a Chevy pick-up truck.  Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually, and I used to have a Dodge truck.  So I used to have all three covered”

"Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs"?  Ouch.  How many regular guys have wives who drive "a couple of Cadillacs".

Romney is being nailed for this.  And that is hardly a surprise.  A politician should know better.

But, that said, let's also remember that, just this week, Debbie Wasserman Schultz - with her $174,000 annual salary as a congressperson, almost certainly another 6-figure salary as DNC chair, and a husband who is Vice President of a bank - told us that she was part of the middle class.  Try and find even a small mention of that amazingly ridiculous comment in the mainstream media.

So, yes, let's laugh at how out of touch Mitt Romney looks when he tries to position himself as just one of the guys.

But let's also wince at the breathaking double standard media show us when a Democrat does the same thing.

Ken Berwitz

Let me start with a few headlines from major media venues (and, believe me, this is just the tip of the iceberg):  

From The New York Times: For Romney, a Message Lost in the Empty Seats

From NBC/MSNBC:  Romney lays out economic vision - in mostly empty stadium

 

From Yahoo.com:  'Car guy' Romney takes pitch to near empty stadium

From The Atlantic:  Picture of the Day: Romney Speaks to an Empty Stadium

From the New York Daily News:  Mitt Romney delivers key speech on economy at mostly empty Detroit stadium  (Sub-head):  Only 1,200 people showed up in a venue built for 65,000 to hear Romney's key speech in Detroit on Friday

From thedailybeast.com:  Stadium Empty for Romney Speech

So what happened yesterday?  Why Mitt Romney gave a speech expecting to fill a stadium with people eager to hear his message, and just about nobody showed up.  Right?

Wrong.

Now that you've read the headlines, let me show you the "Update" NBC/MSNBC subsequently put up - after maximum damange to Romney had been done:

*** UPDATE *** Regarding the optics of Romney giving a speech to a largely empty stadium, a Romney official gave this response to NBC's Peter Alexander:

"Beth Chappell -CEO of Detroit Economic Club just now spoke with ABC and told them that the campaign had nothing to do with venue choice...they typically use the atrium at Ford Field as a venue for their events, but due to the size of the crowd there were security concerns with the atrium so they moved it to the field. Once they moved the campaign worked on logistics but the campaign had nothing to do with this."

The president of the Detroit Economic Club also responded:

"I just heard that there is some confusion in the media regarding the selection of today's venue. That is very disappointing after such a terrific meeting. As I said in my remarks today, we sold out the previous venue in 90 minutes and were delighted that Ford Field was available and could accommodate the DEC. Further, we thought it a wonderful Detroit landmark to host this nationally broadcast meeting."
 
"The original plan was to host the Romney meeting in the atrium, which is where we host DEC meetings when at Ford Field.  During our walk through with the security team there were further issues raised due to the size of the crowd so we moved the event to the field. Had we followed our normal plan in the atrium, the football field would not have been visible - and the room would have been packed."

Oh. 

So, actually, Ford Stadium itself was not booked for this speech.  It was hurriedly substituted for the original location - which had quickly sold out - because it was determined that there would be too many people and it would create a security risk.  

FYI, even after posting the "Update", NBC/MSNBC kept both the original headline, and the big photograph of an empty stadium it had placed right below the headline.  Here, see for yourself.  Does anybody out there believe that this was just an inadvertent oversight? 

That's what it is to run Republican....in a country where media are so heavily tilted in favor of the other side.  It is something you would do well to remember every time you read a news report from these so-called "journalists".

Ken Berwitz

First the warning, via this excerpt from Josh Rogin's article at foreignpolicy.com: 

The State Department has begun coordinating with Syria's neighbors to prepare for the handling of President Bashar al-Assad's extensive weapons of mass destruction if and when his regime collapses, The Cable has learned.

This week, the State Department sent a diplomatic demarche to Syria's neighbors Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, warning them about the possibility of Syria's WMDs crossing their borders and offering U.S. government help in dealing with the problem, three Obama administration officials confirmed to The Cable. For concerned parties both inside and outside the U.S. government, the demarche signifies that the United States is increasingly developing plans to deal with the dangers of a post-Assad Syria -- while simultaneously highlighting the lack of planning for how to directly bring about Assad's downfall.

Syria is believed to have a substantial chemical weapons program, which includes mustard gas and sophisticated nerve agents, such as sarin gas, as well as biological weapons. Syria has also refused IAEA requests to make available facilities that were part of its nuclear weapons program and may still be in operation.  

Now the three questions:

How much of al-assad’s WMD stash came from Iraq, before the USA invaded?

While President Bush tried going through the useless UN, saddam hussein had 6 months to destroy, hide or export his WMDs.  There were reconnaissance photos of truck convoys traveling from Iraq to Syria.  Were WMDs on those trucks?

How can anyone possibly think they “know” saddam did not have WMDs?

Ken Berwitz

Well, the latest DSCC email is out.  This is another one signed by Senator Patty Murray.  And it is every bit as, ahem, honest as her previous one, which I took apart when it came out.

Here is the text of Ms. Murray's latest salvo, in rust....with my comments in blue:

XXXXXX,

 We just got an infuriating look at the top Republican priority. Not jobs. Not the economy.
 
It’s waging war on women’s healthcare.  Say what????  Are you telling us that Republicans pushed this issue to the front burner, not Democrats – aided and abetted by their media pals?  God what a lie that is.  The truth, of course, is that Republicans would love nothing more than to be talking about this administration's abysmal record on jobs and the economy.  Do you really think you are fooling anyone by claiming they want to talk about contraception instead?

My GOP colleagues back an amendment that would let any employer deny women basic contraception coverage for any reason. You are saying that every Republican supports an amendment that would let all employers deny women contraception for any reason?  An obvious, blatant lie. Then House Republicans opened a hearing on birth control and didn’t include even one woman on the panel!  Another lie.  The afternoon session had two women.
 
We can only stop them because we hold the Senate. If just four Democratic seats are occupied by Republicans come November, we won’t have the votes.  The votes to do what?  Stop Republicans from doing things they are not doing?
 
If you see what they’re doing and your jaw clenches, make an immediate donation to the DSCC. We have only 6 days to raise $368,000, hold the majority and stop their attacks on our rights.  Aaahhh, this is $$$-related.  No shock there.
 
Fall short, and Republicans will take the Senate, the White House – total control of Washington. Then they’ll subject all of us to their draconian ideas.  Draconian ideas?  Ok, other than the ones you lied about, what are they?
 
Can I count on your help? Your $5 or $10 right now will take the fight straight to the Republicans, and not a moment too soon!
 
We’re on the right track. President Obama is strengthening our middle class, creating good jobs and moving our nation forward. It’s no time to shift into reverse.  We’re back to lying again.  The middle class is suffering enormously under President Obama (unless you are “middle class” like self-proclaimed middle class Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that is, and have hundreds of thousand of dollars a year rolling in).  We have fewer jobs and higher unemployment now, than there were when Mr. Obama took office.  This is moving our nation forward?  From this administration's performance we should be praying for a shift into reverse.
 
Meanwhile, Republicans are attacking birth control. Trying to end the Violence Against Women Act. It’s enough to make your head spin. Maybe if your head spins enough it will recalibrate and you’ll start telling the truth for once.  At least in this paragraph you’ve got one thing partly right:  Republicans, who have always supported the Violence against Women Act since it was passed in 1994, are against it now.  But only because new language has been added that, among other things, would allow it to become a back-door way for illegals aliens to get legal status.  Frankly, I disagree with the Republican position on this – but you decided the truth wasn’t enough so you embellished it into a gross distortion.  Doesn't honesty mean anything to you?
 
If you’re as disgusted as I am about this, I need you to turn that anger into action, right now. We can defeat them – even Republicans admit that their chances of taking back the Senate have slumped a bit. But we won’t win with insufficient resources. Remember: Karl Rove and his shady friends are spending $120 million to defeat Democratic candidates.  It wouldn’t be a Democrat solicitation without the Karl Rove bogeyman invoked.  Hey, you forgot the Koch brothers too (just trying to help out).
 
If we can raise $368,000 by the end of the month, we’ll be able to stop them from taking the Senate and White House. If we don’t, we can’t.  Huh?  $368,000 is all it would take to hold the Senate and the White House?  Why not just ask the Democrats' best friend, george soros, for it.  He wouldn’t know if that much was missing from his petty cash drawer.
 
Your $5 or $10 right now will help defeat the extreme Republicans. What you do right now will make a huge difference in the fight going forward!
 
This fight isn’t just about health care, or women’s rights, or economics. It’s about the kind of country we want to live in. And I sure don’t like what the Republicans are pushing.  Let’s see how the voters react to what you’re pushing.
 
Sincerely,
 
Sen. Patty Murray

Far more honestly, Ken Berwitz

Ken Berwitz

Four days ago I wrote a blog titled "Anatomy Of An Issue, Created By The Accomplice Media".  In it, I detailed, in chronological order, how contraception/birth control, went from an issue virtually no one was talking about to an issue media cannot stop talking about. 

I also pointed out how this "issue" was nursed, rehearsed and pushed by pro-Obama media, presumably because they felt it would divert attention from the issues people actually are talking about, such as the economy, jobs, etc.* 

I would like to go a little further with this today. 

Gallup does a monthly tracking study in which respondents are asked what the most important issues are to them.  Here is every issue that generated 5% at least one time during the last four months.  The data are arranged in November, December, January, February order:

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS (NET):  76%, 64%, 66%, 71%

The economy in general:  30%, 26%, 31%, 31%

Unemployment/Jobs:  36%, 25%, 26%, 30%

Federal budget deficit:  6%, 12%, 8%, 8%

Lack of money :  6%, 4%, 3%, 5%

 

NON-ECONOMIC PROBLEMS (NET): 39%, 49%, 44%, 44%

Dissatisfaction with government:  13%, 16%, 15%, 16%

Health Care:  4%, 5%, 6%, 6%

Ethics/Moral/Religious Decline:  3%, 6%, 2%, 3%

Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness:  2%, 5%, 1%, 2%

Do you see anything about abortion or contraception there?  Neither do I.  So let's see how those two issues made out:

Abortion:  *, *, 1%, 1%  (NOTE:  in research, an asterisk denotes less than one-half of 1%)

Contraception:  No responses

 These data clearly show that, before the Accomplice Media went to work on Barack Obama's behalf, virtually no one was talking about either abortion or contraception at all.  It wasn't even close to being on the radar.

Now let me show a transcript of NBC Nightly News's report on this "isssue" from just last night.  The bold print is mine:

WILLIAMS: The price of gas isn't the only contentious campaign issue tonight. Birth control seems to have become, as one headline writer put it today, "The Third Rail of American Politics Right Now," and this happened really out of nowhere. In fact, it was a question about birth control that got the biggest audience response at last night's GOP debate in Arizona. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell has more on the politics of birth control and women's health.

KELLY O'DONNELL: Protests today in Richmond, Virginia.

PROTESTERS: Our bodies! Our lives!

O'DONNELL: A flashpoint in the political fight over government's place in women's health and reproduction. So provocative, the mere mention of birth control prompted boos...

RICK SANTORUM: I don't support that.

O'DONNELL: ...at the Republican debate.

SANTORUM: Just because I'm talking about it doesn't mean I want a government program to fix it.

O'DONNELL: And rare applause at a Democrats-only staged hearing today. Set off by the outrage Democrats vented when Republicans called only men to testify last week on religious institutions and birth control.

NANCY PELOSI: We've heard from over 300,000 people saying we want women's voices to be heard.

O'DONNELL: Democrats invited one woman, a Georgetown law student, to talk about hardships for some women who don't have insurance that covers birth control.

SANDRA FLUKE [GEORGETOWN LAW STUDENT]**: Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the side of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary.

O'DONNELL: Nearly 11 million women use birth control pills, the most common method of contraception, the political fire is broader, with some states looking to restrict abortion and funding for women's health programs. In Virginia late today, after protests and a national spotlight, legislators changed a controversial bill that would have required an invasive procedure before a woman could have an abortion. Some Republican voters want this debate.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Social issues should play a very high priority in the campaign.

O'DONNELL: Analysts say these social issues are more likely to help Democrats.

JENNIFER DUFFY [THE COOK POLITICAL REPORT]: This issue has given Democrats at every level an issue to talk to women voters about and particularly independent women.

O'DONNELL: Making women without party ties the most sought-after voters this year. Kelly O'Donnell, NBC News, Washington.

An issue that "happened really out of nowhere", Brian?  What an unbelievable lie you are telling.

At least Kelly O'Donnell admitted that this "out of nowhere" issue is expected to benefit the Democrat Party:  i.e. Barack Obama's re-election prospects and the chance that Democrats might hold onto their senate majority.

If anyone can explain to me how this qualifies as journalism, and not intentionally-created propaganda for Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats, I would love to see it.  

How do Brian Williams and his fellow propagandists call themselves journalists?  How do they even face themselves in the mirror?

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

* Energy got very few mentions, because the most recent tracking study was conducted from February 2 to 5 - still before the major spike in gas prices.  It is a sure bet that energy will jump higher when March's tracking is done -- as will abortion/contraception because of the media blitz detailed in this blog.

**Incidentally, as noted by Kyle Drennan of newsbusters.org, Sandra Fluke is just a bit more than a "Georgetown law student").  She is the former President of the Georgetown Law School's chapter of "Law Students For Reproductive Justice".   Nice of Brian Williams, and NBC News, to omit that little tidbit.

Ken Berwitz

It is starting to look like another up-time for the weeble candidate, Mitt Romney.

Yes he wobbled for a while in Michigan and even Arizona might have been close.  But, if you believe the latest Rasmussen polling, that is all turning around quickly.

According to Rasmussen, in just the past three days Mr. Romney went from 4% behind Rick Santorum (34% - 38% on February 20) to 6% ahead of him (40% - 34% on February 23).  That, coupled with polling that shows Mr. Romney with a strong lead among early voters who have already cast their ballots, suggests that, despite the talk of a tight contest in Michigan, he will win with some room to spare. 

In Arizona, things are even better with Romney ahead and gaining steam.  The last two polls there show him up by double-digits (WeAskAmerica poll, +10, NBC News/Marist poll, +16).  

This is not to say that Rick Santorum is done.  He still looks good in two major states:  In Ohio, the latest Rasmussen poll has him up by 18% (though that was done on February 15th, at the height of Santorum's surge, and may well be a lot different today).  Plus, as might be expected, Santorum is winning big in his home state of Pennsylvania.  But if Romney sweeps Michigan and Arizona, it is hard not to see his star falling.

Of course, no one knows if these polls are accurate.  And, of course, no one knows what will happen between today and next Tuesday, when the Michigan and Arizona primaries will take place.  But if I were betting money, my money would be solidly with Mitt Romney. 

Ken Berwitz

Shades of Inspector Renault!

The New York Times is shocked - shocked - that there are rich Republican benefactors giving millions of dollars to Republican candidates.  I know this because the Times' lead editorial this morning cries about it.

First, a few key excerpts (the bold print is mine):

The presidential primary season is being brought to you by a handful of multimillionaires and companies who have propped up the candidates with enormous donations to their “super PACs.”

The $10 million from Sheldon and Miriam Adelson to Winning Our Future, which has sustained Newt Gingrich’s trailing campaign, is the biggest single donation to a candidate. But every candidate now has his own millionaire supporter, and the concentration of wealth in the campaign is growing.

The people writing these outsize checks are committed to defeating President Obama, but their interests don’t stop there. 

President Obama’s super PAC, Priorities USA Action, received only two seven-figure checks last year, one from the Service Employees International Union for $1 million, and one from the movie executive Jeffrey Katzenberg for $2 million. (Mr. Katzenberg said last month that he was disappointed with Mr. Obama’s opposition to antipiracy legislation but would continue to raise money for him.)

Until a few weeks ago, the president might have credibly campaigned against the undue influence of special interests on his Republican rivals. He can no longer make the case because, after his PAC received only $58,816 last month, Mr. Obama invited donors to give without limits. And all but the most privileged Americans will pay the price if the nation’s wealthiest can buy elections.

Interesting structure to this editorial.  It does not mention President Obama until the last two paragraphs (remember, these are excerpts - the actual editorial is a lot longer).  And even there, its tone suggests Mr. Obama is only creating his own Super-Pac as a reaction to Republican fatcats trying to buy the election. 

The Times does not comment on the obvious hypocrisy of Mr. Obama having his own Super-Pac last year, then pretending this year that it is something new to him.  Nor does the Times speculate that this year's Obama Super-Pac was going to be created anyway, and is being presented as a "reaction" to the Republican Super-Pac only as a political strategy (which is almost certainly what happened). 

It's not like Barack Obama hasn't pulled a $$$ switcheroonie in the past.

Let me remind you that in 2008 candidate Obama pledged to run his campaign entirely on public financing - but when he saw how much more money he could get through public funding, he went back on his word without missing a beat. 

Then there is this question:  If "the people writing these outsize checks are committed to defeating President Obama", then who the $&#%^ does the Times think big donors to President Obama are commited to defeating?   Will they be writing condemnatory editorials about those big donors too?  Don't bet on it.

But since we're talking about big donors:  as of January 31, President Obama's own campaign web site listed 61 people/groups who had raised $500,000 or more for Mr. Obama so far this year.  Do you doubt that the list growing, and will continue to do so?  What about them?  Do they count in the world of the New York Times? 

In fact, here is the latest addition to that list.  Last night, far leftist bill maher announced he was personally contributing $1 million to the Obama campaign.  And you can count on his similarly left wing entertainment-industry buddies to cough up plenty more on top of it. 

All this, of course, is before we get to george soros who, through direct contributions and funding of numerous left wing organizations, probably dwarfs everyone else in his contributions.  Isn't he the guy who gave something like $20 - 30 million to John Kerry's 2004 campaign?  How much do you figure he will be giving, one way or another, to President Obama this year?

I would say that the New York Times discredits itself by pumping out an editorial as biased and hypocritical as this one...but I can't.  The New York Times has discredited itself so often in so many ways over recent years that it is like that massive pile of old phone bills in the Vonage commercials.  Just toss it in there with the other ones.

Ken Berwitz

In an earlier blog I noted that at one time President Obama supported the Defense of Marriage Act.   But I feel this is an incomplete descripton of where he stands on the issue.  So I would like to offer a timeline of Mr. Obama's attitude toward same-sex marriage from an unlikely source:  Zack Ford, of the Obama-supporting, solidly leftward thinkprogress.org.

I will give the the headlines below, and a few necessary parts of the detail.  But I much prefer that you click on this link and read Mr. Ford's entire piece.  It is well worth your while:

1996 – SUPPORTS MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Then Illinois Senate candidate Obama submitted a survey to a newspaper called Outlines saying, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” (NOTE:  Not so, as you will see further on)

1998 – UNDECIDED ON MARRIAGE:

2004 – LESS CONCERNED ABOUT ‘MARRIAGE’:

2006–2007 – SUPPORTS CIVIL UNIONS:

2008 (February) – SUPPORTS DOMA REPEAL:

2008 (August) – OPPOSES MARRIAGE:

2009 – SUPPORTS CIVIL UNIONS:

2010 (May) – SUPPORTS DOMA REPEAL:

2010 (October) – EVOLVING ON MARRIAGE:

2011 (February) – GRAPPLING WITH MARRIAGE:

2011 (May) – NO MENTION OF COUPLES:

2011 (June 17) OPPOSED MARRIAGE IN 1996?: White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told Netroots Nation that the president was not the one who filled out the pro-marriage equality questionnaire in 1996 (i.e. it was fake, though it had Obama’s signature).

2011 (June 19) YES HE SIGNED IT, NO HE DIDN’T SUPPORT MARRIAGE: According to the New York Times, Pfeiffer was “mistaken.” Obama did fill out the 1996 questionnaire, but he was “really referring to civil unions.”

2011 (June 20) STILL EVOLVING ON MARRIAGE:  

There you have it.  There is President Obama's "position" on same sex marriage.  Over a 15 year period he appears to have taken just about every position you can think of .

So I retract my claim that Mr. Obama supported DOMA/was against same-sex marriage, on the grounds that he has been for and against every other position on the issue as well.

Sort of gives you the warm fuzzies about Mr. Obama's integrity, doesn't it?

Ken Berwitz

Well, President Obama made his eagerly-awaited speech on energy today - one that was going to make everyone see the light and understand the great things he has been getting done in this area.

So what did he say?  Well, here are his gems of wisdom, excerpted from an article at Reuters:

In a visit to the University of Miami less than nine months before the presidential election in which he will seek a second term, Obama offered a modest series of proposals aimed at diversifying Americans' fuel supplies and increasing energy efficiency.

"It's the easiest thing in the world (to) make phony election-year promises about lower gas prices,'' Obama said.

"What's harder is to make a serious, sustained commitment to tackle a problem that may not be solved in one year or one term or even one decade.''

Republicans seeking to dislodge Obama from the White House are seeking to pin the higher prices on the Democratic president's tax and environmental policies they say have hindered domestic production and kept the United States at the mercy of imports. They cite his decision to block the Keystone pipeline that would transport Canadian oil to refineries in Texas.

Repeating there would be no "silver bullet'' for America's energy crunch, Obama highlighted steps already taken to expand domestic production and improve fuel efficiency.

The trio of proposals announced in Miami included a $30 million competition in natural gas technologies and a $14 million program to development algae-based fuel.

Obama repeated calls to roll back tax incentives for the oil industry, and urged Congress to renew a clean energy tax credit. Yet he acknowledged he was at odds with Republicans in Congress over energy.

