Wednesday, 10 October 2007


Ken Berwitz

Anita Hill is a classic example of the power of media bias. 

During Justice Clarence Thomas' supreme court confirmation hearings, Ms. Hill suddenly surfaced, or was nudged/coerced to surface, from out of nowhere.  She accused Mr. Thomas of being some kind of lurid sexual predator -  though the facts that came out about their relationship suggested that, in reality, Mr. Thomas was her benefactor when she worked for him and long afterward. 

It came out that Ms. Hill called on Mr. Thomas for help years after she had worked for him.  That is hardly the behavior you would expect from someone who felt sullied or put upon, is it?

In fact, the testimony indicated that it was only after Thomas married another woman - a White woman - that Ms. Hill had any problem with Clarence Thomas at all. 

What if this had been reversed?  What if Thomas and HIll were White and Thomas married a Black woman?  Do you have any doubt that she'd have been written off that day as an embittered racist?  I sure don't.

But let's get back to reality.  Thomas, whose biography is one of the great role models for people of any color, endured a sickening, humiliating inquisition, based entirely on Anita Hill's testimony -- testimony, it should be noted, that made an instant celebrity of Hill.

A number of polls were taken during Ms. Hill's testimony, thus before media could spin that testimony into what they wanted it to be.  A large majority of this country believed Thomas, not Hill.  That included a large majority of Black respondents as well as Whites.

But media did not like Clarence Thomas.  He was a Republican appointee - that was bad enough by itself.  But far worse, he was a Black conservative.  Off the plantation.  Someone they could not understand nor did they want to.  So they went to work on him big-time.

And after years of media spin, coupled with fading memories of the actual testimony, most people came to believe Hill instead of Thomas. 

That is why I call it a classic example of the power of media bias.

Largely because of this terrible hit job, Mr. Thomas has been reviled and attacked ever since, usually by people who will never come near his personal accomplishments in their lifetimes.

Now Clarence Thomas has written a book which includes his comments about the terrible ordeal he endured.  And like a bad piece of meat at 2AM in the morning, Anita Hill has again bubbled to the surface to remind us all what an awful person Thomas is. 

Enter Thomas Sowell.

Dr. Thomas Sowell is a brilliant educator and philosopher.  He is also a man who knows well the kind of problems Clarence Thomas faced because, like Thomas, he is a Black conservative. 

Sowell has written a great column today.  One that needed to be written.  It makes mincemeat of Anita Hill and her stories.  How?  By reminding us of the facts rather than the bias-driven spin.  . 

Here it is:.

Clarence Thomas: Part II
By Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, October 10, 2007

All that many people know about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas are the accusations against him by Anita Hill during his confirmation hearings in 1991.

However, such subsequent events as the "rape" accusations against Duke University students last year and, before that, a similar hoax in the Tawana Brawley case, have belatedly demonstrated how mindless it is to automatically accept accusations, as many in the media did with Anita Hill.

Now, with the recent publication of Justice Thomas' memoir, "My Grandfather's Son," Anita Hill has surfaced again in the media to repeat her accusations.

The time is long overdue to take a hard look at hard facts, so that we can put those accusations in the garbage can, where they belong.

The first of these hard facts is that, contrary to what has been repeated so often in the media, it was not just a question of what "he said" versus what "she said."

A whole phalanx of female witnesses who had worked with both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill came out in support of him at his confirmation hearings.

One of those witnesses went out of her way to point out that the image that Anita Hill projected on television bore no resemblance to the behavior and attitudes of either Anita Hill or Clarence Thomas that she had seen with her own eyes.

On the other side, one witness backed up Anita Hill's story by saying that she had been told the same things by Anita Hill when they both lived in Washington.

But then the fact came out that this star witness had left Washington before Anita Hill went to work for Clarence Thomas, so there was no way that her corroboration could be true.

There were ways in which different versions of events by Hill and Thomas were quite capable of being checked -- but were not checked.

That failure to check the facts was very strange in a situation where so much depended on the credibility of the two people. Here are the two versions.

According to Clarence Thomas, he hired Anita Hill at the urging of a friend because an official of the law firm at which she worked had advised her to leave.

According to Ms. Hill -- both then and now -- she was not "asked to leave" the law firm but was "in good standing" at the time.

This too was not just a question of "he said" and "she said." An affidavit sworn by a former partner in that law firm supported Clarence Thomas' version. That was ignored by most of the media.

Since the Senate has the power of subpoena, it was suggested that they issue a subpoena to get the law firm's records, since that could provide a clue as to the credibility of the two people.

Senators opposed to the nomination of Judge Thomas voted down that request for the issuance of a subpoena.

After Anita Hill's accusations, a group of female members of Congress staged a melodramatic march up the Capitol steps, with the TV cameras rolling, demanding that the Senate "get to the bottom of this."

But "getting to the bottom of this" apparently did not include issuing a subpoena that could have shown conclusively who was truthful and who was not.

In another instance, there was already hard evidence but it too was ignored. Clarence Thomas said that Anita Hill had initiated a number of phone calls to him, over the years, after she had left the agency where they both worked. She said otherwise. But a phone log from the agency showed that he was right.

The really fatal fact about Anita Hill's accusations was that they were first made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in confidence, and she asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Judge Thomas by those trying to pressure him to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court.

Think about it: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only two people were present.

If the accusations were true, Clarence Thomas would automatically know who originated them. Anita Hill's request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false. .

There is nothing in Dr. Sowell's column that is not easily accessible to the media.  No new revelations, no magic "finding" that suddenly pops up all these years later.  Just the facts.

But, you might be wondering, if media have all these facts, how could they have possibly bludgeoned Clarence Thomas for almost two decades? 

That's a damn good question.  Why do YOU think they did it?  Me, I think I already know the answer.  If you want my opinion, just refer back to the first sentence of this blog.


Ken Berwitz

Do you know who Graeme Frost is? 

Grame Frost is the 12 year old boy who read (do you really think he wrote it?) the Democratic response this past weekend to President Bush's explanation of why he vetoed the SCHIP legislation. 

Here is an article from the Baltimore Sun which explains everything.....and then the letter I wrote to the reporter. 

First the article:.

Frost family draws ire of conservatives

By Matthew Hay Brown

Sun Reporter

October 10, 2007

When Halsey and Bonnie Frost agreed to go public with how the State Children's Health Insurance Program helped them after a car crash left two of their children comatose, the Baltimore couple expected to hear from critics of government-funded health care.

But while the Frosts were helping a bipartisan majority in Congress sell a plan to expand the program, they were not prepared for comments such as this one, posted over the weekend on the conservative Web site Redstate:

"If federal funds were required [they] could die for all I care. Let the parents get second jobs, let their state foot the bill or let them seek help from private charities. ... I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much their parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I'd do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info."

So has begun the education of the Frosts, the young family of six who volunteered to advocate for the program for moderate-income families - the expansion has been approved by Congress but vetoed by President Bush - and now find themselves the focus of a nasty national debate.

The onslaught began over the weekend, a week after 12-year-old Graeme Frost delivered the Democrats' weekly radio address with a plea to Bush to sign the bill. A contributor to the conservative Web site Free Republic noted Graeme's enrollment