There you have it.  What can Republicans possibly say to this kind of brilliance.  To summarize, Mr. Obama has:

-Assured us that anyone who thinks he/she has an energy policy which would result in lower gas prices than the near-$4 per gallon we currently have, on our way to maybe $5 or $6 (the highest in history) is just making a phony promise.  Record-high gas prices are the absolute best we can do;

-Assured us that no matter how capably he tackles the energy problem it won't be solved in his term.  So if you don't like the price of gas, and think that his "green" policies seem to be accomplishing little other than making rich Obama-supporters even richer, it certainly isn't his fault (what is?);

-Informed us that he has two great new solutions:  a $30 million dollar competition in natural gas technologies and $14 million more bucks to create fuel from sea kelp or something (this, let's remember, is out of a 3.8 TRILLION dollar budget).

-Oh yeah, and Mr. Obama also proposed that we take away tax incentives for the oil industry.  Ironically, this is probably the most sensible thing he said.  Heck, if we aren't letting them drill for oil offshore or in ANWR, and he won't let them go after the immense shale oil deposits in the upper midwest, what do they need tax incentives for anyway?

Maybe I'm missing something here, or maybe I'm just an incurable pessimist.  But I just can't help thinking that every Republican candidate is salivating at the thought of campaigning against Mr. Obama's "it's not my fault, it can't be solved, if you say you can solve it you're a phony and let's forget fossil fuels and burn some algae" program.

Algae-based fuels?????   Is this a Presidential initiative, or is Mr. Obama auditioning for a remake of "The Poseidon Adventure"?

Ken Berwitz

First the fantasy:  Debbie Wasserman Schultz on this morning's "Jansing & Co." show on MSNBC (where else?):

CHRIS JANSING: Let me bring in Debbie Wasserman Schultz the Florida Congresswoman who is also chair of the Democratic National Committee. So let me ask you first what one-word answer describes the Republican field?

CONGRESSWOMAN DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Extreme. And I think that extreme is what they demonstrated last night on immigration, on health care reform, on tax policy, and, and out of touch, although that's three words, but all three words apply because they didn't talk about the number one thing that Americans care about right now, and that's jobs. And getting the economy turned around. I mean, I just -- if I was a middle class American, which i am, sitting and watching that debate, I just had to be thinking out of touch. These guys don't understand what I'm going through. 

"If I was a middle class American, which I am..."????

Now the reality: 

-Debbie Wasserman Schultz earns $174,000 a year as a congressperson, not counting the numerous perks and bennies which come with the job. 

-She earns god only knows how much more as DNC chair (the last two, Howard Dean and Tim Kaine, both took in well over $100k a year).  Let's call it an even $100k.

-Her husband, Steven Schultz, is a Vice President of a Bank.  Hard not to see that as somewhere in six figures as well.

This is "middle class"?  Would Debbie Wasserman Schultz accept the premise that a Republican with these kinds of bucks coming in was a "middle class American"? 

Her lord and savior Barack Obama sure doesn't.  He says that people earning $250,000 a year are the wealthy.  And, as you can plainly see, the Wasserman Schultz family leaves that piddling sum in the dust.

But wait.  There is more.

Not content with calling herself a member of the middle class, Schultz then goes on to attack the Republican candidates for not talking about jobs - as if they picked the questions they were responding to and avoided this issue. 

-Earth to Ms. Wasserman Schultz:  The questions were not selected by the candidates.  Every question was provided by the Democrat-friendly folks at CNN (why do I call them Democrat-friendly?  Please refer to Chuck Todd's comments on the Today show);

-And if they had been given the chance to talk about jobs,(instead of the artificially ramped-up "contraception/birth control" issue which nobody was talking about until Obama's Accomplice Media decided he needed the diversionary tactic) they would have been thrilled to do so.  Every one of them.  Barack Obama's performance on jobs has been nothing short of disastrous.  It will be one of the eventual Republican nominee's biggest issues of the 2012 campaign.

Not for nothing do I call her Dim Bulb Debbie.

And not for nothing do I use the term "Accomplice Media" for the so-called journalists who will bury Ms. Wasserman Schultz's ridiculous comment, just as they assiduously bury every gaffe of Barack Obama's.

Ken Berwitz

So I'm driving from point A to point B about an hour ago, and surfing the radio.  I tune in to Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes.  And he is talking about Newt Gingrich's "infanticide" comment in last night's debate.

Mr. Limbaugh correctly tied this comment to BAIPA (The Born Alive Infant Protection Act).  So far, so good.

But he then assured his listeners that then-State Senator Barack Obama couldn't wait to vote for it.

Wrong.

Barack Obama voted against BAIPA - twice - and subsequently, when he became a committee chair, stopped the bill in its tracks when it was floated again.

Limbaugh had the right idea - i.e. that Barack Obama aggressively fought to allow doctors to let babies die if they were born live after unsuccessful abortions.  But he did not do it via a "yes" vote, he did it via killing a bill, BAIPA, which would have forced doctors to treat those babies like the living human beings every one of them was.

I was out of the car for a period of time afterwards, and maybe Mr. Limbaugh corrected this mistake. 

But, in case he did not, you (and Limbaugh) certainly know better now.

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

UPDATE:  Rush Limbaugh is not the only one who is wrong about Mr. Gingrich's comment.  So is the usually reliable Tim Graham of newsbusters.org. 

Mr. Graham's blog today indicates he thinks this is about partial birth abortion.  It is not.  It is about the babies who survive abortion procedures - including but not exclusively partial birth abortion - and are born alive.

Why is this issue so difficult for so many people?

Ken Berwitz

You have to see this video.  It is all of 3:10 long, and has Chris Christie absolutely demolishing the Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart during a discussion - an extremely contentious one - regarding same sex marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

FYI:  While a Senator, Barack Obama voted in favor of DOMA.   That's right, readers - and Jonathan Capehart, who might be reading this as he licks his wounds:  Barack Obama voted in favor of DOMA.

The claim that he is "evolving" on the issue is, to put it bluntly, idiotic.  There is no in-between here.  You either do or do not support same-sex marriage.  Does Mr. Obama (and Mr. Capehart) think that women can get a little pregnant too?

Look, I disagree with Chris Christie on his same-sex marriage stand - although I applaud him for supporting civil unions with full marital rights for gay couples.  But, as Mr. Christie pointed out, at least he has the courage to state his position and defend it.

Barack Obama has no such courage.  Never has and, at this stage of his life, probably never will. 

If Jonathan Capehart had a little courage of his own - and maybe a little introspection as well - he would go on Morning Joe tomorrow and admit the truth.  Hey, why not?  It's not like Governor Christie didn't already get it out of him....

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

UPDATE:  Please note that I have crossed off the claim that then-senator Barack Obama voted in favor of DOMA.  That is untrue, he did not.  I worked from memory and should know better - especially on a blog that thousands of people read each day.  I apologize for my error.

That said, however, I have put up a subsequent blog titled "President Obama's Positon on Same-Sex Marriage" which shows that Mr. Obama has been all over the lot on this issue, taking pretty much every position there is over the last 15 or so years.  So I do feel a little better (not much, but a little).

Importantly, my mistake on DOMA does not change the point that Jonathan Capehart's "he is evolving" claim is idiotic.  Evolving means moving in a specific direction over time.  Not zigzagging back and forth like a bat on LSD.

Ken Berwitz

Here, from Mitch Berg's blog at hotair.com, is Mr. Berg's quick take on the Obama "recovery":

January 2009:  7.8% unemployment among the 65.7% of people participating in the workforce meant 60.67% of the work force was working the day Barack Obama was inaugurated.

 

October 2010 - lopping 10% unemployment from the 65% participation rate leaves you 58.5% of the workforce at work on the month the unemployment rate supposedly bottomed.

 

January 2012 - Three years after Obama took office, with the unemployment rate right about the point where Obama said that it’d peak with Porkulus?  8.3% unemployment among a 63.7% share of the workforce still in the workforce yields 58.41% of the labor force actually working.

Translation:  After three years of the Obama administration, and three years of the so-called "stimulus package" which has added over 5 trillion dollars to the deficit, with additional trillion-plus deficits in the future as well, there are fewer people working than there were when he first took office.

Helluva recovery, Mr. President.

But, to be entirely fair, congratulations are in order.  I congratulate President Obama on his genuine accomplishment:  how many "recoveries" have you ever heard of that can be used as campaign material....for the other side?

Ken Berwitz

I watched NBC's Today Show this morning.  And they handled the debate just the way I expected.

Not one word about the candidates' frontal attacks on two of the biggest unions in the country - unions which they (correctly) positioned as having damaged this country. 

And not one word about Newt Gingrich's comment - which was dead right - that the same media obsessing over contraception/birth control in this Republican primary campaign, spent the entire 2008 presidential campaign ignoring the fact that Barack Obama fought against a bill which would have prevented infanticide.  Specifically he fought against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA), which would have prevented doctors from allowing babies who survived abortions and were out of the womb, to die anyway. 

My favorite part of the "analysis" was Chuck Todd's inadvertent admission that the debate was structured in a way guaranteed to help Democrats (I wonder if he even realizes he made this point so clearly). 

Todd's exact words:

“There was something about last night’s debate that, uh I know the folks in Chicago, meaning the Obama re-election team, felt pretty happy about.  They felt that the conversation the Republicans were having, 20 minutes on earmarks, y’know, another 10 or 15 minutes on contraception…”

Who, Mr. Todd, do you think was in charge of selecting the questions and, by so doing, apportioning about how much time was spent on them?

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, what Chuck Todd really said was "Did you see how successful CNN was in directing the debate into areas that would help re-elect President Obama?"

And that's not all:  after bemoaning the "fact" (well, he thinks it's a fact) that the nominees tacked right in their answers, Mr. Todd said this:

“…everything changes once there is a nominee and once the party gets fired up.  But you do have to wonder at some point if the frontrunner here, Mitt Romney, can’t fire up his base, how is that going to help him in a general (election)”

Here's how, Mr. Todd:  Once there is a nominee the general election campaign starts.  And whomever the nominee is will be running against Barack Obama. 

Tell me, sir:  if Mitt Romney is the nominee, do you think Santorum and Gingrich supporters will be voting for him, or voting for Barack Obama?  I assume you will join me in concluding that, regardless of how much they may have preferred one of the other two, they want Obama out.  Is that enough "fired up" for you?

I will end with a little advice:  if you want to analyze this campaign seriously, you don't leave out basic, obvious facts like the above.  It just might give some people the impression that you are less interested in serious analysis than you are in propagandizing against the probable Republican nominee.

Ken Berwitz

"I never went to bed with an ugly woman.  But I sure woke up with a few":  Willie Nelson

It is now the morning after the Arizona Republican debate.  I have a few more points to make:

First off, in this case Willie Nelson's admonition would be wrong.  Even after sleeping on it, I feel every one of the four candidates did well - albeit, to varying degrees.  Nobody's performance wilted overnight. 

-I still feel Romney won the debate by being quick, articulate, knowledgeable, and aggressive without bullying.  The crowd started, it seemed to me, a bit more on his side than the others, and ended even more so. 

-Newt Gingrich was back to his major strength - as an idea man who offers viable solutions to problems and can explain those solutions in terms average people understand. 

-Rick Santorum, though he did well per se, spent a good deal of time on the defensive and sometimes seemed to falter/stammer in his responses.  But he gave back as good as he got. 

-And ron paul played the male version of Hallmark Cards' "Maxine" character as well as he usually does.

I again commend the candidates for wising up and going after the big unions - who give over 99% of their donations to Democrats (that's neither a typo nor an exaggeration), and who attack Republicans every way they know how.  If you can't stand up to the people who hate your guts and already are working against you every way they can - i.e. you have no downside at all - how can you stand up to anyone else?

One other issue to address:

This morning's hot rumor is that Mitt Romney and ron paul have made a deal for paul to attack Rick Santorum and be rewarded with the VP nod.  Please note that this is nothing but a rumor at this time.  Not one word has come from either candidate or their people that it is true, not even a broad hint.  The rumor apparently is based on paul's recent ads which very directly and very strongly attack Santorum.

But if it were true, I would immediately retract my support of Romney and would not vote for him. 

ron paul has an ugly racist, anti-semitic past.  He is avidly supported by nazis and White supremacists.  I have written extensively about the racist content of his newsletters from years ago, and his congressional votes - e.g. against extending the Civil Rights Act, against every resolution supporting Israel, etc.  That is why I won't even capitalize his name. 

 I will never vote for any ticket he is a part of.  Period, end of story.

Ken Berwitz

This may well have been the best debate of them all.  Every one of the four remaining candidates did well - though to varying degrees.

I think Newt Gingrich probably did best of all.  No whining about other candidates' attack ads, just one intelligent analysis and suggested solution after another.  And - as I mentioned while the debate was in progress - I was elated that he brought up BAIPA, which should have been one of the defining issues of the 2008 campaign.  Now watch media try to talk about his reference to Barack Obama and infanticide without mentioning it.

Mitt Romney was right up there with Gingrich.  Articulate, quick, sensible and - God I hate this term, but it fits - presidential.  I'm certain he iced his win in Arizona, and despite the candor about auto bailouts, may well have done so in Michigan as well.

Rick Santorum had a number of strong moments.  He mixed it up very well with his opponents.  But he was sometimes hesitant and tentative.  Not terribly so, but it stuck out more because of how well the others did.  (Added note:  admitting he voted on the wrong side of several issues as a senator was a refreshing bit of honesty.  Santorum did not do or say anything disastrous, but probably lost ground.

ron paul did his standard curmudgeony shtick, and was very good with it. He won't win anything but, whether you like his positions or not, he does add perspective to the debates and makes you think.

In the previous blog I noted that the candidates, more than justifiably, had put the wood to the UAW - and that they had nothing to lose by doing so.  Well, in the latter part of the debate they did the same to the teachers' unions.  And it was every bit as deserved. 

That is not - repeat, not - a knock on teachers.  I certainly know enough dedicated ones (that's not just blather to make a point, I truly do).  It is a knock on we-first, children-second unions.

And, as with the auto unions, what exactly do Republicans have to lose?  Over the past 20 years, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) gave $25,682,800 to Democrats and $200,000 to Republicans.  Their leverage with Republicans hovers between nil and nonexistent.

Now, on to next week's primaries.

Ken Berwitz

A few quick notes on the Arizona Republican debate, which is not quite halfway through.

-Romney appears to have the crowd more on his side than the others.

-ron paul gets his best reactions by making snide comments about congress, and about voting against spending.  Where is his program for anything?

-Rick Santorum is more combative than usual and not doing badly...but not putting a dent in Romney

-Newt Gingrich is taking a more statesmanlike approach than we have seen in previous debates, and coming across pretty well.

I congratulate Mitt Romney for - one week before the Michigan Primary - having the guts to talk candidly about his belief that a managed bankruptcy would have been better than the Obama auto bailout.

And I congratulate them all for finally putting the wood - but good - to the United Auto Workers, whose fat contracts were saved - on the backs of Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer - by Barack Obama.

It appears that, at long last, Republicans have figured out that they can talk bluntly about this issue.  Why not?  What in the world do they have to lose?  UAW support???? 

Over the past 20 years, the UAW has contributed $25,082,200 to Democrats.  And $182,700 to Republicans.  The UAW should not have one scintilla of leverage over Republicans because of this and, apparently, with this Presidential field they don't.

Late wake-up calls are better than no wake-up calls at all. 

One other thing:

While I was typing this, a birth control question was asked.  And it generated two very important reactions:

-The (presumably mostly Republican) crowd booed very loudly - an obvious reaction to the fact that birth control/contraceptives was not a major issue until media did Barack Obama a favor (or so they thought) by bringing it up.  Ironically, it appears to be backfiring on him, and them;

-Newt Gingrich was terrific in pointing out that, during the 2008 campaign, these same media did not ask Barack Obama even one question about his support for infanticide; i.e. doctors killing live birth babies.

Mr. Gingrich is 100% correct.  He is talking about BAIPA, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which Barack Obama fought tooth and nail in the Illinois state senate, and then defended his actions by lying about the wording of the legislation. 

You can read all about it in my blog of June 9, 2008.  The only thing I got wrong was my assumption that John McCain would use it as a campaign issue.  One of the many inexplicable decisions made by candidate McCain was not to bring it up at all.

Ken Berwitz

There are criminals.  There are dumb criminals.  And there are Darwin Award-quality criminals.

Here, folks, is an example of alternative #3, as excerpted from Michaealangelo Conte's blog at The Newark Star-Ledger's nj-com web site:

NORTH BERGEN -- A Target employee who police say staged an elaborate scheme in an effort to fake an accident and collect workers' compensation apparently forgot one thing in the planning -- the cameras in the storeroom were rolling.

"(Victoria) Colon was employed in the customer service area at the North Bergen Target on June 2 when she claimed a box she was carrying hit the edge of a shelf and boxes fell off the shelves and struck her head, neck and back -- and even caused her to vomit, authorities said.

The store launched an investigation and a review of security video showed Colon staged the accident, authorities said.

According to the Prosecutor's Office, the 10-minute segment of the video shows:

Colon loosened a shelf in the storeroom that caused the boxes to fall when she bumped into it. She then positioned herself under the boxes before pulling a shopping cart containing additional items onto herself.

A fellow employee responded to Colon's calls for help, but when the other employee left, Colon picked up what appears to be batteries and hit herself in the head with them several times.

Colon then left the area and returned with a beverage and what appears to be Goldfish crackers. After eating some crackers and drinking some of the beverage, Colon knelt down and vomited. She left again, then returned and re-staged the accident scene before taking pictures of it.

Did Ms. Colon not know that Target had security cameras?  I mean, she only worked there.  And even if this were her first day on the job, would it not have occurred to her that there might be one or two somewhere?

Put another way, if this brainiac's name paralleled her intelligence (and honesty) level, she would have been Victoria Semi-Colon.  

But at least, this not very clever would-be victim can take solace in the fact that, when the Darwin Awards are given out, she will most certainly be in the running.  

Ken Berwitz

Over the years, I have written a lot of negative material about pat buchanan. 

In case you're wondering why, here is the latest reason - as excerpted from Jeff Poor's piece for dailycaller.com:

In an interview on Russia Today with Gayane Chichakyan on Tuesday, former MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan warned that some people in positions of power in Israel and the United States that would like to see the U.S. engaged in a war with Iran over its potential to build a nuclear weapon.

“There are people that want a war,” he said. “I mean, do not think no one wants a war. You don’t have wars unless someone wants it. And quite clearly the Israeli government would like to see the United States smash Iran’s nuclear program, which they think is creating the additions where Iran could, with one leap forward, get a bomb.”

“The Israeli lobby would like to see a war. They support the Israeli government. Neoconservatives do. Many Republicans do. There are many Americans who genuinely believe that if Iran — they believe Iran is moving toward a weapon; and if it is, they would favor military action to prevent it. There are a number of people who want a war.”

Brilliant, pat.  Israel wants a war.  Thanks for the insight. 

If Israel "wants" a war with Iran, might it have a little something to do with the fact that:

-Iran has announced to the world that it intends to"wipe Israel off the map" - in those exact words and in other words at other times as well;

-Its illegitimately "elected" government is feverishly creating the nuclear weaponry to do so;

-Just last week, Iran's warships were sent up the Suez Canal and, the government claims, were docked in Syria....which, if true, means they had to have passed within striking range of Israel's entire Mediterranean border.

Claiming that Israel "wants" a war under these circumstances is equivalent to claiming that France wanted a war after hitler and his nazi cohorts decided it would be nice to invade and install a government there. 

That is not wanting a war, that is facing a war.

Admittedly, however, Israel probably prefers that the similarity between itself and France end right there - given that the mighty French fighting machine collapsed like a $2.99 umbrella in a typhoon, and surrendered in 6 weeks. 

By contrast, Israel is not quite as inclined to give up -- not to people who want the country vaporized and every Jew there (and elsewhere) dead.  

If buchanan wants to classify the situation Israel faces as some kind of proactive warmongering on its part, he is welcome to his hate-filled fantasy.  But that won't make him correct.

Years ago, a joke was going around that people should pity pat buchanan because he lost an uncle in the holocaust.......he tripped and fell out of his guard tower.

As you  can see, the joke still works.....

Ken Berwitz

The word "devastating is among the most overused in the english language.  But not this time. 

Michelle Malkin has written a column filled with what appears to be malfeasance on the part of President Obama's Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, that is so egregious that, if anything, "devastating" understates it.

I will give you a few excerpts below, but you really have to read the entire piece to appreciate just how dishonestly Salazar appears to be performing his duties - apparently without any problem from his boss at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.\:

It’s not just big-ticket scandals like the stimulus-subsidized Solyndra bankruptcy or the Keystone pipeline debacle bedeviling America. In every corner of the Obama administration, the radical green machinery is hard at work — destroying jobs, shredding truth and sacrificing our economic well-being at the altar of environmentalism.

–Take Obama’s head of the National Park Service, please. While serving as the Pacific West regional director of the NPS, Jon Jarvis was accused of at least 21 instances of scientific misconduct (pdf) by Dr. Corey Goodman, a high-ranking member of the National Academy of Sciences. Extensive information about Jarvis’ alleged role in cooking data about a California oyster farm’s impact on harbor seals at Point Reyes was withheld during the 2009 nomination process. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has ignored complaints and follow-up from both Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sens. James Inhofe and David Vitter.

Given Salazar’s own role in manipulating science while building his case for the White House offshore drilling moratorium — actions for which several federal judges spanked Salazar in the past two years — it’s no wonder he’s looking the other way. Remember: Two years ago, Salazar and former Obama eco-czar Carol Browner falsely rewrote the White House drilling ban report to wholly manipulate the Obama-appointed panel’s own overwhelming scientific objections to the job-killing edict.

–Water wars and the Delta smelt. The infamous, endangered three-inch fish and its environmental protectors continue to jeopardize the water supply of more than 25 million Californians. Federal restrictions have cut off some 81 billion gallons of water to farmers and consumers in Central and Southern California.

While Salazar manufactures a new biological opinion on the matter to get the courts off his back, unemployment and drought plague the Central Valley. And the White House stands by its “scientists.”

–Dams in distress. In Siskiyou County, Ore., local officials and residents announced last week that it intends to sue Salazar and Team Obama over their potential removal of dams on the Klamath River. Once again, the administration’s systematic disregard for sound science and the rule of law is in the spotlight.

GOP Rep. Tom McClintock put it most charitably: “To tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams at enormous cost is insane.”

I call this envirofraud.  If you can come up with a better description, please let me know. 

But regardless of the descriptive word, this administration seems to be in a fight to the finish with itself, over whether it operates more ineptly or more corruptly.  The bad news for us is that the two are in a virtual tie.

How I wish behavior like Secretary Salazar's was the exception rather than the rule.......

Ken Berwitz

I watched a few minutes of "Morning Joe" today - a show that seems to consist about 80% of left wingers and 20% of Joe Scarborough, who disagrees with them about 50% of the time. 

In short, at about 90% left it is pretty much the closest thing MSNBC has to a fair and balanced show.

One of this morning's guests - a semi-regular on the show - was Jeffrey Sachs.  Mr. Sachs is a hard-left professor at Columbia University (I apologize for my redundancy), who makes clear his intense dislike of anyone to his right (which, I suspect, covers a wide enough range to include many who consider themselves liberal).

Sachs is also an arrogant jerk who talks over people he disagrees with, with a tone and a facial expression which make clear he considers their opinions less worthy than his, thus less worth listening to.

Too bad for Joe Scarborough that he appears to be one of them - as you can see by this exchange, which I picked up from Mark Finkelstein's blog for newsbusters.org:

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: [Sighs]. Ughh.  This is Sheldon Adelson: "I'm against very very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections . . . but as long as it's doable I'm going to do it.  Because I know that guys like Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money.  I have my own philosophy and I'm not ashamed of it.  I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it.  I don't want to go through ten different corporations to hide my name.  I'm proud of what I do and I'm not looking to escape recognition."

JOE SCARBOROUGH: What do you think of his --

JEFFREY SACHS: He's a completely--by the way--unlikable guy.  Do we really need major gambling influence and a guy that has played all over the world with governments so that he gets the casino licenses, and charges up and down, as really a core leader of our politics. Come on.  

SCARBOROUGH: Let me ask you again.  And I'm not attacking George Soros, but I don't think you like all the money --

SACHS: It's not about Soros. It's about this wrecked system. So why don't we say it?  Why don't we --

SCARBOROUGH: But if you're going to attack this man for doing this --

SACHS: I'm not attacking this man. I'm saying how pathetic it is --

SCARBOROUGH: -- OK, but get to my point, get to, no --

SACHS: -- as grown-ups, we sit around the table saying this is what democracy is right now.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, we're not grown-ups saying what democracy is. These are the rules of the game, and again --

SACHS: These rules, made by five Supreme Court justices --

SCARBOROUGH: Answer my question [Sachs grimaces angrily as seen in screengrab]: who do you prefer?  Whose approach do you prefer?  George Soros, who's doing things legally and as a citizen of the country he can do it and I have no problem with him doing it, setting up all these organizations to shill this money and to funnel this money so it's harder to trace it back to who he's contributing to, or a guy who writes a check and says this is who I am, this is what I'm doing?  

SACHS: I want the American people, and all of us as grown-ups to say, first of all to say, this is completely rotten, second, this is not --

SCARBOROUGH: If you could answer my question.

SACHS: It has nothing to do with these two. It has to do with the kind of country we have, Joe.  And the fact of the matter is, five Supreme --

SCARBOROUGH: But you attacked one man --

SACHS: Five Supreme Court justices --

SCARBOROUGH: You attacked one man. You said he was a bad person.

BRZEZINSKI: I'll answer that.

SCARBOROUGH: You said he was a bad person, Jeffrey! You said we don't want him corrupting --

SACHS: Listen to me once! Please!

SCARBOROUGH: You're yelling. Don't yell at me. Just answer my question.

SACHS: Because you do this each time.

SCARBOROUGH: No I don't. You only attack one side.

SACHS: I'm not attacking one side. I've been saying from the beginning that the system is rotten.

Ken Berwitz

hugo chavez has just announced that, after perfect treatment by the world-class medical teams in Cuba.......his cancer is already back.

My condolences to the people of Venezuela on the apparent fact that they will have to continue to suffer with chavez for an additional - albeit quite probably abbreviated - period of time.

Ken Berwitz

Does this administration ever tell the truth about anything?

Here is the latest lie (unless there have been more in the last few hours - certainly a possibility).  It comes to us from President Obama's PP (Proxy Prevaricator), Press Secretary Jay Carney, in the form of a response to ABC's Chief White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper, during today's briefing.  The bold print is mine:

TAPPER: How can you say you have an all-of-the-above approach if the president turned down the Keystone pipeline? And you blame the Republicans for making a political –

CARNEY: But the president didn’t turn down the Keystone pipeline. There was a process in place, with long precedent, run out of the State Department because of the issue of a pipeline crossing an international boundary, that required an amount of time for proper review after an alternate route was deemed necessary through Nebraska at the request of the Republican governor of Nebraska and other stakeholders in Nebraska and the region that needed to take it’s — that needed to play out, to be done appropriately. You can’t review and approve a pipeline the route for which doesn’t even exist.

There you go.  It was all because those dastardly Republicans did not allow enough time for proper review.  Besides, the Republican Governor didn't want it passed anyway.  Hey, you can't blame Barack Obama for Republicans holding up the works, can you?

Except...........

There is this little matter of the timing issue, excerpted from Juliet Eilperin's article for the Washington Post:

The pipeline, which requires a federal permit from the State Department because it crosses an international border, has been under review for more than three years.

In early November, the administration delayed making a national interest determination on the pipeline on the grounds that it needed to avoid crossing sensitive terrain in Nebraska’s Sand­hills region. At the time, officials predicted that the process of rerouting the pipeline and the subsequent environmental review would extend the permitting process into early 2013.

Wait a minute?  The pipeline was under review for more than three years?   Doesn't that mean it has been under review for the entire time Barack Obama has been President (3 years and one month)?  And doesn't that put the lie to Mr. Obama's claim that he was only given 60 days to review it  - a claim he and other administration members have been floating for the past month?

Oh, but wait.  What about Press Secretary Carney's point that the Republican Governor of Nebraska demanded the pipeline be halted so an alternate route could be found?  Isn't that the show-stopper that removes all blame from President Obama? 

Uh....not exactly.  Here is the statement issued by Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman after Mr. Obama nixed the pipeline:

Gov. Heineman Disappointed in president Obama's Decision to Deny Pipeline Permit

(Lincoln, Neb.) Gov. Dave Heineman today issued the following statement following the announcement by President Obama’s administration to deny the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Gov. Dave Heineman said, “I am very disappointed with the actions of President Obama and his decision to deny a jobs-creating pipeline, leaving thousands of Americans unnecessarily unemployed. President Obama should be focused on putting Americans back to work, and could have done so by issuing conditional approval of the pipeline. Approval of the pipeline would have allowed TransCanada to move forward with the project while Nebraska finished the review process of a new segment of the route around the Sandhills. The President’s decision is disruptive and we are now going to review in detail what this means for Nebraska.”

Does that look like Governor Heineman wanted the Keystone Pipeline stopped to you?

What liars.  What frauds.

There is one reason and one reason only that this administration can lie this way.  It is because so much of our media unfailingly allow them to get away with it. 

But not here.

Let me end with a simple question:  if I can find this information, don't you think they can too?  If so, why do you suppose they don't? 

Please draw your own conclusions; I've already drawn mine.

Ken Berwitz

Today, the Media Research Center put this sign up in Times Square:

Think it'll get a reaction?

Ken Berwitz

Every now and then you see a very logical solution to a very difficult problem.

One such instance can be found in the sign a colleague of mine put up on her facebook page.  It is from the UK's Northampton General Hospital:

As I pointed out to her, sometimes the best solutions are the most painful ones....... 

Ken Berwitz

Let's discuss the oil issue by first, taking a quick stroll down memory lane.

Here is where we were oil-wise, as excerpted from Ed Henry's June 9, 2008 article for CNN.  The bold print is mine:

Before departing the White House early Monday for a farewell tour of Europe, President Bush stole a page from his predecessor and suggested he feels American consumers' pain.

"A lot of Americans are concerned about our economy," Bush said. "I can understand why. Gasoline prices are high, energy prices are high. I do remind them that we have put a stimulus package forward that is expected to help boost the economy. And of course, we'll be monitoring the situation."

Americans are looking for more action, though, than monitoring the situation.

 

But while gas prices keep soaring, the chances of Washington finding a solution keep dropping because Democrats and Republicans are deadlocked over how to fix the problem.

Bush talks mostly about increasing supply through more oil drilling in places like Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"I've proposed to the Congress that they open up ANWR, open up the Continental Shelf, and give this country a chance to help us through this difficult period by finding more supplies of crude oil, which will take the pressure off the price of gasoline," Bush said Monday.

But Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are vehemently opposed to increasing production on environmental grounds, so the president's plan has virtually no chance of passage in the current Congress.

As you can see, President Bush wanted to increase oil production, but Democrats fought him tooth and nail on environmental grounds.

Well, now it is February, 2012; three and a half years later and over three years since Barack Obama became President.  Gas prices have almost doubled since Mr. Obama took office, and are currently poised to head even higher - maybe a great deal higher.

So how are media treating this awful news?  Here is a typical example, excerpted from Michael D. Shear's article for the New York Times (again, the bold print is mine):

Aides say they know the attacks are inevitable. But they also say they are prepared to respond forcefully with a defense of the president’s energy policies and a critique of the Republican line.

“The president is keenly aware of the impact that higher gas prices have on families trying to make ends meet,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said last week.

For Mr. Obama’s economic team, the increase in oil prices is an unwelcome reminder of how global events largely outside their control can hamper a recovery. For the third year in a row, a modest recovery faces head winds as winter turns to spring.

In the spring of 2010, debt crises in Europe, slowing stimulus spending and weakness in the housing market brought an abrupt halt to a brief turnaround in the United States economy. A year later, turmoil in the Middle East, the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and more debt problems in Europe did the same. Now, rising gasoline prices, concern over tensions with Iran and, once again, European debt are causing worries.

To summarize: 

-In 2008, we had Republican proposals to increase oil production shot down by Democrats, on environmental grounds.

-Democrats won the election.  Every part of it:  the presidency and huge majorities in both houses of congress.  So they could do pretty much whatever they wanted, energy-wise.  Republicans had to stand by virtually helplessly and watch it happen.

-Now, over 3 years later, we are in even worse shape than we were then.  We are even more dependent on the oil from countries that hate us than we were before.  And the Democrats' "environmental" solutions have produced next to nothing, other than putting billions of dollars into the hands of big-time Obama contributors whose "green" companies are going belly-up one after the other. 

That is why Obama-kissing venues like the New York Times can post a hundred articles like the one excerpted above, blaming the soaring oil and gas prices on factors Mr. Obama could not control (when did they ever do that for President Bush?).  But, this time, voters won't be buying it. 

There is nothing, and I do mean nothing, that brings a politician's failure home more cogently than when it takes money out of voters' pockets.

Let me finish by posting one more excerpt (and a comment about it), both of which are spot-on correct.

The excerpt, interestingly enough, is from an article by bloomberg.com's Ron Klain, who, if anything, is an even bigger Obama apologist than the Times' Michael D. Shear: 

Consider this: The president just won a victory over congressional Republicans who couldn’t withstand the political consequences of a payroll-tax increase of $40 a month for the average working person. But for an average couple living in suburbia, driving about 1,500 miles per person each month, in two cars that get average gas mileage, a 50-cents-a-gallon increase will cost them about 20 percent more than the payroll- tax cut saves them. In their case, what the president and Congress gives, the gas man takes away.

And this comment, which was made by someone using the name "Albert_II":

The trouble with a payroll tax cut is that roughly 37% of adult Americans, not to mention the 8.3% officially unemployed, are not on anyone's payroll. Consequently, their tax cut amounts to zero dollars. But it's a sure bet that most all of them - especially the old folks - buy gas. Come November, they're not going to be Happy Campers should the price of gas be $4+ a gallon. They'll vote for Nobama, whomever he may be.

Yep, Ron.  Yep, Albert.  You both nailed it.  And, believe me, the Obama people know it.

Ken Berwitz

Is Mitt Romney, the "Weeble" candidate, doing it again?

A week from today, there will be primaries in Michigan and Arizona.  Here is how things are going in those states:

-Michigan:  Last week PPP (Public Policy Polling) had Rick Santorum ahead of Mr. Romney by a whopping 15%, with 39% to Romney's 24%.  But, this week, that same poll shows Santorum edging Romney 37% to 33%;

-Arizona:  PPP has Romney leading Santorum by 3% in Arizona (36%- 33%).  I can't find PPP data for Arizona from the previous week.  If you can, please post it in "comments" and I'll move it up here).

Add to this the media coverage of gaffes by Santorum and his people (it is something of a national pastime for our media to feature gaffes made by Republicans...while burying the numerous ones made by Mr. Obama and his people) and you may well have Mitt Romney sweeping both states next week.  

If he does, I suspect that Rick Santorum's numbers in other places will, as the Johnny Mathis lyric* says, melt like April snow.

"Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down".  And we may be seeing still another example of this little phenomenon from Mitt Romney.

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

*I mention Johnny Mathis because he sang those words ("melt my heart like April snow", to be exact) and is therefore most associated with them.  But, in fairness, let me note that the lovely song they came from, "The Twelfth of Never", was written by Jerry Livingson and Paul Francis Webster.  Great job, guys.

Ken Berwitz

Chris Matthews, who used to be a reasonable, respectable Democrat partisan, seems on a holy mission to prove that he is a ridiculous, intolerant, viciously insulting, bigotted jerk.

And he is well on his way to succeeding.

Here is the latest evidence, as excerpted from Scott Whitlock's blog at newsbusters.org.  This exchange took place after Matthews had taken part in a "President's Day Panel in Washington DC:

SCOTT WHITLOCK: Hi, Mr. Matthews, my name is Scott Whitlock. I'm with the Media Research Center and-

CHRIS MATTHEWS: What's the Media Research Center?        

WHITLOCK: We write about liberal media bias.

[Matthews visibly sighs and looks irritated. Audience laughs.]

WHITLOCK*: Earlier tonight, you were talking about Nixon and the Southern Strategy and bigotry and things like that you and you said, quote, "If you're really anti-gay, you become a Catholic now." [Audience laughs.] I was wondering if you were saying that bigots become Catholic now and if you wanted to expand or apologize for that? [Audience laughs.]

MATTHEWS: I think there are people who have chosen to convert to the Catholic faith because they don't like the liberal positions taken by their sectarian groups. That's a fact. So, you can write that down. No, you can write that down.

WHITLOCK: So, you're saying Catholicism is drawing bigots? Is that what you're saying?

MATTHEWS: I'm saying that some people who are bigoted against gay people have changed religions. Yes. You got it right.

Ken Berwitz

Unless you have spent the last several weeks on a NASA moon mission, it is a pretty good bet that you have heard the name Jeremy Lin.

Jeremy Lin is an NBA player, for the New York Knicks, and a graduate of Harvard university (not your typical source of NBA talent).  Just a couple of weeks ago, the Knicks picked him up as little more than a warm body to fill in a few minutes here and there.  But, much to everyone's amazement, he has played like an all-star.

Lin's scoring, and assists are largely responsible for the the Knicks going from second-division quality play to winning most of their games.

The racism angle comes in because Jeremy Lin is ancestrally Chinese.  And a couple of geniuses at ESPN decided it would be a clever idea to use an extremely offensive term for Chinese people when reporting about him.

This led to ESPN viewers being treated to the following visual - which was put up by ESPN editor Anthony Federico:

Lovely.

And the same "chink in the armor" line was used verbally by on-air personality Max Bretos (whose wife, incidentally, is Asian).

The result?  Federico was fired, and Bretos is suspended.

Both men are extremely apologetic - as they should be.  But that does not change the fact that they used an overtly racist slur on the air.  What were they thinking? 

ESPN did the right thing.  Let's hope the network's quick action will stop others from doing the same.  

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

UPDATE:  I contacted Anthony Federico by email and asked him to respond to what I had written.  He either did not see it (I'm sure he was pretty inundated with email correspondence) or he ignored it. But he did put out a comment/explanation on twitlonger.com, which you can read by clicking here.  Take a look, and decide for yourself if it makes any sense.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest evidence that President Obama and his administration are thick and deep with the hard-left, tax exempt (imagine that), folks at media matters.org.

Here are the first few paragraphs of Aaron Klein's report at worldnetdaily.com, which is drawn from information obtained by dailycaller.com.  See for yourself:  

President Obama served eight years on the board of a charity that is a top donor to the embattled Media Matters for America progressive activist organization.

Obama is also tied to numerous other top Media Matters donors and fundraisers, including a foundation run by the finance chairman of his 2008 presidential campaign, Penny Pritzker, WND has learned.

Last week, the Daily Caller released a list of grants to Media Matters.

A WND review of the donor list found a number of deep ties to Obama.

The information comes amid reports that White House staffers held regular meetings with Media Matters, which is under fire for unusual tactics, including compiling a de facto enemies list; announcing an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel; and reportedly seeking to investigate the personal lives of targeted reporters and news personalities.

The Media Matters donor list included the Pritzker Family Foundation, which donated a total of $400,000 to the progressive attack group in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

The family foundation is directed by Penny Pritzker, who served as the national finance chairman of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Penny Pritzker is currently a member of the Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which formulates and evaluates economic policy for the Obama administration.

Think that's bad?  In the immortal words of Al Jolson, you ain't seen nuthin' yet,.

What you have just read is just the tip of the iceberg.  If you use the link I have provided and read Mr. Klein's entire report, you be stunned by just how umbilically tied Barack Obama is to the media matters-like crowd, and just how umbilically tied they are tied to Obama & Co.

Which leads to a couple of interesting questions:

- One, pretty obviously, is how in the world media matters and several other members of its club can possibly get 501(c)3 exemptions; 

-And the other, maybe even more interesting, is how come we need Aaron Klein to tell us about this?  If this information is so easily gleaned from the lists uncovered by dailycaller.com, why hasn't it also been uncovered, and reported, by NBC, or CBS, or ABC, or CNN, or MSNBC, or the New York Times, or the LA Times, and so on.

You know, a suspicious sort just might surmise that these "news" sources are dilligently avoiding information like this; information that could damage Barack Obama's chances for re-election.

But that, of course cannot be.  We intelligent folks certainly understand that those are professional news organizations, and they would never let partisan politics inform what they do and do not report.  Right?

Well, right?

Ken Berwitz

The previous blog talked about a cooked-up issue, meant to divert voters from what they really care about.

This one is a bit different.  I am providing links to a number of stories meant to remind voters of what the polls tell us is most on their minds.  I pulled these from www.drudgereport.com --- and there are plenty more as well:

Iran cuts oil to some countries (thus causing them to run up the international price by trying to buy oil from other sources)

 

Saudi Arabia CUTS Oil Output...

Oil prices hit 9-month high...

 

Gas prices highest ever for this time of year...

$4.93 in Los Angeles...

Already, talk of summer 'staycations'...

For three years President Obama has moved heaven and earth to make sure we utilize as little of our vast oil reserves as possible.  No ANWR drilling.  No more offshore drilling (though he was perfectly willing to subsidize Brazil's drilling --- done by a company that george soros has a major interest in).  Not even the Keystone pipeline, which would enable us to more easily and inexpensively get oil from our friendly next-door neighbor Canada.

Instead, Mr. Obama, through his politically-compromised Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has pumped billions of dollars into so-called "Green" energy companies which - amazing coincidence here - are disproportionately owned and/or invested in by big-time Obama supporters.  And which, not incidentally, are going bankrupt one after the other. 

In short, we are more in the hole energy-wise now than we were at the start of this disastrous administration, but Obama $$$ contributors are making fortunes on the backs of taxpayers.

One other thing.  Regarding the claim which is continually made by President Obama and his operatives that we have only 2 - 3% of the world's oil reserves?  It is a lie.  Every time they say it they are lying. 

Their lie is based on a fact that most people seem unaware of, and most of our wonderful "neutral" media seem intent on keeping them unaware of:  the fact that the only oil reserves counted in that statistic are the ones we are currently exploring.  

In other words:

-Because we are not drilling in ANWR, none of the ANWR oil is being counted. 

-Wherever offshore drilling has been denied, none of the oil in those areas is being counted. 

-Since no shale oil is being extracted from the upper midwest (where some estimates suggest we have three times the amount of oil as Saudi Arabia), none of the shale oil is being counted.

That is how they lie to us.  Openly, blatantly.....and, obviously, with great confidence that their Accomplice Media will not tell citizens the truth. 

Sadly, this is one of the few things they are right about.

Ken Berwitz

January:  During a Republican presidential debate on ABC, George Stephanopoulos. debate host and career Democrat operative/partisan, asked frontrunner Mitt Romney a number of questions about contraception - an "issue" that virtually did not exist at the time. 

Look at any poll of the key issues last month, and you will find they are the economy, jobs, immigration, energy and war.  You would need a microscope to find contraception/birth control.  But there was Stephanopoulos asking one question after another about it.

This certainly did not go unnoticed by Mr. Romney.  Or savvy political operative (for both parties at one time or another) Dick Morris.

As reported at Fox News:

...moderator George Stephanopoulos peppered Mitt Romney with questions about contraception that seemed totally out of the blue at the time.  But in the wake of President Barack Obama’s move to mandate health insurance companies’ coverage of contraception, the motivation for the ABC newsman’s grilling of Romney has become clear, according to political pundit Dick Morris: It’s part of a plan to convince voters that Republicans will ban contraception.

 

“Well, it is Dick Morris' theorem that that was a setup that led to what happened last week.”  Stephanopoulos asked Romney: “Do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”  Romney responded that it was an “unusual topic” to be questioned about, and said he would “completely oppose” any effort to ban contraception. Stephanopoulos repeated his question, and Romney acknowledged he didn’t know if a state had a right to ban contraception but referred to the question as “silly.” 

Was this nothing more than the random, albeit bizarre, insertion of a series of non-sequitur questions about a subject virtually no one was talking about at the time?  Or, was it, as Mr. Morris suggests, a setup; a way to create an issue out of nothing, for the purpose of diverting attention from Mr. Obama's woeful record on the issues voters actually care about?

Well, let's decide by looking at what has happened since:

-President Obama put out a mandate which forces Catholic and other institutions to provide contraceptive and abortion services, against their religious and moral convictions;

-Mr. Obama took the heat for a couple of days, then offered a "compromise" which was little more than an accounting trick - i.e. the institutions would still foot the bill for what they believe to be against the word of God;

-Suddenly, as if on cue, much of the reliably pro-Obama, leftward media started talking abortion and contraception as if it were the biggest issue in the country today -- which, as we discussed earlier, it is anything but;

-Since then, Obama hatchetmen (and women; e.g. Nancy Pelosi) have repeatedly and intensely, cited a "study" by the Guttmacher Institute which, they say, shows that 98% of Catholic women use birth control.  This is supposed to prove that President Obama's decision is in tune with Catholic sentiment.

In actuality, the Guttmacher institute - which is closely aligned with Planned Parenthood, says no such thing in its study:  it is a lie created by contorting data beyond recognition.  From Tim Graham's blog at newsbusters.org:

The Guttmacher Institute, citing “confusion” over the statistic, on Wednesday posted the actual data behind it. It turns out it was based on a question that asked self-identified Catholic women who have had sex if they have ever used one of 12 methods of birth control. [Guttmacher co-author Rachel] Jones, in an interview, said the women were asked to answer “yes” or “no” whether they had used each of the different forms; only two percent had said they had used only natural family planning.

In other words, a woman may have sex only once, or she may have had a partner who only used a condom once, and then she would be placed in the 98 percent category. Jones said the correct way to describe the results of the research is this:

 “Data shows that 98 percent of sexually experienced women of child-bearing age and who identify themselves as Catholic have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives.”

Translation:  if a Catholic woman ever, even once, strayed from 100% orthodoxy, or she didn't but her partner did, she is counted in the 98%, as if it were her lifetime decision.  Using that impossibly ridiculous criterion, virtually every person of every religion is an apostate.

-MSNBC goes into near apoplexy over this suddenly-existent issue, with Chris Matthews, in particular, assuring us that Republican risk losing the votes of women (as though contraceptives/abortion is the only issue women care about, and as though all women agree with Matthews' pals in the pro-choice crowd - neither of which is anywhere near true);

-The Sunday shows are full of contraception and abortion.  Illustratively, David Gregory - who I used to have a lot of respect for, but am rapidly losing - spends much of the last two Meet The Press shows talking about it, and comes up with this handy-dandy, Democrat-usable line "The year of birth control moms".

Do you think this is random?  Do you think this just happened?  For your sake, I hope not.

The obvious truth is that this "issue" has been created out of thin air, and immediately blown into lead-story status, by media venues which are overtly partisan toward Democrats and, more generally, the left. 

The truth?  Until their media propaganda blitz, it was neither a major issue nor even news.  It was then, and is now, partisan propaganda by partisan propagandists pretending they are acting as journalists.

Regular readers know that I often use the term Accomplice Media.  When I do, I am not just blowing smoke.  And this is as good an example as you will ever find.

Will contraception/abortion be the only "created" issue they come up with?  Don't bet on it.

And don't be fooled by it.

Ken Berwitz

Not that it needs me to drum up business, but.....

Saturday was my birthday.  So we did exactly what makes us happiest - we saw our transcendentally magnificent grandchildren during the day and went out with our sons and our terrific daughter in law at night.

My wife came up with a restaurant called Cuba - which is stuffed into small quarters on Thompson Street in the West Village, between Bleeker and West 3rd.

It was great.

The staff was friendly and accommodating - especially Eduardo the bartender and Winston, our server.  If you ordered wine, you actually got some - not just a hint of color at the bottom of the glass, like some restaurants give you.

And the food?  Wow!  Everything was delicious.  No exceptions.  Fresh, bursting with flavor, very fair portions, and at surprisingly moderate prices (the main dishes run from about $17 to the low $20's).

Cuba is crowded, it is boisterous, and the customers are about as eclectic as you will find anywhere.  All of which makes this place even better. 

If you're ever in Manhattan and want to have a great meal in a fun area of town, without having to take out a second mortgage to pay for it?  Try Cuba. 

You'll thank me -- as I thank my beautiful wife for this great find.

Ken Berwitz

What an excellent commentary I just read! 

Written by Victor Sharpe of americanthinker.com, the commentary discusses how reasonable it is for Kurdish people to have their own state, and how unreasonable it is for so-called "Palestinians" to have one.

Here is a taste of Mr. Sharpe's insightful analysis:

... let us return to the present day and to why the world clamors for a Palestinian Arab state but strangely turns its back upon Kurdish national independence and statehood.  The universally accepted principle of self-determination seems not to apply to the Kurds.

In an article in the New York Sun on 6 July 2004 titled "The Kurdish Statehood Exception," Hillel Halkin exposed the discrimination and double standards employed against Kurdish aspirations of statehood.  He wrote, "[T]he historic injustices done to them and their suffering over the years can be adequately redressed within the framework of a federal Iraq, in which they will have to make do -- subject to the consent of a central, Arab-dominated government in Baghdad -- with mere autonomy. Full Kurdish statehood is unthinkable. This, too, is considered to be self-evident."

The brutal fact in realpolitik, therefore, is that the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians have many friends in the oil-rich Arab world -- oil the world desperately needs for its economies.  The Kurds, like the Jews, have few friends, and the Kurds have little or no influence in the international corridors of power.

Mr. Halkin pointed out that "the Kurds have a far better case for statehood than do the Palestinians. They have their own unique language and culture, which the Palestinian Arabs do not have. They have had a sense of themselves as a distinct people for many centuries, which the Palestinian Arabs have not had. They have been betrayed repeatedly in the past 100 years by the international community and its promises, while the Palestinian Arabs have been betrayed only by their fellow Arabs."

During the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, the Kurds were gassed and slaughtered in large numbers.  They suffered ethnic cleansing by the Turks and continue to be oppressed by the present Turkish government, whose foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, had the gall to suggest, at a meeting of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, that Turkey supports the oppressed of the world.  He ignored his own government's oppression of the Kurds and predictably named the anti-Semitic thugdom in Gaza "oppressed."  On the basis of pure realpolitik, the legality and morality of the Kurds' cause is infinitely stronger than that of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.

On the other hand, after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the Kurds displayed great political and economic wisdom.  How different from the example of the Gazan Arabs who, when foolishly given full control over the Gaza Strip by Israel, chose not to build hospitals and schools, but instead bunkers and missile launchers.  To this they have added the imposition of sharia law, with its attendant denigration of women and non-Muslims.

The Kurdish experiment, in at least the territory's current quasi-independence, has shown the world a decent society where all its inhabitants, men and women, enjoy far greater freedoms than can be found anywhere else in the Arab and Muslim world -- and certainly anywhere else in Iraq, which is fast descending into ethnic chaos now that the U.S. military has left.

As an entirely practical matter, I can't say that I agree with Mr. Sharpe that there should not be a Palestinian Arab state (though I do agree that Palestinian Arabs have done little or nothing to deserve one). 

But, that disagreement notwithstanding, Mr. Sharpe makes excellent points - both in this small piece of the commentary and the rest of it as well. 

I urge you to read every word Mr. Sharpe has written.  However much you think you know or understand about the middle east, you will know and understand more when you are finished.

Ken Berwitz

It is hard to fathom that, just a few years ago, Israel had a relatively strong, positive relationship with Turkey.  But easy to understand the reason why.

Here is the latest evidence of just how far downward that relationship has plummeted, via excerpts from an article at Agence France Presse:

Turkey will never allow any third country, particularly Israel, to use intelligence obtained by a NATO radar system, its foreign minister said on Friday.

"We will never allow any third country to use any NATO facility. Our position will be even more clear if it is particularly Israel," Davutoglu told a joint news conference with visiting NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Ankara.

His remarks came after some media outlets reported that the United States and Israel have carried out a joint missile test by using intelligence gathered by a NATO radar system based in eastern Turkey.

Last year Ankara decided to host in a military facility base near Malatya in the southeast an early warning radar as part of NATO's defense architecture.

"It is a NATO system and we appreciate that Turkey has agreed to host one of the facilities," said Rasmussen.

"Data are shared within our alliance among the allies. It is a defence system to protect the populations of NATO allies," he added without mentioning Israel, which is not a NATO member.  

The article goes on to say that Israel's relationship with Turkey plunged into deep crisis after the "Palestinian flotilla" incident years ago, when Israeli soldiers boarded a Turkish ship attempting to run its (perfectly legal) blockade of Gaza, there was a battle, and something like 9 Turkish nationals were killed. 

But that is a pile of baloney.  While it is true that the incident was very damaging to Israeli-Turkish relations, they had already been deteroriating significantly, since Islamists came to power and quickly started to move the country away from secular westernism. 

Sadly, Turkey is not the country is was even a few short years ago.  And unless something pretty dramatic occurs, it is going to continue in that direction just as quickly. 

That is the real reason Turkey no longer has a positive, or even a good, relationship with Israel.

Too bad for Israel.  And too bad for Turkey as well. 

Ken Berwitz

This week New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed a bill that would allow gay marriages in New Jersey.

And if that were all I knew about Governor Christie's position on this issue I would be reaming him for the second time this week (I've already done so for the Whitney Houston half-flag decision).  But there is a good deal more to it.

Here are excerpts from MaryAnn Spoto's article in the Newark Star-Ledger.  Take a look and I think you'll see what I mean:

TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie Friday made good on his vow to swiftly veto a gay marriage bill that passed the Legislature this week, saying he’d only agree to a measure that would strengthen New Jersey’s civil union law.

 

In a six-page statement, Christie said there is no fundamental constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but gay couples in New Jersey have all the rights and benefits of married couples through civil unions.

 

Renewing his push for gay marriage to go to New Jersey voters in a referendum in November’s general election, Christie said an ombudsman should be appointed to ensure the state’s civil union law is being followed.

 

"I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples — as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits," Christie said.

 

Gay rights activists and Democrats supporting the measure immediately denounced Christie’s veto, saying he was pandering to a national conservative audience and that his ombudsman proposal is an attempt to disguise it.

 

Steven Goldstein, chairman of the gay rights advocacy group Garden State Equality, said Christie didn’t veto the bill because he’s against gays. He said the veto came "because the 2016 South Carolina Republican Presidential primary electorate is anti-gay." 

As you can see, Mr. Christie is not denying gay couples the same rights as married couples.  He is vetoing a bill that would call it marriage, and saying that use of this term for gay couples should be subject to a state referendum.

Regular readers certainly know that I have no problem at all with gay marriage.  They also know that I believe that the gay marriage "issue" is, to a significant extent, semantics-related; i.e. a great many people, even among those who find homosexuality immoral, blasphemous, repulsive, etc. etc. etc. would, albeit grudgingly, accept it under a different name.

Governor Christie's position, I would think, brings this home loud and clear.  He is not demanding that gay couples should be banned from cohabitating, or that they should be denied any of the rights of traditional one man-one woman marriage; he is saying that a state referendum should determine whether it should be identified by the term "marriage".

Christie's opponents have, predictably enough, already denounced his position as a blatant attempt to institutionalize gay marriage as a lesser relationship than one man-one woman marriage.  And maybe they're right - I don't know what is in Chris Christie's heart. 

But if he is ok with full rights for gay couples, and will abide by a state referendum that accepts using the term "marriage" to define it?  That's not half bad.  At the very least it is a helluva lot further than things have gotten in most other states. 

FYI, my favorite part of the excerpt is Steven Goldstein's claim that Christie - in February, 2012, after saying he would not run for President and tossing his support to Mitt Romney - is taking this position so he'll get more primary votes in the 2016 South Carolina primary. 

Yep, terrific point.  By the way, I have it on good authority that the Chicago Cubs will win the 2018 world series......

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday, after I blogged about the mudslinging coming from the Santorum campaign, commenter,"Zeke" opined that, though for different reasons, neither Romney nor Santorum are good candidates.  I responded by saying "I agree. And if gas is $4-5 a gallon this year, either can win."

With that in mind here is the beginning of the New York Times' lead story (page 1, top right) this morning:

WASHINGTON — Rising gasoline prices, trumpeted in foot-tall numbers on street corners across the country, are causing concern among advisers to President Obama that a budding sense of economic optimism could be undermined just as he heads into the general election.

White House officials are preparing for Republicans to use consumer angst about the cost of oil and gas to condemn his energy programs and buttress their argument that his economic policies are not working.

In a closed-door meeting last week, Speaker John A. Boehner instructed fellow Republicans to embrace the gas-pump anger they find among their constituents when they return to their districts for the Presidents’ Day recess.

“This debate is a debate we want to have,” Mr. Boehner told his conference on Wednesday, according to a Republican aide who was present. “It was reported this week that we’ll soon see $4-a-gallon gas prices. Maybe higher. Certainly, this summer will see the highest gas prices in years. Your constituents saw those reports, and they’ll be talking about it.”

Let's start with how the Times approaches this storyl  Don't you just love the spin? 

With all due respect to writer Michael D. Shear and the rest of the crew over there, this is not "consumer angst".  It is not an emotional issue at all.  It is a pocketbook issue - one that resonates every time a consumer (read that "voter") goes to the pump to fill up, or gets a heating bill, or buys goods that, due the oil-related costs increases, wind up costing more as well.

In short, it is an absolute political disaster for the Obama administration and absolute political dynamite for Republicans.

At this point, you may think I am going to compliment the Times for displaying uncharacteristic bluntness and honesty by making it today's lead story. 

But I cant do that.  Because a funny thing happened between when the Times' print edition was published, and now. 

I just went to the nytimes.com web site and guess what?  This story is no longer the lead.  It isn't even at, or near, the top of the page.  It is was buried as the third story in "other news" --- wait, hold the presses:  literally, while I have been writing this blog (7:43AM) it was moved again.  Now it is two-thirds down the page in "politics".

Do you think just possibly, maybe, someone at the Obama White House had a word with the folks at the New York Times?  And they caved?  We'll never know for sure...but you do the math.

Oh, one other thing:  The Times being The Times, further on in the article we have this:

For Mr. Obama’s economic team, the increase in oil prices is an unwelcome reminder of how global events largely outside their control can hamper a recovery. For the third year in a row, a modest recovery faces head winds as winter turns to spring.

Yeah, sure guys.  It is all "global events largely outside their control".  It has nothing to do with President Obama's near-pathological refusal to allow the USA to exploit our vast oil resources, or more effectively utilize oil from our friendly next-door neighbor Canada (e.g. he has stopped ANWR drilling, offshore drilling - for us, anyway, the Keystone pipeline, etc.)

The Obama administration and the New York Times may think that, if this story is downplayed, people will not notice the soaring gas prices, or the administration's opposition to just about every way we might alleviate our dependency on foreign oil from countries that hate our guts...while getting rich off of our oil purchases.  

But this is one issue no amount of spin is going to overcome.  Not a chance.

And that is why, no matter whom the Republican nominee winds up being, he/she can win.

Ken Berwitz

Who really outed Paul Babeu? 

How did an anonymous (so far) former lover who claims to be an illegal alien suddenly appear to tell his story - without specific evidence, so far, only as hearsay claims?

I do not know the answer to this question.  But I do know who stands to gain the most from it. 

Paul Babeu is a major proponent of strong immigration law enforcement.  The eric-holder led Department of Justice is clearly against Mr. Babeu on this issue, among many others, and is litigating to prevent the enforcement he supports.

Is there a connection there?  Again, I don't claim to know.  But it is hard not to suspect.

By the way, does anyone delight more in "outing" gay people for political motives - in an attempt at political blackmail might be more accurate - than the left?

Ken Berwitz

On its face that might seem like an absurd question.  But, apparently it is not.

Warner Todd Huston, a conservative writer who blogs for, among other places, Andrew Breitbart's bigjournalism.com, has uncovered enough circumstantial evidence about this prospect to make reasonable people stop in their tracks and think about the unthinkable.

Here are a few excerpts:

There has been a lot of chatter about the blockbuster report at the Daily Caller revealing the extent to which the self-proclaimed “media watchdog” outfit Media Matters for America is joined at the hip with the White House. Many are shocked at just how much Obama is seemingly programming the media with the supposedly independent Media Matters acting as its pipeline to the Old Media.

 

Shockingly, Daily Caller notes that MMFA is even holding teleconference briefings with members of Obama’s administration and the subsequent salting of the results of those meetings among the Old Media’s coverage seems to be a weekly occurrence. If true this is in contravention to MMFA’s tax-exempt status, too.

 

The report points out that at least up until last fall, an Obama administration official participated in weekly strategy sessions to plan out what the Old Media should know about the Obama agenda. Daily Caller notes that Obama’s recently resigned com director Jen Psaki was “a frequent participant” on those strategy calls.

 

With the revelations about Psaki’s participation on MMFA strategy sessions, it makes clear the campaign against Fox News waged by the White House as well as Obama’s attempt to control the news media’s coverage.

 

Of course, this pipeline can go both ways, too. Is Media Matters pushing its own George Soros-funded, far left ideas on the Administration in these weekly strategy sessions? And how independent is MMFA if it is being included in strategy sessions led by the White House? This all too cozy relationship certainly eviscerates any expectation that MMFA’s reports can be trusted. And with claims that MSNBC is fully programmed by the White House and MMFA, and that the Washington Post, Huffington Post, and the L.A. Times are also spoon-fed the Obama agenda on a daily basis, well, it calls into doubt everything in the Old Media’s coverage of Barack Obama’s White House.

Would it surprise you that mediamatters.org, a far-left funded, soros-supported propaganda machine, could be deeply involved with President Obama, and his far-left funded, soros-supported propaganda machine? 

I hope that Mr. Huston, Judicial Watch and bigjournalism.com stay on top of this.  Because it is a very safe bet that our wonderful "neutral" media will not -- as demonstrated by the fact that this blog was written on February 13th, 6 days ago, and I'm betting that, unless you read bigjournalism.com this is the first you know of it.

Ken Berwitz

It turns out that Paul Babeu, Sheriff of Pinal County Arizona, outspoken critic of our illegal immigration policy, and candidate for congress from Arizona's 4th district, is gay.  We know that because something called the Phoenix New Times (I can't say I'm familiar with it) decided to "out" him and publish accusations made by an alleged former lover - whose name is not given and whose evidence, least as of now, appears to be only hearsay.

Babeu flatly denies the accusations, but acknowledges he is gay. 

Excerpted from Ricardo Lopez's article in today's Los Angeles Times:

An Arizona sheriff running for Congress as a Republican denied accusations Saturday that he had threatened to deport an alleged ex-lover, a Mexican national. In the process, he also resigned from a volunteer position with Mitt Romney's Arizona campaign and came out as gay.

After a report published Thursday by the weekly Phoenix New Times, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu acknowledged that he had a "personal relationship" with a man identified only as Jose.

Jose accused the sheriff of threatening to deport him after he refused to sign an agreement stipulating that he would not disclose details of their romantic involvement, the newspaper reported.

At a news conference Saturday, Babeu called the allegations "absolutely, completely false, except for the issues that refer to me as being gay. Because that's the truth. I am gay."

Regarding the allegations?  Until we see actual proof of some kind - which, again, has not been provided -  that is all they are.  Allegations.

Regarding Paul Babeu's being gay?  Who cares.

Ken Berwitz

....this sure looks like mudslinging to me.

Here is the first sentence of an Associated Press article about Rick Santorum's newest campaign strategy:

White House candidate Rick Santorum on Saturday questioned President Barack Obama's Christian values and attacked GOP rival Mitt Romney's Olympics leadership as he courted tea party activists and evangelical voters in Ohio, "ground zero" in the 2012 nomination fight.

For those of you who question the veracity of what is said above because it is the AP, please use the link I have provided to read the entire article.  You will see that, this time at least, the description is accurate. 

Even worse, Santorum's attack on Romney's Olympics performance - that he helped save the games by obtaining tens of millions of dollars from congress - conveniently leaves out that Santorum voted for those earmarks.  How do you attack someone for an initiative you yourself supported?

Look, I'm no seer.  I certainly do not know what the future will bring.  But it is this kind of rhetoric that can take a politician currently riding high, and bring him back down to earth in a hurry.  

It's not like we haven't seen it before.  Think Bachmann.  And Perry.  And Cain. And Gingrich.

Is Rick Santorum next?  I have a feeling we will find out relatively quickly.

Ken Berwitz

Here, for anyone still interested, is the latest "news" from what is left of the "Occupy" movement.

Excerpted from John Hudson's piece for atlanticwire.com:

Occupy Organizers Call on Super PAC to Change Name or Disassemble

 

The formation of an Occupy Wall Street super PAC by an activist in Decatur, Alabama is sparking a backlash from the movement's organizers in Washington, D.C. and New York City.

 

This week activist John Paul Thornton opted to fight fire with fire, filing paperwork with the FEC to establish The Occupy Wall Street Political Action Committee, allowing it to raise unlimited corporate funds for federal candidates pledging to get money out of politics. The irony was not lost on a number of Occupy activists who've long protested the very existence of super PACs following the controversial 2010 Citizens United Suprem Court case.

 

"This caught us completely by surprise," said Bill Csapo, an activist affiliated with the Campaign to Occupy Wall Street in New York. "I don't think any of us would agree that a super PAC is the right way to go." 

 

"I think this points to a larger problem with the branding of Occupy," he said. "People have started using the word Occupy very loosely."

 

"If this results in some kind of factioning, fine," he said. "There needs to be a diversity of tactics to a achieve success. What works is money. We all know this."

You have to love this.  The "Occupy" people are now squabbling over whether they should have a super PAC to fight.....well, things like super PAC's. 

And - here's a scoop for you - "people have started using the word Occupy very loosely".  Is this supposed to suggest that, until now,  they were not????

I think maybe that stupid Guy Fawkes anarchy-mask "occupy" people are so fond of should be changed to one where he's laughing so hard that his moustache droops.

As far as the overall "Occupy" movement - a movement so "popular" that it was tossed out of virtually ever major city, even the most left-wing cities in the country?  My expectation is that, come spring, it will resurrect in one form or another. 

The career vagrants, freeloaders and criminals who used "Occupy"  as cover will not easily give up another opportunity to set up shop in a public place and get whatever "free stuff" they can, by whatever means available. 

All it takes is for them to loudly scream they are protesting against Republicans and Wall Street.  That's a virtual guarantee our wonderful "neutral" media will hop on board the bandwagon as quickly as they did last October.

Ken Berwitz

Democrats are in full tilt over this one.  They are attacking, and condemning in strongest terms, the "fact" that the House Committee on Oversight, Chaired by Darell Issa (R-CA), while investigating the Obama administration's ObamaCare mandate on contraception and birth control, did not have even one woman to give testimony.  And several Democrat members walked out, after demanding that a woman of their choice be added to the witnesses, and being refused.

Since then, most of our Accomplice Media has been in full tilt right along with them, attacking and condemning this outrage.  MSNBC's Chris Matthews, in particular, has his blood pressure up to roughly 870 over 680, as he rants that Republicans had better do something or they won't get any women's votes this year (yes, he really said that.  In at least two different ways on two different broadcasts).

And two (so far) emails have been sent from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Commitee (DSCC) about it.  Here is an example of the rhetoric in one of them, from Senator Patty Murray:

I feel like I woke up this morning on the set of “Mad Men.”
 
Republicans have set their time machine for the 1950s – back when, according to one prominent Republican, women could just “put aspirin between their knees” to avoid getting pregnant.
 
This after Republicans opened a hearing on birth control – and banned women from testifying!

That's pretty damning, isn't it. How could Republicans have done such a harebrained thing?

Well, the answer is they didn't.  This is absolute bullcrap. And Patty Murray (along with her DSCC pals) is lying.

-The reason the Democrats' witness, Sandra Fluke, was refused?  Because the morning panel consisted of clergy, and Ms. Fluke is not clergy, she is a student at Georgetown University, Moreover, Democrats waited until after the time for adding witnesses closed before demanding that she be on the panel (which, I am guessing, was intentionally done so they could create the "issue" Patty Murray is emailing about);

-The afternoon session had two women:  Allison Garrett and Dr. Laura Champion.  They were not last minute throw-ins to counteract Democrats' attacks, they were right there on the list;

-The "prominent Republican" was not an officeholder at all.  He was a campaign contributor from Wyoming named Foster Freiss who I (and I'm betting you) never heard of until now.  And his reference to aspirin between the knees was a joke - an inappropriate one, but a joke, one I have heard here and there for many years (maybe you have too);  

-The claim that women were "banned" from testifying is obviously a 100% lie.  

At this point, someone who is unaware of the massive bias displayed by our media in favor of Democrats, might be asking "If what Ken says is true, why would so muh of the media go ballistic over this, and do nonstop reporting of the Democrats' claims?"  My answer is "Since everything I've posted here is true, there is only one reason.  They are not acting as journalists, they are acting as propagandists for the political party they favor".

Oh, one other thing. 

It is fascinating to see how interested media suddenly are in the House Committee on Oversight.  But when the disgraceful toady, and Obama sock-puppet, Attorney General eric holder, was lying to this same committee about Operation Fast and Furious?  With few exceptions (CBS among them) most of these same media did not report it.  Not one story.  Not one word. 

Operation Fast and Furious has been out there for well over a year's time.  Yet this massive scandal - involving thousands of assault weapons sold by our government to Mexican drug cartels, resulting in at least one, probably two, of our agents and hundreds of Mexicans dead (so far - with more sure to come), neither NBC nor ABC have never reported one story about it.  Not even one word.  And many of our major dailies - the New York Times among them - have done little or no reporting on Operation Fast and Furious.

These are the media who supposedly INFORM us?  God help this country.

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

UPDATE:  This email has been sent today by Guy Cecil, Executive Director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee:

The response to Senator Murray’s email was overwhelming. We shattered yesterday’s one-day goal. But the GOP isn’t going to stop its Aspirin Agenda. Their war on women is funded by a handful of billionaire donors. 90% of our contributions comes from grassroots donors.

Can you kick in $5 and help us raise an additional $50,000 by midnight tonight?

Translation:  The DSCC lied to their sucke...er, faithful contributors, had great success lying to them, and are now attempting to parlay that lie into even more $$$.

There is no "Aspirin Agenda", there is no "war on women" and the non-existent agenda and war are not funded by a handful of billionaires.  This sorry bunch could not have stuffed more lies into less space if they tried.

Ken Berwitz

Do you enjoy it when a media elite gets his tuchus handed to him by one of the people he tries to game?

If so, you will be thrilled with the following exchange between Charlie Rose, formerly of PBS, now of CBS (hey, it rhymes) and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum over the tasteless joke Santorum supporter Foster Freiss made about women's contraception.  I have put Santorum's knockout-punch response in bold print:

ROSE:  "What have you said to him about the comments, other than what you have said to the press?"

SANTORUM: I'm not responsible for every comment that a supporter of mine makes...it was a bad joke. It was a stupid joke. It's not reflective of me or my record on this issue....this is the same gotcha politics that you get from the media, and I'm just not going to play that game.

ROSE: There's no question that those issues are very important, and they're very important to the voters of Michigan. But also, you have been identified as a social conservative, and those issues have been part of what you have said to the country. So this is not gotcha. What this is, is trying to understand exactly what Rick Santorum stands for, and what he might say or do as president-

SANTORUM: Well, Charlie, when you quote- hold on, Charlie. When you quote a supporter of mine who tells a bad off-color joke, and somehow, I'm responsible for that shall, that's gotcha. I mean, the bottom line is, we're- we've been- we've been-

ROSE: But nobody said you were responsible, Senator. Nobody said you were responsible. They said, how would you characterize it and what have you said to him, not that you were responsible. It's to understand how you differ from what this person said. So let me quote you-

SANTORUM: Okay. So I'm now going to have respond to every supporter who says something. Now, I'm going to have to respond to it. Look, this is what you guys do. I mean, I don't- you don't do this with President Obama. In fact, with President Obama, what you did was you went out and defended him against someone who- he sat in a church for- for 20 years, and defended him- that, oh, he can't possibly believe what he listened to for 20 years. It's a double standard, this is what you're pulling off, and I'm going to call you on it.

Game.  Set.  Match.  Rose asked for it, and he got it.

Rose and his kindred pals have pulled this crap too often with too many people who didn't answer back effectively.  This time the intended target deflected his swing and, instead, landed a haymaker of his own.  I love it.

Way to go, Mr. Santorum.  And may it happen again and again in the future - not just from you but from every other candidate. 

Ken Berwitz

This chart, created by the Republican Party (for pretty obvious reasons), shows the percentage of Americans in the labor force from years before Barack Obama became President to the present.

Take a good look, and you won't wonder why the Obama administration, and most of its Accomplice Media, do not talk about what it shows.  Keep in mind that President Obama took office just before the "stimulus package" point:

Maybe it's my imagination, but isn't it easier to get lower unemployment numbers if millions of people leave the workplace, thus are not counted as unemployed? 

And, if media reported this information quickly and intensely, the way they reported 8.3% unemployment as good news (despite the fact that President Obama started, over three years ago, with unemployment in the high 7's), do you think people would view the jobs situation a bit differently?

Yeah, I kind of thought so.

Ken Berwitz

Have you noticed that Egypt, fast becoming a shari'a law state, is not the only "Arab Spring" country media have decided to stop talking about?  Have you noticed that they are not talking about Libya either?

Maybe this is the reason why, as excerpted from a welcome exception to the rule, an unbylined article at CNN.com:

CNN) -- Armed militias in Libya are committing human rights abuses with impunity, threatening to destabilize the country and hindering its efforts to rebuild, Amnesty International said Thursday.

 

Militias have tortured detainees, targeted migrants and displaced entire communities in revenge attacks, according to a report the organization released a year after the start of popular uprisings that eventually ended Moammar Gadhafi's 42-year rule.

 

"Hundreds of armed militias, widely hailed in Libya as heroes for their role in toppling the former regime, are largely out of control," the report says.

 

Detainees at 10 facilities used by militia in central and western Libya told representatives from Amnesty International this year that they had been tortured or abused. Several detainees said they confessed to crimes they had not committed in order to stop the torture, Amnesty International said.

 

At least 12 detainees held by militias have died after being tortured since September, the human rights organization said, adding that authorities have not effectively investigated the torture allegations.

 

"A year ago Libyans risked their lives to demand justice," Donatella Rovera, a senior crisis response adviser at Amnesty, said in a statement. "Today their hopes are being jeopardized by lawless armed militias who trample human rights with impunity. The only way to break with the entrenched practices of decades of abuse under (Gadhafi's) authoritarian rule is to ensure that nobody is above the law and that investigations are carried out into such abuses."

 

Libyan officials could not be immediately reached for comment.

Funny thing:  when we were bombing Libya and qadaffi was on the run, you could not find time enough in the day to read/see/hear all the stories about how the "Arab Spring" was in full bloom and what a great foreign policy triumph this was turning into for President Obama. 

But now that qadaffi is dead, and what is taking his place not only is no better but arguably might wind up being even worse (let's not forget those al-qaeda flags flying in various places throughout the country) there is more news about new developments in the Lindbergh kidnapping than in how Libya is turning out. 

The truth is that, like Egypt, this foreign policy "triumph" is an utter disaster.  And, in Libya's case, one that was facilitated by US dollars and US bombs.

So why do you suppose media - other than CNN and a relatively few others - have pushed it right off the end of the earth news-wise? 

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

Ken Berwitz

Did you know that mediamatters.org is a 501(c)3 organization - tax exempt and supposedly nonpartisan?

Well, here, as compiled by www.dailycaller.com, is the list of the largest donors to mediamatters.org.  Read it and see how you feel about its 501(c)3 tax exemption.  And its close ties to the Obama White House:

FOUNDATION DONORS TO MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA (TOTALS)

compiled by The Daily Caller

February 17, 2012

 

$28,825,415 TOTAL TRACKED

 

$4,384,702 Tides Foundation

$2,325,000 Bohemian Foundation

$2,225,000 Stephen M Silberstein Foundation

$2,150,000 Dyson Foundation

$1,160,000 Gill Foundation

$1,075,000 Foundation to Promote Open Society

$966,466 Ford Foundation

$700,000 Bauman Family Foundation

$600,000 Leland Fikes Foundation, Inc.

$600,000 Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, Inc.

$587,000 Silicon Valley Community Foundation

$570,000 Marisla Foundation

$510,000 Gruber Family Foundation

$490,500 Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

$400,912 Glaser Progress Foundation

$400,000 Pritzker Family Foundation

$400,000 Sandler Foundation

Let's look at just the top 3: 

-mediamatters.org's single biggest contributor, by far, is the Tides Foundation - as radical left as you will ever find..  Read all about it here.

-Next is the Bohemian Foundation, created by Pat Stryker.  Ms. Stryker is an heiress to a medical technology fortune who gives money like water to far left causes.

-#3 is the Stephen M. Silberstein foundation, which is in major cahoots with the Tides Foundation.

This gets a 501(c)3 tax exemption???????????????

I doubt that you are surprised to see the who's-who of left wingers forking over big dollars to keep the mediamatters.org people high on the hog.  But maybe we should be just a tad unhappy that this completely partisan organization gets a tax exemption.  And demand that it end.  Now.

Wouldn't you say?

Ken Berwitz

I am just about up to here with media's orgasmic descriptions of what a great success story GM is, and how it proves the bailout worked spectacularly well.

Here are a couple of excerpts from a February 6th article about GM in the Wall Street Journal.  Read them and then see what you think about the bailout.  The bold print is mine:

GM has added 13,000 jobs in the U.S. since bankruptcy and is reopening a factory in Spring Hill, Tenn., that once made the now-discontinued Saturn brand and was shut amid the downsizing.

Such success could make it easier for the federal government to sell some of its remaining 26% stake in GM. Doing so at the current stock price would mean the government would lose more than $10 billion on the GM investment acquired in the bailout. The stock has lagged amid big GM losses in Europe and some investors' worries both about the health of the auto industry and concerns a big government share selloff could hurt the price.

Expectations that GM will continue posting record profits also could help the re-election campaign of President Barack Obama, who is touting the auto bailout as a great success, especially in Rust Belt battleground states. Mitt Romney, the leading Republican presidential contender, has criticized the bailout, arguing that auto companies could have emerged from their problems faster and at no government expense via the standard bankruptcy process.

The bailout and restructuring helped GM to shed nearly $40 billion in obligations to become debt-free. It was a contrast with Ford Motor Co., which didn't have a bailout and is still paying off $23 billion it borrowed to survive. GM will pay almost no federal corporate taxes for years as one condition of the bailout.

Here are a few questions you might be interested in asking, before bowing down to Barack Obamakadabra and his magic road to profitability for GM:

-If the company is doing so fabulously well, why is the stock still way below where it would have to be for the government to sell it and break even?  Why are investors so antsy about buying it? 

-If GM shed nearly 40 billion dollars to become debt free, what happened to the 40 billion dollars of debt?  Was this "shedding" accomplished, in large part, by stiffing the investors?  Could that have something to do with why investors are so gun shy now? 

-If GM does not have to pay almost any federal corporate taxes now, or for years to come, how much money is the company relieved of paying (i.e. the taxpayers are footing the bill for instead)?  Is it billions?  Is it 10 billion?  Is it more?

And now, the biggest question of all: 

If GM were expected to run like any other company - i.e. responsible for its debt, and responsible for paying the same corporate taxes that are smothering so many other companies which don't have an Obamakadabra bailout - would it be showing a profit?  Would it be hiring thousands of people?  Or would it be a bloated, unworkable disaster with union contracts that make it nearly impossible to get out of the hole it is in?

Answer those questions and you will understand why I am not joining in the celebration.

But if they decide to run a somber remembrance service for the billions upon billions upon billions that taxpayers are being stuck with to create the illusion of this great GM triumph?  I'll be sure to pay a condolence call.

Ken Berwitz

Since the last blog was about a career bigot who is proudly featured by MSNBC, it seems fitting to write about another career bigot who MSNBC just dumped:  pat buchanan.

pat buchanan is an intolerant man with a long history of anti-Semitism and disdain for Black people. 

Regarding his attitude toward Blacks, buchanan has never, to my knowledge, been as overt as he is about anti-Semitism -- which was so obvious to conservative icon and National Review publisher William F. Buckley that he dumped him from the magazine. 

With Black people, buchanan's game is to couch his disdain in not-quite-racist language that, nonetheless, gets his meaning across perfectly (no one ever said buchanan couldn't communicate).

Want an example?  Less than four years ago, buchanan said this about Black people in the USA:

“America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.”

Yep, how thrilled Black people must be that their ancestors were taken here in chains, as slaves, treated like nothing more than commodities until emancipation, and then treated like fifth class citizens for generations afterwards?  Where do you send the thank-you card for that?

In any event, the reason for this blog is that, after ten or so years as its house "conservative", buchanan has been dumped by MSNBC because they are shocked - shocked - to find that he wrote a book that some minorities find offensive (I put the term "conservative" in quotes because buchanan hates George Bush and was against the war in Iraq.....just the kind of "conservative" MSNBC would love).

Ironically, from what I know of buchanan's book, his thesis, that "America is Balkanizing, breaking down along the lines of religion, race, ethnicity, culture and ideology, and that Western peoples are facing demographic death by century's end",  is perfectly reasonable and perfectly appropriate for discussion and debate. 

But buchanan's well-deserved reputation precedes him.  So his book, instead of being seen as a free-standing entity, is probably being seen as another building block of what he has said in the past.  

In any event, buchanan - who, so far as I can remember, never had his own show on MSNBC - is gone.  And sharpton, who is at least as bigoted as buchanan, remains as both a show host and an analyst.

What does this say about MSNBC?  You tell me.

Ken Berwitz

al sharpton is a career racist, anti-Semite and deadbeat.  Which, evidently is a résumé worthy of getting his own show at MSNBC.

In any event, it certainly does not appear to have changed sharpton's lifestyle.

Excerpted from Josh Margolin and Dan Mangan's article in today's New York Post:

The Rev. Al Sharpton tried to move heaven and earth yesterday to keep his SUV from being towed at La Guardia Airport — but no amount of preaching could stop Port Authority cops from impounding the vehicle.

 

An officer rolled up on the 2008 Lincoln Navigator at around 2 p.m. outside the Delta and US Airways terminal as the MSNBC host’s driver waited to pick him up in a clearly marked “no standing” zone, said PA Police spokesman Al Della Fave.

 

PAPD cop Oscar Ruiz asked the driver for his paperwork and quickly discovered that the SUV had a suspended registration “due to lack of insurance,” the spokesman said.

 

At that point, Sharpton emerged from the terminal after a flight from Washington, DC, and raised holy hell over the situation.

 

“He begins yelling, saying the cop was just doing this because of who he was,” a source said.

Obviously Officer Ruiz did not know it was sharpton.  Because if he did, and knew about sharpton's ongoing history of stiffing people and companies, Officer Ruiz would not have bothered to check the paperwork; he would have just assumed the registration fee was not paid.

For the record, as anyone who goes to any New York City airport knows, officers are constantly moving cars from no standing zones, and it is 100% standard operating procedure to check registrations of cars that are in violation of the standing rules.  You see it all the time. 

But to a chronic deadbeat who always has an excuse for everything, it is somehow an affront to his good name and stellar credit history.

the bottom line?  There are a lot of reasons for MSNBC to be embarrassed about its association with al sharpton; this is just one of them.  Evidently, the network just does not care.

Ken Berwitz

Over the past several weeks, I have read and heard a great deal about how Republicans are doing everything they can to stop Barack Obama's agenda, because they are more interested in defeating him than helping the country.

It's a great political construct - provided the media play ball and help it along, of course.  Which they do, and then some.

But is that the true story? 

Did you know, for example, that four jobs bills have sailed through the house of representatives, each one of them with huge bipartisan majorities, and senate majority leader Harry Reid has refused to bring any one of them to the floor for a senate vote?

Here they are, as compiled by Tina Korbe of hotair.com:

1. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/16/four-gopers-to-reid-why-the-hold-up-on-our-jobs-bills/The Small Company Capital Formation bill changes SEC rules to allow companies to sell up to $50 million in shares without filing lengthy paperwork — and its equivalent passed the House by a vote of 421 to 1. Sen. Pat Toomey has introduced the companion measure in the Senate, and his bill enjoys the support of numerous Democratic co-sponsors.
2. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s Shareholder Registration Thresholds bill would increase the number of shareholders permitted to invest in a community bank from 500 to 2,000. Its House version passed the lower chamber by a slightly smaller margin than Sen. Toomey’s bill — or 420 to 2. Democratic senators Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor are co-sponsors.
3. The Access to Capital for Job Creators act, sponsored by Sen. John Thune, would eliminate an SEC regulation that inhibits companies from reaching out to potential investors in order to raise capital. More than 400 members of the House voted for its equivalent, too — 175 of them Democrats.
4. The House version of Sen. Scott Brown’s Democratizing Access to Capital act drew the support of 169 House Democrats — and 407 members of the House total. It would change SEC regulations that inhibit entrepreneurs from raising capital among large groups of small dollar investors.

Wouldn't it be nice if our wonderful "neutral" media, at some point, decided to take some time off from helping along every Democrat talking point, and reported on what actually is happening in congress -- like, for example how the Democrat majority leader is killing every job bill that comes his way?

Well, don't expect it to happen any time soon.  Rest assured that you will continue to have to go to hotair.com or one of the other rightward web sites to find this out. 

Mainstream media can't provide such information.  They are far too busy re-electing Barack Obama to bother with reality.

Ken Berwitz

Did you catch wind of  the thoroughly stupid comment that Foster Freiss, Rick Santorum's mega-moneyman, made about birth control during an interview with (of all people) Andrea Mitchell? 

In case you did not, here it is:

"This contraception thing, my gosh it's so inexpensive. Back in my day they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives, the gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly."

That stupid enough for you?  

I just watched Chris Matthews, Mr. Objectivity (just ask him), go ballistic over it, claiming that, unless Rick Santorum has a holy fit over the comment it is hard to see how any women at all would vote for him. 

As you might gather, Matthews is no stranger to hyperbole.

My take on this?  As mentioned above, it was thoroughly stupid.  And more than a little offensive.  But it was a joke; a weak one that shouldn't have been made, but a joke nonetheless, meant to humorously convey that abstinence is an inexpensive means of birth control 

Which, for the record, it is.

The problem is that there are few issues in this country which expose raw nerves as quickly as those related to women's rights regarding abortion or prevention of a pregnancy.  And Foster Freiss, in his consummately obtuse way, hit every one of those nerves dead-center.

I expect that Rick Santorum will quickly say something along the lines that Mr. Freiss made a valid point in an inappropriate way, and he wishes it had not been said at all.  If Santorum were a Democrat that would be the end of it right there.  But he isn't so it won't be. 

Expect to hear a lot about Foster Freiss in the coming days.

Ken Berwitz

Think of it as a teachable moment for Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Oliver Stone, and all the other Hollywood delusionaries who have decided they are in love with that cute, cuddly little hugo chavez.

From Gil Ronen, of Aruz Sheva (Israel National News):

Venezuela's ailing strongman Hugo Chavez unleashed a crude anti-Semitic attack on a rising opposition figure, Henrique Capriles Radonski, the New York Sun reported Thursday.  

Capriles is a Catholic whose maternal grandparents were Jews from Poland. That makes him a Jew, by Jewish standards. He is emerging as a challenger to succeed Chavez, who suffers from cancer.

According to the Sun, a broadcast titled “The Enemy Is Zionism” on the main and official government radio station in Caracas said that Capriles had worked for private firms “linked to the interests of the Zionist bourgeoisie.” It called him part of a “fascist and paramilitary sect” in which “religious rites were practiced.” This "sect" allegedly planned to attack “everything that did not represent the national Aryan race.”

The broadcast accused Capriles of covertly representing Zionism, which, it said, “is hiding behind a religious and nationalist discourse” and “is the owner of most financial institutions in the world, controlling almost 80% of the global economy and communications industry almost entirely, while maintaining decision-making positions within the State Department and European powers.”

The government radio also claimed that Capriles recently met with the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela, and discussed restoring diplomatic relations with Israel.

That, Mssrs. Penn, Glover, Stone, et al, is the real hugo chavez.  The one you try so hard to pretend you do not see.

I wonder if you are still impressed.  Actually, I don't wonder at all:  knowing the mindset of you three, and your kindred pals, you probably are working on some kind of half-baked rationale for chavez's overt anti-Semitism even as I type this.

I hope I am wrong.  Because if I am right, you are even more pathetic than I thought.

Ken Berwitz

I mostly like Chris Christie.  I certainly like his blunt honesty. 

And I hope he's ok with mine.  Because I am here to tell him, and you, that it is absolutely ludicrous to fly flags at half-staff for Whitney Houston.

Whitney Houston was a one-time highly successful singing star, who destroyed her career, and quite possibly took her own life, through addictions to alcohol and drugs.  What part of that - the good or the bad - makes her worthy of having flags flown at half staff?  The answer is absolutely nothing. 

Read this excerpt from an article at the web site for CBS - Dallas/Fort Worth.  See if you agree with Ms. McGeath or Governor Christie:

ARLINGTON (CBSDFW.COM) – Flags will be lowered in New Jersey Saturday, the day of Whitney Houston’s funeral. But a Marine mom in Arlington says it’s an honor Houston doesn’t deserve.

When Phyllis McGeath heard Gov. Chris Christie had ordered flags lowered to half-staff for Houston, she said she felt a pain deep inside her.

“I was hurt and offended. Disappointed. Saddened,” she said. “I felt like the honor that was given to my son was tarnished.”

McGeath had three sons who were active duty Marines.

Her oldest, Philip, was killed by a suicide bomber just four weeks ago in Afghanistan. He was 25.

“They killed my son.They took his body away from me,” she said, overcome by emotion.

Arizona, the McGeath’s former home state, lowered their flags in his honor.

“That honor meant a lot to me,” McGeath said.

McGeath says Houston is not deserving of that same honor.

“Nothing against Ms. Houston because she was a beautiful singer and I was a fan for years,” McGeath said.But, “It was like putting them on the same level. And I know how my son lived. And I know through the media how Ms. Houston lived,” she said.

New Jersey’s Governor, Chris Christie, defended his decision to lower the flags in his state saying he wasn’t honoring Houston as a role model but as “a daughter of New Jersey.”

I know where I stand.  Phyllis McGeath is 100% correct and Governor Christie is dead wrong. 

"A daughter of New Jersey?"  What in the world is that supposed to mean?  Every woman who was born in the Garden State is a daughter of New Jersey.  Women (and men) of every color, size and shape who led productive, even exemplary, lives, die every single day.  Are we going to keep the flags perpetually at half-staff for them? 

And what happens if, say, Jerry Lewis (born in Newark),  Danny DeVito (Neptune) or Michael Douglas (New Brunswick) should die?  Are we going to be lowering flags for them too?  Where does it end?

Look, I don't think we are going to see a change of heart in this matter.  When Governor Christie makes up his mind, the party is pretty much over.  Besides, he has put himself in a position where he is way past the point of no return:  to reverse this decision would now come across as an insult. 

But that doesn't change the fact that it is a bad decision, which trivializes the true heroes in whose honor flags should be lowered.  Like Philip McGeath, for example.

This is a terrible lapse in judgment by Governor Christie.  I hope he has the capacity to learn from it.

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

UPDATE:  FYI:  I feel the same way about naming a warship after former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.  I am terribly sorry that she was shot last year.  But how does that translate into her name on a warship?  What does one thing have to do with another?

SECOND UPDATE:  It is Friday morning, and I just read, on politico.com, that New Jersey also flew flags at half staff for Frank Sinatra and the E Street band's Clarence Clemons.  For the record, I can see it for Frank Sinatra, who was a world renowned entertainer for over 60 years, a civil rights pioneer and a philanthropist. 

Ken Berwitz

What does Barack Obama have against Black children in Washington D.C., whose parents desperately want to rescue them from schools that not only do not educate them, but are often dangerous for any decent child to go to?

Excerpted from Lindsey Burke's piece at heritage.org.  The bold print is mine:

The Obama administration is once again standing with education special interest groups and against low-income children in Washington, D.C. His 2013 budget request zeros out funding for the highly successful D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which was revived last year thanks to the hard work of Speaker John Boehner and the thousands of D.C. families who received scholarships to attend a private school of choice.

 

In 2009, Senator Dick Durbin included a provision in an omnibus spending bill prohibiting any new children from receiving scholarships unless the program was fully reauthorized by Congress and authorized by the D.C. City Council. The make-up of Congress in 2009 was such that a reauthorization of the voucher program was highly unlikely, meaning Durbin’s provision effectively doomed the program, since no new children were allowed to receive scholarships.

 

But in April 2011, Speaker John Boehner forced President Obama’s hand during heated budget negotiations, securing the restoration and expansion of the D.C. OSP. Families were elated. Once again, children would have the opportunity apply for scholarships to attend a private school of their choice, providing them a lifeline out of the underperforming and often dangerous D.C. Public Schools.

 

The President’s budget request signals that his administration is more interested in propping up a government school system than providing options for children to receive a quality education.

Is Barack Obama against disadvantaged students in Washington D.C. - the vast majority of them Black - getting a quality education instead of being "educated" by a union-dominated, seniority-over-capability system that dooms most children right from the starting gate?

He certainly is not against his children getting a quality education.  Sasha and Malia Obama attend the Sidwell Friends school - and, in D.C., it doesn't get any better than that.

But as for the children whose parents are willing to pay thousands out of their own pockets - often at great hardship - and also need the Opportunity Scholarship grant, to get into Sidwell Friends and other excellent schools?  Forget it.  Barack Obama owes the teachers' union big-time.  So, as far as he is concerned, they can go right back to the educational hellhole they are trying to escape.

Can you even begin to imagine the media outcry if this were a White Republican President consigning Black children, hungry for a quality education, to a place where it is least likely that they will get one?   Well where is it now, when the President screwing these children is Barack Obama?

I'll tell you where the media outcry is.  The same place it was when Mr. Obama tried to do it in 2011.  Nowhere.

And, yes, these are the same media people who squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Thank you John Boehner for fighting a good fight on behalf of young Black minds.

Shame on Barack Obama for valuing a union's $$$ support over these children.  And shame on the media which have buried this ugly story to protect him. 

Ken Berwitz

The latest news on the huge - and still burgeoning - Green Scandal comes from an ulikely source:  The Washington Post.

In yesterday's major exposé by Carol D. Leonnig and Joe Stephens, we find out that almost 4 billion dollars - that we know of so far - has been shunted over to companies tied to a few "lucky" Barack Obama contributors:

During (the three years Mr. Obama has been President)…the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.

Obama’s program to invest federal funds in start-up companies — and the failure of some of those companies — is becoming a rallying cry for opponents in the presidential race. Mitt Romney has promised to focus on Obama’s “record” as a “venture capitalist.” And in ads and speeches, conservative groups and the Republican candidates are zeroing in on the administration’s decision to extend $535 million to the now-shuttered solar firm Solyndra and billions of dollars more to clean-tech start-ups backed by the president’s political allies.

And how does the administration respond?  Here, in one paragraph, is their BS and the Leonnig/Stephens debunking of it:

White House officials stress that staffers and advisers with venture capital ties did not make funding decisions related to these companies. But e-mails released in a congressional probe of Obama’s clean-tech program show that staff and advisers with links to venture firms informally advocated for some of those companies.

See, they didn't formally advocate for the Obama-supporter companies.  They informally advocated.  So it wasn't mentioned and, presumably, should not count.  Got it?

In my opinion, just about no one is going to believe this BS.  There will be people who call the administration on it, and I have no doubt there will be people willing to pretend it is believable because they support Barack Obama.  But just about no one is going to believe this BS. 

Why won't they believe it?  Because it so obviously is BS. 

"Green" companies are failing left and right.  Solyndra, Evergreen, SunPower, to name just three (yes, there are more).  And - wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles - every one of them seems to have a big Obama $$$ guy either running it or a major investor.

Congratulations to the Washington Post for acting like journalists and putting up this story.  And shame on the majority of media which, having seen the Post's exposé, blithely ignored it to keep the sheeple nice and ignorant of how Barack Obama has turned the White House into a Chicago back room.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Ken Berwitz

Today we have the news that dailykos.com, a major (probably the major left wing web site out there) has decided to mimic what Rush Limbaugh did in 2008, and pump up the Republican candidate who is most likely to prolong the party's primary fight. 

In 2008, Limbaugh called it "Operation Chaos".  In 2012 Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, also known as "kos", is calling it "Operation Hilarity".

Excerpted from the kos blog, announcing this "operation:

It's time for us to take an active role in the GOP nomination process. That's right, it's time for those of us who live in open primary and caucus states—Michigan, North Dakota, Vermont and Tennessee in the next three weeks—to head out and cast a vote for Rick Santorum.

 

The longer this GOP primary drags on, the better the numbers for Team Blue. Not only is President Barack Obama rising in comparison to the clowns in the GOP field, but GOP intensity is down—which would have repercussions all the way down the ballot.

The longer this thing drags out, the more unpopular the Republican presidential pretenders become. Just look at Mitt Romney's trajectory, which followed Herman Cain's trajectory, and Newt Gingrich's trajectory, and Michelle Bachmann's trajectory, and so on.

And if you're squeamish about this, just remember what's at stake—not just the White House, but Nancy Pelosi's gavel and a Senate run by Mitch McConnell. The weaker the GOP standard bearer, the better our chances in November. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have had no problem meddling in our own contests. And if there's one thing Daily Kos is about, it's about fighting fire with fire.

And in any case, it's freaking hilarious. I mean, Rick Santorum? Really? The Republicans have offered up this big, slow, juicy softball. Let's have fun whacking the heck out of it.

As you can see, the idea is to extend the primary battle as far as it can go, and maybe wind up with a big, slow, juicy softball" in Rick Santorum.

My reaction?  Remember that old adage, "be careful what you wish for, "kos" you just might get it". 

The "kos" crowd fears Mitt Romney more than Rick Santorum because they (correctly) believe that, as the more moderate of the two, he can bring in a greater number of independents and disaffected Democrats, thus have a better chance to win the election.

But there are two things they are not taking into account:

1) Importantly, if a Republican does win, they want it to be the more moderate alternative.  Not that Mitt Romney is anything near a preferred candidate for the hard left, but they would certainly prefer him over Rick Santorum;

2) Maybe even more importantly, if (as predicted) gas prices soar, and the economy does not significantly move forward (keeping in mind that, assuming there even is an economic recovery, higher gas/oil prices will stop it in its tracks), just about anyone who runs against Barack Obama has a signficantly greater chance of winning. 

What is Obama going to do?  Blame our gas and oil dependency on Republicans?  Even the usually reliable Accomplice Media won't help him out on that one.

And if that happens, "Operation Hilarity" just might wind up giving us President Santorum - far and away their least acceptable choice - for the next four years. 

Like I said, be careful what you wish for, kos,.........

Ken Berwitz

Let's end the day with this very funny story from our friend Toyman Bob:

Five surgeons from big cities are discussing who makes the best patients to operate on.......

 

The first surgeon, from New York , says, "I like to see accountants on my operating table because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.."

 

The second, from Chicago , responds, "Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside of them is color coded."

 

The third surgeon, from Dallas , says, "No, I really think librarians are the best, everything inside of them is in alphabetical order"

 

The fourth surgeon, from Los Angeles chimes in: "You know, I like construction workers... Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over."

 

But the fifth surgeon, from Washington DC , shut them all up when he observed: "You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains, and no spine. Plus, the head and the ass are interchangeable.”

Ken Berwitz

You certainly can tell that it is an election year.

According to a just-published Associated Press report, President Obama, while campaigni...er, I mean presenting issues in a way that enables him to charge the taxpayer rather than his re-election campaign, has called for lower taxes on domestic manufacturers, coupled with higher taxes for companies that have outsourced to other countries.

The company he picked as a showcase for this fascinating initiative is Master Lock, which has brought back....better sit down, this is huge....a total of 100 jobs from Asia. 

I'm sure you will join me in amazement that Masterlock did not singlehandedly solve the unemployment problem. 

But the great Master Lock triumph and Mr. Obama's mighty proposals notwithstanding, I do have a question.

My question is how come, when President Obama had a huge majority in both houses of congress for two full years, he didn't pass any of these proposals?  It's not like Republicans would have given him an argument on lowering taxes for manufacturing companies, is it?

The answer - not that you don't already know it - is that Barack Obama doesn't give a damn about lowering taxes on companies.  If he did, the taxes could have been lowered at any time during his presidency; not only his first two years, but during this third year with a Republican majority in the house.  (Can anyone look me in the eye and tell me Republicans would oppose a Presidential initiative to lower corporate taxes?)

Therefore, the reason that Barack Obama can sanctimoniously demand immediate action on tax cutting proposals today, is that he intentionally didn't cut those taxes until today. 

Does that drip with sincerity, or what?

And, based on how President Obama operates, it is an excellent bet that even if there eventually is a tax-cutting proposal, it will not be as straightforward as what he is talking about now.  You can bet that it will be stacked with controversial components, specifically designed to cause a political battle -- so that Mr. Obama can pretend to be above the fray, and try to sell voters on the premise that Republicans, not Democrats, have kept business taxes so high.

The ironic part of this charade is that, if Mr. Obama actually did have any serious interest in stimulating domestic manufacturing through tax cuts, and had passed such legislation at the beginning of his presidency, the benefits would be paying him major political dividends right now. 

But the truth is that neither Barack Obama nor his Democrat Party have had any interest at all in providing such tax relief.  Not then and not now.  The proof is in what they did pass instead:  a woeful "stimulus package" that put us over 5 trillion more dollars in debt and caused a rise rather than a drop in unemployment.

Simply put:  if he didn't do it for the last three years, why in the world should we believe he is sincere about it now?

You can lower taxes any time you want to Mr. President -- as long as you get YOUR party to go along with it.  Will you do so?  I'll believe it when I see it.

Ken Berwitz

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive":  Sir Walter Scott

Sir Walter Scott:  that guy knew what he was talking about.

ObamaCare:  Is it a tax or is it a mandate?  Well, that all depends on who in this woebegotten administration you ask.

Excerpted from Philip Klein's blog at washingtonexaminer.com:

Testifying before Congress this morning, President Obama's acting budget director Jeffrey Zients directly undercut one of the administration's key legal defenses of its national health care law as it nears a hearing before the Supreme Court.

In a hearing of the House Budget Committee Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., pressed Zients on whether the penalty that the health care law imposes on individuals who do not purchase health insurance constitutes a tax. Eventually, Zients said it did not.

But this directly contradicts one of the arguments the Obama administration is making before the Supreme Court in defense of the health care law, which is that the mandate is Constitutional because it's a tax and government has taxing power.

This has always been a tricky argument for the Obama administration, because admitting that the mandate is a tax means that Obama violated his pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000. In September 2009, Obama told ABC's George Stephanapoulos that the mandate was not a tax. But by the following June, his administration was arguing in court that it was.

Now the administration is making both arguments simultaneously. Before Congress, Zients is arguing that it is not a tax. But before the Supreme Court next month, the administration will argue that it is, in fact, a tax.

"The practical operation of the minimum coverage provision is as a tax law," reads the administration's Supreme Court brief filed last month. "It is fully integrated into the tax system, will raise substantial revenue, and triggers only tax consequences for non-compliance."

See, this is what happens when you are constantly lying.  You get caught in your lies.  And, lamentably, lying may well be this administration's single greatest talent.

The problem?   This lie may well cost it a Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare. 

Actually, more exactly, it is not the problem, it is their problem - "they" being the Obama administration.  For most of the rest of us, it is a liberation.

Ken Berwitz

Remember LightSquared?  The multi-billion dollar wireless network that had a tiny little flaw -- namely that it would disrupt GPS devices, like, say, at airports.  Little places like that.

Well, it is now officially gone.  Or is it?

First let's look at this excerpt from Brendan Sasso's piece at thehill.com:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) moved to reject LightSquared's planned wireless network on Tuesday after the president's top adviser on telecom issues said there is "no practical way" to prevent the network from disrupting GPS devices.

Philip Falcone and his investment firm Harbinger Capital invested billions of dollars in LightSquared's plan to build a nationwide high-speed cellphone network, which now appears dead.

The FCC granted LightSquared a conditional waiver to move forward last year, but the company was required to demonstrate that it could first solve the interference problem. 

On Tuesday, Lawrence Strickling, the assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department, said government testing showed LightSquared's network would cause widespread problems with GPS devices, including ones used by pilots to prevent their airplanes from crashing.

 "We conclude at this time that there are no mitigation strategies that both solve the interference issues and provide LightSquared with an adequate commercial network deployment," Strickling wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. 

Pretty definitive, isn't it?  So why am I skeptical? 

Well, click here and read about General William Shelton, head of the Air Force Space Command, telling house members that the Obama administration tried to pressure him into changing his testimony about LightSquared so that the company would be put in a more favorable light regarding the GPS issue.

Oh, did I mention that Philip Falcone, the multi-billion dollar investor in LightSquared, is a big-time Obama supporter and contributor?  Pure coincidence, I'm sure. 

Now do you see why I am skeptical? 

Do you have any doubt that if Barack Obama is re-elected - i.e. four more years, but this time without out having to worry about being re-elected - that LightSquared will be right back on the table?

Mr. Obama currently runs the Presidency as if he learned everything he knows from hugo chavez (which, God help us, may have an element of truth to it).  Will being freed of any concern over re-election make him less imperious?  Or more?  You tell me. 

Think about it.  Especially on election day.

Ken Berwitz

Phil Griffin on how MSNBC selects its on-air "talent":

"I'm sorry, I don't care about journalists. … I want fair-minded, smart people who understand the world and can interpret it," he said. "If they're journalists, great. This notion that you somehow you have to have done something to earn so-called journalists' credentials? Stop."

Here is the fair-minded MSNBC evening lineup:

-5:00PM:  Chris Matthews (lifelong Democrat operative and leftist)

-6:00PM:  al sharpton (hard-left career racist and anti-Semite)

-7:00PM:  Chris Matthews again (see 5:00PM)

-8:00PM:  Ed Schultz (hard-leftist...after failing as a conservative in a previous radio show)

-9:00PM:  Rachel Maddow (hard-leftist)

-10:00PM:  Lawrence O'Donnell. (hard-leftist and self-described socialist)

And, in case you're wondering, the daytime lineup, featuring people like Tamron Hall (hard-leftist), Martin Bashir (hard-leftist) and Dylan Ratigan (hard-leftist), is just as "fair- minded".

Did I call this the laugh of the week?  How about the laugh of the month.  Or even longer.

Ken Berwitz

First we have Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, as excerpted from an article by Stephen Hayes' for weeklystandard.com:

Walker came to office in the Republican wave of 2010. He inherited a mess. Under his profligate predecessor, Jim Doyle, state government had operated almost as a slush fund for public employee unions. Giveaways to teachers and others put the state on an unsustainable fiscal path, so Doyle raised some taxes and threatened to raise others. He raided a state fund set up to cover medical liability, essentially stealing contributions doctors had made to the pooled account. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against that pilfering, but the money had already been spent. Even after budget gimmickry that would make Fannie and Freddie blush, the official deficit was $3.6 billion.

 

Just over a year later, Walker and the Republicans in the state legislature have nearly eliminated the deficit. For the two-year budget cycle, the state will show a $143 million shortfall because the stagnant economy has resulted in lower tax receipts than had been projected. But the shortfall is for the first half of the cycle; Wisconsin will run a surplus in the current fiscal year. And Walker said last week that he will eliminate the remaining shortfall without raising taxes. It’s a credible claim. He reduced the deficit without raising taxes. In fact, one of his first moves upon being sworn in was to cut taxes on businesses. His subsequent reforms have allowed property tax receipts to go down for the first time in years—by some $47 million.

Then we have President Obama, excerpted from an article at realclearpolitics.com:

In an interview with Atlanta's local Fox affiliate WAGA-TV Preisdent Obama explains why he was unable to cut the deficit in half in his first term, a promise he made as a candidate.

Obama was lobbed the question by a sympathetic reporter who said Obama is getting "pelted in the media" for making a campaign promise he did not keep.

"Well we're not there because this recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of else realized," Obama said about his inability to cut the deficit in half.

"Everybody who is out there back in 2009, if you look back what their estimates were in terms of how many jobs had been lost, how bad the economy had contracted when I took office everybody had underestimated it. People thought that the economy contracted 3%, it turns it was close to 9%. We lost 8 million jobs just in a year's span, about half a year before I took office and about a half a year after I took office," Obama said.

"So, the die had been cast and a lot of us didn't understand how bad it was going to get. That increases the deficit because less tax revenues come in and it means more people are getting unemployment insurance, we're helping states more so they don't teachers, etc. The key though is that we're setting ourselves on a path so that we can get our debt under control."

Summary:

-Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker inherited a mess.  He did not whine or cry or complain or try to shunt off the blame.  He did something about it.  And he refused to worry about what the entrenched interests, which were the cause of Wisconsin's fiscal problems, would do to him and his party because of his actions. 

The result?  In two years, Wisconsin has turned around and is a huge, remarkable success story.

-President Obama inherited a mess.  He has never stopped whining, crying, complaining and shunting off the blame.  What he did about it, using his massive Democrat majorities in both houses of congress, was to pass the so-called "stimulus package".

The result?  After 3 years, we are five trillion dollars more in debt:  the fastest growing debt by far in the history of the country.  The entrenched interests have gotten nothing but richer and fatter.  And unemployment, instead of dropping, has jumped far higher.  To this day, it remains higher than it was the day the "stimulus package" was enacted.

As for Mr. Obama's whiney BS that we lost 8 million jobs from the half year before he took office to the half year afterwards, but no one realized how bad it was?  He is lying to our faces.

The "stimulus package" was enacted on February 17th, 2009.  That is seven months into the period that Mr. Obama is citing.  Is he telling us with a straight face that he could not have known how bad things were more than halfway through the time it occurred?  That he didn't notice it?  Yes he is. 

That is the equivalent of someone telling us, after a 12 inch snowstorm, that he didn't notice any snow until there were 7 inches on the ground. 

It is an obvious, blatant, flat-out lie.

Further, when Mr. Obama pushed the "stimulus package" through - again, 7 months into the 12 month period he is citing - he told us that it would stanch unemployment at 8%.  In reality, it jumped over 10% and has never gotten back even to the 8% he started with.  His action has failed so badly that millions of people have given up looking and dropped out of the labor force altogether.

Take a good look at the comparison.  Think it over.  And tell me which kind of governance you would prefer.

To Wisconsin:  Congratulations for electing Scott Walker your Governor.  May you continue to reap the benefits of your choice. 

To the country:  The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Ken Berwitz

Can Duluth Mayor Don Ness possibly be this dense?  Can anyone possibly be this dense?

Mayor Ness has decided that a good way to fight racism would be putting up billboards and posters throughout Duluth which clearly suggest that all Whites are racists. 

Think I'm kidding?  then read all about it via the following this excerpt from an article in Friday's Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

DULUTH - A close-up of a white woman's face confronts motorists from billboards plastered along major roads here with the message, in large, black letters: "It's hard to see racism when you're white."

The billboards are part of the Un-Fair Campaign, which also includes dozens of posters that have appeared in office windows, including one poster depicting a young woman with this message written in black marker across her forehead: "Is white skin really fair skin?"

One of the stated goals of the campaign is to create a community dialogue. In that regard, it got more than it bargained for.

Hundreds of the city's white residents have complained that the campaign's kick-off images and messages are offensive. The campaign, they say, blames all racism on whites and implies that white people aren't smart enough to recognize racism.

Meanwhile, the campaign's defenders and sponsors, including Mayor Don Ness, say they've received dozens of hateful messages and e-mails from all over the world, as news of the campaign hit websites that cater to white supremacists and other racists. One message to Ness: "Die, scum, die."

 You read something like this, and you have to wonder if Ness is the single dumbest mayor in the USA or just flat-out non compos mentis.

Ness is ok with a one-size-fits-all stereotype that, by virtue of skin color alone, White people have difficulty figuring out what racism is.  He is also ok with a one-size-fits all stereotype that, by virtue of skin color alone, it is reasonable to question whether White people are capable of being fair.  And, apparently, dozens of others just like it.  Then he wonders why he gets hate-responses? 

Here's a hint, Mayor Ness:  birds of a feather flock together.   

My favorite part is Ness's explanation for why he is doing this.  It is not blatant racism, you see.  It is just to "create a community dialogue".  

That, folks, is exactly what you would expect from a left wing elitist who is ok with his kind of racism because he "knows" it is more elevated than their kind of racism. 

If Mayor Ness cannot see what is wrong with his overtly disgusting racist crap, then it seems to me that the people of Duluth need to do something about it -- unless, of course, overtly disgusting racist crap is OK with them.

When's the next election?

Ken Berwitz

How are President Obama and his foreign policy "experts" handling the Egypt-Israel situation?  Let's take a look at excerpts from three reports and see.

From my blog of August 23, 2011, in which I quoted from an article in Israel's Arutz Sheva (Israel National News).  The bold print is mine:

A senior cleric in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has declared that ordinary Egyptians are obligated to kill 'Zionists' whom they encounter. According to Arutz Sheva Arab affairs expert Dalit Halevy, the pronouncement is part of a general wave of incitement that directly endangers Israelis who are currently in Egypt.

This follows Muslim Brotherhood calls to end the peace treaty with Egypt and threats to kill Israel's ambassador if he does not leave the country. Although there are many benefits for Egypt if it continues its relations with Israel, not the least of which is continued American aid, that is not always what counts in the MIddle East where hatred is often stronger than logic.

Dr. Salah Sultan, a lecturer on Islamic law in Cairo University and head of the Al Quds Committee in the World Federation of Islamic Scholars, declared Friday that an Egyptian citizen who encounters a "Zionist" should kill him. This should be done because Israel "killed" the Camp David Accord, he explained. Sultan said that Israel provokes Egypt by pointing its jet fighters at Egyptian soldiers.

 

Sultan spoke at a protest outside Israel's Cairo embassy, before about 200 members of the Freedom and Justice Party (a front for the Islamic Brotherhood), the Islamic Brotherhood movement, and other extreme groups.

 

In an April interview Sultan said that "the liberation of Palestine will come from Tahrir Square."

 

When the Crusaders invaded Jerusalem, the liberation began from Egypt, he said. Similarly, when Mongols reached Syria in the 13th century CE, Egyptians were the ones who organized and blocked them. "The next campaign [against Israel] will be launched from Egypt," he said. 

Excerpted from Oren Kessler's article in yesterday's Jerusalem Post:

US aid to Egypt is guaranteed by the Camp David Accords, and stopping it would be a violation of that treaty, a high-ranking Muslim Brotherhood lawmaker said Sunday.

Essam El-Erian, who also serves as chairman of the Egyptian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said that should aid from Washington be cut, the Brotherhood would consider changing the terms of Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

 

El-Erian told the London-based newspaper Al-Hayat the US needs to understand that “what was acceptable before the revolution is no longer,” and that should the aid provisions outlined in the treaty be modified, it could open the door to further changes in the agreement.

And excerpted from Hilary Leila Kreiger's article in today's Jerusalem Post:

WASHINGTON – Despite recent tensions between the US and Egypt and a new Palestinian Authority government set to include Hamas, the Obama administration budget unveiled Monday maintains nearly the same level of funding for both in 2013.

Egypt, which has arrested several US citizens who work for NGOs promoting democracy, is slated to receive $1.3 billion for military assistance under the plan and $250 million for economic assistance, as was also approved for 2012.

Let's review:

-For a full half year, the Muslim brotherhood - which, with its even more fundamentalist Salafist pals just won about 3/4 of the Egyptian parliamentary elections - have been on record as supporting termination of the 33 year peace treaty with Israel and the killing of "Zionist" Jews (which, of course means any Jew at all...unless you think they'll ask each Jew's opinion about Israel before deciding what to do);

-Yesterday, The Muslim brotherhood threatened that if the USA doesn't hand over all the aid Egypt got when Hosni Mubarak was in power, they would "consider changing the terms" of the peace treaty --- that's right, the same peace treaty they are on record as rejecting;

-And, today, the Obama administration announces Egypt will get every cent.  But that's not enough.  As an extra added attraction we will be giving the Palestinian Authority - which has formally unified with terrorist hamas, whose charter specifically calls for the annihilation of Israel and death to all Jews - virtually the same amount of aid as we gave it last year.

How can anyone who supports Israel, Jew or non-Jew, vote for a man whose administration would do this?

And how can "The Lost Tribe", my term for Israel-supporting Jews who keep figuring out ways of also supporting Barack Obama regardless of how much he damages Israel, explain this one away? 

I don't know the answer.  But I promise you that these pathetic, self-deluded fools will try.

Ken Berwitz

Today's New York Times has a number of letters to the editor concerning the Obama administration's mandate that Catholic institutions must, one way or another, provide contraceptive and abortion services to women.

Not surprisingly, this being the Times, most of them support Mr. Obama's "compromise" position.

But here is the one letter that does not.  I want you to see it because a) it makes so much sense and b) I am so surprised that the Times let it it slip through.  Please pay special attention to the last sentence, which I have put in bold print:

To the Editor:

It is laughable to think that Catholic and other religious institutions won’t be paying for the “free” contraception under President Obama’s proposed “accommodation.”

The religious institutions will still pay: the insurance companies that supply the contraceptives will simply charge the religious institutions a higher premium to cover the cost of the contraceptives, plus the insurance company’s additional administrative costs.

The subterfuge of the “accommodation” makes the attack on religious liberty and freedom of conscience only more egregious. And to think that I was considering supporting the president’s re-election.

ROBERT ATKINSON
New York, Feb. 12, 2012

Does Mr. Atkinson make sense?  You bet he does.

And that last sentence?  If I were Obama & Co. I would be plenty worried about how many other voters, who might otherwise have pulled the lever for him, are saying the same thing. 

To Mr. Atkinson (who probably is Catholic but doesn't say for sure):  Don't think you are alone.  It is an excellent bet that you have plenty of company - both in and out of New York.

Ken Berwitz

This has nothing to do with politics, but……

As a long-time Yankee fan, I am rooting very hard for the Bronx Bombers to complete a trade – currently being discussed with the Pittsburgh Pirates, but any team will do – that takes A. J. Burnett off their roster.

It is not just that Mr. Burnett has been a bust during his three years in pinstripes (though it would not surprise me a bit if he did better outside of New York City).  It is not just the annoying, unflattering tattoos that seem to be everywhere on him other than his face (though who knows if he has new ones this year).  And it is not just his extraordinarily stupid, childish and dangerous habit of hitting teammates in the face with shaving cream pies after they get a game-winning hit.  

It is a combination of those three things.

On the plus side, I do give Mr. Burnett credit for being bluntly honest about how poorly he has performed as a Yankee.  But being honest about poor performance doesn’t change the fact that was poor performance.

Or, put another way, let me paraphrase that great folk classic “So Long It’s Been Good To Know You”: 

I went to some fans and I asked about you

They all said trade him, oh trade him please do

He’s lost all those games and his pie throwing sucks

And he’s not worth the 16.5 million bucks….

So long, it’s been good to know you,

So long, it’s been good to know you

So long, it’s been good to know you,

Been too long since you have been with the team…..

And a trade is our one biggest dream!

Ken Berwitz

Whitney Houston was an enormously successful pop singer of the 80's and into the 90's. 

After that, her career descended and largely ended, most likely due to drugs, alcohol and an abusive relationship with her gangsta-rap-thug husband of 15 years, bobby brown. 

Ms. Houston died in Beverly Hills, California just before the Grammy awards show.

I am sorry that Whitney Houston died.  I am very sorry for her 19 year old daughter who, between what her mother became and her father apparently always was, is the modern definition of a "poor little rich girl".

But I am also up to here with the nonstop reportage of Whitney Houston's death, as if I am breathlessly awaiting every possible bit of news about whether she died before or after getting into the bathtub, or what fawning adoration the latest friend, relative, fan or hotel staffer has to impart.  I consider it another indication - among the many - of how low media have fallen.

-The European economy (and possibly ours with it) is going down in flames;

-Athens has riots in the streets;

-Civilians are being slaughtered in Syria; 

-Israeli diplomats in cities around the world are being attacked, apparently by Iran; 

-We have a trillion dollar deficit "budget" created (and I do mean created) by President Obama which is a joke, if media bothered to look at it; 

-We have an uproar over contraceptive and abortion mandates that Catholic insitutions are being told they must live with; 

-We have the Operation Fast and Furious scandal - huge and growing; 

-We have the Green scandal - huge and growing.

But media are talking about little other than the death of a one-time pop star who, not to be cruel, was a has-been, without a hit in decades, whose only claim to fame during these years was her troubled personal life.

Enough already. 

Is Whitney Houston's death a news story?  Yes.  Should it be reported?  Yes.  But is it a story that should supersede all other news this week?  Not even remotely close.

To our media:  Can you please try to act as though there are more important things to report?   Because, guess what?  There really are.  Thanks.

Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama has produced a "budget" which, according to the Wall Street Journal, will result in another trillion dollar-plus, entitlement-gorged deficit for the coming fiscal year.  It doesn't even read like a budget; it reads like a phony politician's campaign speech that promises everything to everyone.

But, that notwithstanding, it is "a balanced budget".  Just ask the latest Obama fart-catcher who has been trotted out to lie to us.

This one is Jeffrey Zients, the Obama administration's acting (play-acting is more like it) director of the Office of Management and Budget - who, I assume with 100% certainty, knows better. 

Here are his exact words:

"I think the President has put forward today a balanced budget.  Balanced in two ways. First of all, the President invests and makes immediate investments in job creation, starting with making sure that the payroll tax cut continues, and that we do not have a tax increase on 160 million Americans.  The President also has proposals to put Americans back to work, on infrastructure projects, to modernize our schools, to help rebuild our neighborhoods. At the same time, we have year over year of deficit reduction, leading to a stable debt to GDP ratio by 2018.  So it’s balanced, in that we have immediate job creation and then we have deficit reduction.  And the deficit reduction itself is done in a balanced way. $2.50 of spending cuts for every dollar of new revenue. So I think this is a responsible budget and we hope Congress takes it seriously and passes it's into law soon."

Have you ever seen such unadulterated, unintelligible, unintelligent, insulting BS in your entire life? 

This is so big a load that even Mr. Obama's usually reliable media pals can't pretend otherwise. 

In fact, I just received an email from the Republican National Committee which quotes, among others, NPR, the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC News and politico.com - a list you would expect to see in an email supporting the President.  But every one of those venues, and more, talk about what a failure this budget is. 

If that is what usually-reliable Obama-supporters are saying, do I have to tell you what the more centrist and rightward media are saying?

So thank you Jeffrey Zients for proving again that, when it comes to lying, this administration is in a league of its own.

And if you don't like being called a liar, I have two words for you.  STOP LYING.

Ken Berwitz

Remember the outcry when gas prices spiked under President George Bush?   

Of course you do.  It was absolutely deafening. 

What are YOU doing about it, Mr. President?  Why are YOU letting it happen?  Why aren't YOU depleting our strategic reserves so that people will not freeze this winter.  Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam. 

I especially remember senator Chuck "Don't stand between me and a camera crew" Schumer yelling louder than just about anyone about this.

Well, read the following excerpt from an article by Alan Farnham of abcnews.com, and then let's talk:

Gasoline prices could soon hit $4 a gallon, a threshold they haven't flirted with since last spring.

The average price paid by U.S. drivers for a gallon of regular now stands at $3.52, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which released its latest figures this afternoon. That price represents an increase of 0.04 percent from a week ago and 0.38 percent from a year ago.

Experts expect prices to spike another 60 cents or more, with the $4 mark being touched—or exceeded—sometime this summer, probably by Memorial Day weekend, the peak of the summer driving season. The last time the U.S. saw $4 gasoline was back in the summer of 2008.

You don't need me to tell you that gas prices have been high for most of the winter.  In the past several weeks, they have spiked maybe 30 cents a gallon.  And now we are being told they will soon hit $4.

So, have you heard an outcry?  Is anyone screaming things like "What are YOU doing about it, Mr. President?"  "Why are YOU letting it happen?"  "Why aren't YOU depleting our strategic reserves, so that people will not freeze this winter?" 

Do you hear so much as one minor peep from Chuck Schumer? 

Politically, this is very easy to understand.  Democrats attacked Bush for high gas prices, even though he was trying to increase the number of places we could drill for oil, but do not attack Barack Obama - their guy - for higher gas prices even though he has worked hard to stop domestic oil exploration every way he can.  Politicians are not expected to be neutral.

But our media?  They - at least ostensibly - are expected to be neutral.  And they certainly were happy to join Democrats in raising holy hell about higher gas prices when the President's name was Bush. 

Where are they now?

Amazing how many ways these "journalists" act as Barack Obama's Accomplice Media, isn't it? 

Ken Berwitz

As of today, 103 house members, three US Senators, two sitting Governors and every major Republican presidential candidate ave either demanded that disgraceful toady and Obama sock-puppet, Attorney General eric holder must resign over his lying and incompetence regarding Operation Fast and Furious, have signed an official letter of no-confidence over his misfeasant and malfeasant performance, or both.

Operation Fast and Furious, as readers of this blog know very well, is a huge scandal, which has put thousands of automatic weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels and is directly responsible for the deaths of at least one, probably two, US agents and hundreds of Mexican nationals - so far.

CBS has done significant reporting on Operation Fast and Furious.  It is a disgrace to what laughably passes for journalism today, that CBS should be commended for doing so, as if the network did something special.  OF COURSE they should be reporting on it. 

But commendations are in order. Because the other two major networks with nightly news broadcasts - NBC and ABC - have, to this date, never run even one story, big or small, about this scandal. 

NBC and ABC - not to mention most major print media - are not acting as journalists.  They are acting as the defensive line for Barack Obama, his administration and the Democrat Party.

They are beneath contempt.

Ken Berwitz

This is the easiest blog I will ever write. 

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget.

Here is Rep. Ryan's analysis, which makes absolute mincemeat of the so-called Obama "budget" -- and gives you an excellent idea of why this administration - and so much of its Accomplice Media - fear him so much:

President's Budget Charts Path to Debt and Decline   President Obama’s budget is bad for jobs, bad for seniors, and makes the economy worse. House Budget Committee And Senate Budget Committee Republican Summary Of President’s FY2013 Budget February 13, 2012   The President has not merely ducked from our fiscal and economic challenges, but—with his fourth straight budget flop—he has advanced policies that dangerously accelerate the crisis before us. His gimmick-filled budget fails to reduce the fast-rising debt, permanently entrenches unsustainable levels of government spending, and erects new barriers to upward mobility. His plan stifles economic growth, threatens the health and retirement security of millions of Americans, and commits the next generation to a diminished future.   Spends Too Much: $47 Trillion In Ten Years — A Net Increase Over Current Projections   After four straight years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits (breaking his promise to cut the deficit in half), President Obama’s budget worsens our fiscal crisis and speeds the country to bankruptcy. Three years after the passage of the President’s trillion-dollar spending stimulus, this gimmick-filled budget calls for more wasteful spending taken from workers’ paychecks or borrowed from abroad. The massive spending increases are greater than the few proposed spending reductions.  Spending in FY13: $3.8 trillion  Spending in FY22: $5.8 trillion  Increased spending concealed through gimmicks: $1.5 trillion  Total government spending over the next ten years: $47 trillion   Taxes Too Much: $1.9 Trillion In New Taxes   The President’s budget imposes a heavy cost for its commitment to intrusive government—diminishing economic opportunity by imposing the largest tax hike in history. Taking trillions more tax dollars from hardworking American families will further depress wages and destroy jobs at a time when millions of Americans remain out of work. In total, this budget imposes $1.9 trillion in new taxes on families, small businesses, and job creators—all to fund wasteful Washington spending.  Income tax hike: $1.4 trillion  Death tax hike: $143 billion  Other tax increases: $340 billion   Borrows Too Much: $11 Trillion Added To The Debt   Under President Obama’s watch, the federal government’s total debt has surpassed the size of the economy—undermining job creation today and threatening a debt crisis tomorrow. The President’s budget ignores the drivers of our debt, bringing America perilously close to a European-style crisis:  Deficit in FY12: $1.3 trillion  Deficit in FY13: $901 billion  Deficit in FY22: $704 billion  Gross debt accumulated during President's first term: $6.4 trillion  Gross debt at the end of FY22: $25.9 trillion  Annual interest payments on the debt by FY22: nearly $1 trillion   Gimmicks, Tricks and Broken Promises   The President’s meager deficit-reduction claims seek to take credit for over $2 trillion in savings already in law and the exploitation of discredited budget gimmicks, including almost $1 trillion in “savings” from money that was never requested and never to be spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.   By failing to put forward long-overdue reforms, his budget allows Social Security to fall into bankruptcy (imposing an across-the-board 23 percent cut on seniors) and gives unaccountable government bureaucrats control over cutting Medicare in ways that would result in denied care for seniors. No credible action is taken to lift the crushing burden of debt. This President’s empty promises are quickly becoming broken promises for millions of Americans.

Is Paul Ryan right or wrong?  You decide.  But do it carefully, because if Mr. Ryan is correct, and we re-elect President Obama.....

You didn't need me to finish that sentence, did you?

Ken Berwitz

I just took a look at www.freerepublic.com (which I read every day) and one of the posters put up a CNN article from just about 3 years ago:  February 23, 2009 - six days after passage of the so-called "stimulus package".

Here is an excerpt that might be of interest to you:

President Obama pledged Monday to cut the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit in half by the end of his first term.

He identified exploding health-care costs as the chief culprit behind rising federal deficits during a bipartisan "fiscal responsibility summit" convened to discuss ways to restore fiscal stability without deepening the recession.

Meeting with the congressional leadership of both parties, as well as a range of business, academic, financial and labor leaders, Obama warned that the country cannot continue its current rate of deficit spending without facing dire economic consequences.

"I refuse to leave our children with a debt they cannot repay," he said in remarks opening the one-day summit at the White House. "We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end. ... We cannot simply spend as we please." 

How's that for a stroll down memory lane?

I only wish Mr. Obama would take the stroll with me and explain why a) he has failed so miserably in that pledge and b) why ObamaCare, which was supposed to address health care costs, is making them rise instead of fall -- and that, of course, is before we get to a little matter of constitutionality:  i.e. whether the government can force people to take health care or be fined for not doing so - which has caused, I think, 28 states (so far) to challenge ObamaCare in the courts.

I'll wait for Mr. Obama's call, to invite me on that stroll.  But,somehow, I expect my wait will be a verrrrrry long one.

Ken Berwitz

Since our Accomplice Media have, for the most part, dropped coverage of what is going on in Egypt like a hot potato, I feel it necessary to keep you informed. 

Here is the latest, excerpted from an article by Amrutha Gayathri of International Business News:

Hazem Saleh Abu Ismail, Egypt's presidential candidate and a vocal supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, has said that there is no room for personal freedom in Islam. In a recent television interview translated and reported by Jihad Watch, Ismail said that being a Muslim is like being a member of the military, where one has to go by a dictatorial code of conduct.

"If you claim that Allah considers it your personal freedom, show me your reference? Nobody has ever said that - except for people have no understanding of Sharia," Ismail said.

Ismail asserted that he would enforce veil or Hijab for women under his presidency and that if a woman wants to abandon the veil, she should "change her creed". He said he is only obeying Allah, by imposing Islamic dress code.

"You see, this is the difficulty; this is Islam. Does she want to be a Muslim and not obey Allah's rules? Let them (women) say so; that's all I ask; let them be honorable and just speak up."

However, most Muslim countries, including Egypt, have harsh laws and restrictions against criticizing religion, and blasphemy is a crime that is punishable by death.  

There you go.  There's your Egyptian "freedom and democracy".  Isn't it wonderful?

The reality?  Egypt is a disaster heading toward complete catastrophe. 

Note to anyone who thinks this Muslim brotherhood supporting candidate is some way-out-there-somewhere wacko who could never win:  I strongly suggest you reference the parliamentary elections which were just held.  75% of the winners were either from the Muslim brotherhood or the Salafists, who (if possible) are even more fundamentalist. 

If you know that (and if you didn't before, you do now), you understand that Hazem Saleh Abu Ismail - or someone just as hardline fundamentalist, maybe even moreso - is most likely going to be the next President of Egypt.

And why are media finding what is happening in Egypt so non-newsworthy that they barely report about it anymore?  Could it have something to do with the fact that it shows just how wrong President Obama was?  What a complete foreign policy debacle he and his fart-catcher Hillary Clinton have overseen there? 

Is it because, if people understand what a disaster President Obama helped to facilitate in Egypt, media will also be forced to report on how Libya is turning out?  To inform readers/viewers/listeners that our bombing has allowed the country to go from a qaddafi hellhole to a rapidly developing al qaeda stronghold - at least as bad, and maybe even worse?  Will they have to show footage of the al qaeda flags that now fly in Libyan cities?

Remember when we had journalists, rather than leftward shills offering propaganda instead of honest news reporting?  You need a bit of a memory to do so, but once upon a time there was such a thing as journalistic integrity, in which reporters and editors, at least to some degree, subordinated their personal partisanship to honest coverage of people and events; even the network news and the New York Times.

Try and find it now. 

Ken Berwitz

If President Obama and his people thought that the firestorm over forcing Catholic institutions to offer contraception and abortion services would be solved through creating a bogus "compromise" and having his dutifully compliant Accomplice Media declare the matter settled, they were wrong.

This is a matter of religious belief, and intrusion into people's faiths (I put that in plural because, while Catholics are being talked about most, this affects other religious institutions as well).

Friday's Washington Times has an excellent editorial on the subject, which I urge you to read in its entirety.  Here is a particularly insightful part of it:

On Friday Mr. Obama proposed a new rule whereby the onus would be on the insurance companies who cover the employees to reach out with cost-free contraceptives.

It was typical of the administration to make the proposed deal a giveaway program. Mr. Obama seems to be saying that if you don’t see who is paying for the abortion pills then no one is. “Religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services,” he said. But of course they will. Insurance companies may be required by law to provide these services at no cost to the recipient, but costs are still involved. Employers will still be directly subsidizing the birth control plan. It was a classic Obama compromise; he gets 100 percent of what he wants and the other side gets a lecture about fairness.

In other words, President Obama's compromise is a full-of-excrement accounting dodge in which, instead of Catholic and other likeminded institutions paying for contraceptive/abortion services this way, they pay for contraceptive/abortion services that way.  The result - paying for contraceptive and abortion services which go directly against their religious beliefs - remains identical. 

Can someone explain to me how institutions being forced to pay an insurance company to provide contraceptives and abortion pills for their employees, means the institutions are not funding the contraceptives and abortion pills?  

For that matter, can someone explain to me why these items - which relate directly to women's choices, not medical conditions - are covered at all?  What other discretionary products do insurance companies pay for?

If you think hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, try hell hath no fury like religious people being forced by the government to go against their faith. 

Do Mr. Obama and his people really think that their ever-acquiescent Accomplice Media and the talking heads on MSNBC and CNN are going to convince either people of faith, or non-believers who support the right to practice a religious faith, that an attempt to force them into going against what they believe to be the word of God is somehow acceptable?

And can Mr. Obama possibly think that this won't significantly affect his standing in the Latino community, a very large percentage of which is comprised of deeply religious Catholics?  

The Republican Party, whose presidential nominees continue to fight among themselves during this strange and contentious primary season, needed a big boost; a new wedge issue which would greatly damage Barack Obama no matter who the ultimate nominee turns out to be. 

Ironically, it seems that Barack Obama himself has handed them one on a silver platter.

Ken Berwitz

Just who runs mediamatters.org, the far left, soros and moveon.org-funded web site?  How effective is mediamatters.org in shaping news reportage in this country?

Dailycaller.com's Tucker Carlson and Vince Coglianese have written a multi-part analysis (more exactly, an exposé) which attempts to answer these and other questions about the web site, its people, how it operates and who it influences.

Given that dailycaller.com is a successful conservative web site, it isn't hard to figure out where this is headed.  But the writing is good, the information seems referenced and, frankly, it will be fun to see a tear-down of people who - in my personal opinion - so richly deserve it.

Let me give you just a taste of the first installment:

Extensive interviews with a number of Brock’s current and former colleagues at Media Matters, as well as with leaders from across the spectrum of Democratic politics, reveal an organization roiled by its leader’s volatile and erratic behavior and struggles with mental illness, and an office where Brock’s executive assistant carried a handgun to public events in order to defend his boss from unseen threats.

 

Yet those same interviews, as well as a detailed organizational planning memo obtained by The Daily Caller, also suggest that Media Matters has to a great extent achieved its central goal of influencing the national media.

 

Founded by Brock in 2004 as a liberal counterweight to “conservative misinformation” in the press, Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. Brock, who collected over $250,000 in salary from Media Matters in 2010, has himself become a major fundraiser on the left. According to an internal memo obtained by TheDC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage.

 

Donors have every reason to expect success, as the group’s effect on many news organizations has already been profound. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”

Ken Berwitz

Continuing in the rich tradition of the Obama administration, President Obama's latest Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, is lying to us.

This particular lie concerns the budget that Democrats have not produced in almost THREE YEARS.

Following is Philip Klein's highly illuminating blog for washingtonexaminer.com.  I am posting the entire blog because it is too short to excerpt - and, of course, invite Mr.Klein to do the same with anything I blog as well:

Ken Berwitz

This blog is not easy to write.  I have been a fan of Tony Bennett's singing for many, many years - and I greatly respect his extraordinary talent as an artist as well.

But Mr. Bennett, sad to say, doesn't restrict himself to singing and painting.  He is a lunatic-fringe left winger who, based on the past few months, seems intent on making his legacy of incredibly stupid comments more prominent than his music and art.

Last September, Mr. Bennett had to contritely apologize for saying that the USA caused the 9/11 attacks.  That's right, he really did say that.

Excerpted from a CBS News report:

In a statement issued late Tuesday, according to Newsday.com, Bennett said, "There is simply no excuse for terrorism and the murder of the nearly 3,000 innocent victims of the 9/11 attacks on our country. My life experiences -- ranging from the Battle of the Bulge (in World War II) to marching with Martin Luther King -- made me a lifelong humanist and pacifist, and reinforced my belief that violence begets violence and that war is the lowest form of human behavior.

"I am sorry if my statements suggested anything other than an expression of my love for my country, my hope for humanity and my desire for peace throughout the world."

While promoting his new album of duets, "Duets II," on Stern's radio show, Bennett asserted that the U.S. was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

And now we have this equally incredible comment from Bennett at the Clive Davis "party" (which, in actuality, turned into a condolence call), just hours after the body of Whitney Houston was discovered. 

Excerpted from an article at TMZ.com:

Speaking just hours after the passing of Whitney Houston, legendary singer Tony Bennett said he feels with the rash of celebrity deaths recently ... it's time to legalize drugs. 

Bennett performed at the Beverly Hilton last night Clive Davis' pre-Grammy party, in an evening dedicated to Houston. Bennett told the crowd, "First it was Michael Jackson, then Amy Winehouse, now the magnificent Whitney Houston.  Let's legalize drugs, like Amsterdam, it's a very sane city now."

Unbelievable, but true.  Tony Bennett used the drug-related death of Michael Jackson, the drug-related death of Amy Winehouse, and now what quite possibly is the drug-related death of Whitney Houston, to plea for......legalizing drugs. 

Hey, why not?  Then everyone can join in the fun.

Personally, I am conflicted about legalizing some drugs under some circumstances - particularly marijuana.  I can make a case for both sides.

But would I ever exploit the death of three performers with significant drug problems which either caused or contributed to their deaths - one of whom had just died a few hours ago - to argue for legalization?  Does it even make any sense to use these deaths as an argument for legalization?  Not in a million years.  It is roughly the equivalent of citing three drunk drivers who caused fatal accidents to argue that bars should be able to sell more drinks before cutting people off.

Tony Bennett will be 86 years old this August.  Is it possible that these comments are a sign of senility?  Dementia?  Or is he just an idiot?

I don't know which it is.  So I don't know whether to pity Mr. Bennett or be outraged by him.  But either way, I wish that - other than singing, of course - he would just shut the hell up.

Ken Berwitz

“I’m in the business of clues and evidence; their only defense that they have given is they were tracking these guns and they were going after these big fish. Well, guess what? They weren’t tracking anything. Even in a minor investigation in law enforcement, we’re tracking drugs, we never let it out of our line of sight. We track with surveillance; we have people trail them; we have CIs, criminal informants, that give us information, then we effect an arrest. These are guns. How could anybody in their wildest imagination ever believe that this would end well? It hasn’t — and the end isn’t even here.”:  Paul Babeau, Sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona and Republican candidate for Arizona's 4th District.

Paul Babeau is a pull-no-punches lawman, who - with complete justification - is outraged at the Operation Fast and Furious coverup by Attorney General eric holder - and so much of our Accomplice Media.

If the above quote makes sense to you, I suggest clicking here and reading Tina Korbe's interview with Mr. Babeau at hotair.com.  There is a lot more where that came from.

According to Ms. Korbe, Babeau's congressional campaign is going quite well. 

I hope she's right.

Ken Berwitz

The following "Arab Spring" - related links are currently being provided by www.drudgereport.com:

SYRIAN GENERAL ASSASSINATED IN DAMASCUS...

Satellite spots tanks in Homs...

Unrest Spreads to Lebanon...

 

Gaddafi son warns of NEW uprising in Libya...

 

Egyptians protest against year of army rule...

Helluva spring.

Ken Berwitz

In 1971 Hasbro came up with a pre-school children's toy called the Weeble.  It consists of a series of egg-shaped characters that, because of their shape, always stay upright.  As their advertising jingle says, "Weebles wobble but they don't fall down"

I was reminded of Weebles yesterday, when Mitt Romney - his campaign again on the verge of a collapse - managed to win both the Maine caucuses and, maybe a lot more significantly, a straw poll of CPAC members. 

Mr. Romney did not win the caucus or the straw poll by a lot.  But he won.  And that still means he got more than anyone else did.

Does Mr. Romney's campaign for the Republican nomination wobble?  Yes it does, continuously.  But, at least so far, it has not fallen down.  Which is more than Bachmann, Huntsman, Cain, Perry and, maybe this time, fellow wobbler Gingrich can say.

Next stop:  Michigan and Arizona on February 28th.

Ken Berwitz

Whitney Houston died today in Beverly Hills, California, at the age of only 48.  At this early point the cause of death has not yet been announced.

What a shame.  Whitney Houston was a great talent, as indicated by the 200 million records/tapes/discs sold worldwide.  But her personal life had been extremely turbulent for some time, and she had major bouts with alcohol and drugs. 

Ms. Young died too young.  May she rest in peace.

Ken Berwitz

As you probably know, last week Indiana became the 23rd state to enact so-called "right to work" laws - i.e. laws that prohibit closed union shops in which a worker must either join a union or pay dues to one even if he/she is not a member.

Republicans in Minnesota would like to implement "right to work" laws as well, by putting it to voters in a constitutional referendum. 

Here is what Democrat Governor Mark Dayton had to say about this idea, and how he "knew" Minnesotans would react to it, as excerpted from Jim Ragsdale's blog for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:  

On Thursday, Republicans in the House and Senate introduced the "right to work" concept as a constitutional amendment, which would get around Dayton's veto pen and take the issue directly to voters. "Right to work" states that employees cannot be required to be union members as a condition of employment, and allows workers to opt out of union membership. Supporters also refer to the amendment as "employee freedom."

 

Referring to Republican majorities in the House and Senate, the DFL: governor said: "And these people, they’re just hell-bent on their own agenda. They don’t even take the bills up with anybody else, not the DFLers, not me. They just ram them through so they can go home and they think somehow that’s going to appeal to the people of Minnesota.

 

"Well, I know the people of Minnesota better than that.”

That so, Governor Dayton?

For your information, SurveyUSA asked the people of Minnesota.  And they do know better than someone.  They know better than you.

Here is the question Minnesotans were asked, and how they answered - in total, and in several key subgroups I'm sure you will find most edifying:

Question:  "If an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution were on the ballot that would designate Minnesota as a "right to work" state, meaning it would be easier for workers to opt out of unions and union dues, how would you vote?" 

Which do you think it is?

Ken Berwitz

Since I've blogged a great deal about abortion over the past several days, and some readers might assume the blogs reflect my personal views rather than political analysis, it occurs to me that I should outline my position on this issue.

I believe that the one and only valid issue of abortion is when there is a living human being. 

When does that occur?  Well, think of an empty lot, on which someone has placed all the materials necessary to build a house. 

-Before any construction takes place, is there a house?  Nope, just the materials to build one. 

-At the very end, when everything is built and all that is needed is the last hinge on the front door?  Yes, of course there is a house.  Who would disagree with that?

At some point between those two extremes, therefore, it became a house.  When did it happen?  People will differ on the answer. 

So it is with abortion. 

My personal opinion is that, as opposed to Catholic dogma, I do not believe there is a living human being at the point of conception.  I believe there is the start of an organism that can progress to the point when it is a living human being.   To me, that point is reached when it has an independently beating heart and brain activity.

Therefore I support the use of all birth control methods, including the so-called "morning after" pill.  And I support the right to abort a pregnancy until there is an independently beating heart and brain activity, thus a living child.  After that, the only valid reason for abortion would be very extreme circumstances - e.g. if the mother's life is in danger (for real:  not because someone found an amoral doctor willing to "play ball").

Regarding women's rights, I believe that they are entirely dependent on when and whether it is a child.  A woman should have full rights to abort before there is a child.  It is her body.  But after it has become a living child - except for a life-threatening or other very extreme situation - that right ends.  No one has the right to kill a baby. 

I have some other beliefs regarding the rights and options of the biological father, but I'll save them for another blog.

Anyway, that is my position on abortion.  Is it relevant to what I have blogged about President Obama's mandate regarding contraception and abortion services and Catholic institutions?  That's your call.

Ken Berwitz

At some point President Obama will realize that abortion is not a compromise issue - not to people who believe it should be legal and not to people who believe it is the killing of a human being.

President Obama's idea of a "compromise" with Catholic institutions is a quick change from mandating they must offer contraception and abortion services to mandating that the insurance carriers they use must offer them.

Huh?  Wah?  That's supposed to change something?

Ed Morrissey at hotair.com has an excellent analysis of this fraudulent little PR gimmick from his highly worthwhile blog on Mr. Obama's clumsy attempt to game Catholics.  Here is the meat of it:

Where do insurers get money to pay claims?  They collect premiums and co-pays from the insured group or risk pool.  No matter what the Obama administration wants to say now, the money that will cover those contraception costs will come from the religious organizations that must now by law buy that insurance and pay those premiums.  Their religious doctrines have long-standing prohibitions against participating in contraception and abortion, and nothing in this “accommodation” changes the fact that the government is now forcing them to both fund and facilitate access to products and services that offend their practice of religion.

This “accommodation” only attempts to accommodate Obama’s political standing and nothing more.

Ed hits the nail right on the head.

This phony-baloney "compromise" will probably convince some people that Mr. Obama has taken care of the matter.  If so that is sad, because the only matter he is trying to take care of is appeasing his pro-choice constituency and pulling the wool over the eyes of pro-lifers.  

One other point to be made here - one I wish I had thought of earlier.  As might be expected, President Obama is going all-out to get a high percentage of the Latino vote in 2012.  But a great many Latinos are deeply religious Catholics. 

If the Republican Party is smart (how's that for an iffy proposition?) it will be make a concerted effort to publicize Mr. Obama's contraception/abortion farce among that segment of the population - with special emphasis on the premise that even if Mr. Obama changes this mandate before the election, it is clear he wants it there, and there will be nothing to stop him from putting it right back at any time during a second term.

Republicans have political dynamite of the first order in the palms of their hands.  Will they recognize it and act accordingly? 

We'll see.....

Ken Berwitz 

“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”: josef stalin*

A couple of weeks ago I referenced the Secretary of State Project (SOSP) - a left wing effort to elect Democrat Secretaries of State because they are the ones who certify (or do not certify) elections.  At that time I promised to describe this "project" in more detail.

Other issues got in the way, and I'm just getting around to it now.

The invaluable web site, discoverthenetworks.com, has a terrific explanation of SOSP that explains this shameful entity far better than I can.  Please click here and read all about it.  But, for the meanwhile, let me give you just the first two paragraphs:

The Secretary of State Project (SoSP) was established in July 2006 as an independent “527” organization devoted to helping Democrats get elected to the office of secretary-of-state in selected swing, or battleground, states; these were states where the margin of victory in the 2004 presidential election (between George W. Bush and John Kerry) had been 120,000 votes or less.1 One of the principal duties of the secretary of state is to serve as the chief election officer who certifies candidates as well as election results in his or her state.2 The holder of this office, then, can potentially play a key role in determining the winner of a close election.

SoSP's co-founders were Democracy Alliance member Michael Kieschnick (who also founded Working Assets and serves as a board member of the leftist evangelical group Sojourners); Becky Bond (who also has affiliations with Working Assets and the New Organizing Institute); and James Rucker (who co-founded Color of Change and formerly served as director of grassroots mobilization for MoveOn.org Political Action and Moveon.org Civic Action).

Translation:  SOSP's goal is to have the left control vote counting. 

Now, what is the center and right doing about it?  I can't say I have found any similar "project" that attempts to neutralize SOSP.

Maybe the rest of us better think about creating one.

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

* Actually, stalin is supposed to have said it a little less artistically.  According to Boris Bazhanov, in his book "Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary", stalin's exact words (well, exact as an English translation can be) were:  "...I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how".

Ken Berwitz

Who says the "Occupy" people don't work?

Watch this short (a little over a minute) but remarkable video from dailycaller.com and see for yourself.

Great deal.  Take some out-of-work guys, pay them $60 for the day to "protest" - without bothering to tell then what they're protesting (who cares, it's $60, right?) and bada bing, bada boom, you have an "Occupy" action.

My only regret - and it is a very strongly felt one - is that Michelle Fields did not obscure the face and edit out the name of the "protester" who spoke so honestly to her.  He wasn't told any particulars, all he knew was that this was a way to make some money that day.  It was not his idea, and I have a bad feeling someone is going to make him pay for it.  Fields should have thought about this before putting the video on line.

As far as the "Occupy" movement?  This is what it is reduced to -- at least until the good weather comes back, when it will again work as an excuse for a few anarchists and anti-capitalists, joined by a great many freeloaders and vagrants - to crash in a public place and get as much "stuff" for nothing as they can.

Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from Patrick Howley's piece at freebeacon.com:

Warren Buffett’s stake in Bank of America Corp. increased in value by $154 million after President Obama and the U.S. Justice Department announced a $25 billion foreclosure abuse settlement with the five largest U.S. banks Thursday, records show.

Buffett invested $5 billion in Bank of America (BofA) on Aug. 25, 2011. As part of his investment deal, Buffett gained warrants that allow him to buy 700 million shares of Bank of America stock at a strike price of $7.14 a share. However, on Dec. 19, 2011, it was reported that Buffett was $1.5 billion underwater on his stock warrants, with shares of BofA stock trading at $4.94. But on Thursday, after President Obama personally announced the details of the settlement, BofA stock closed at $8.13 a share. The stock opened Friday morning at $8.31 and reached as high as $8.35 a share.

If Buffett had exercised his warrants Friday morning, he would have made $847 million. $154 million of that profit would have been related to the foreclosure deal.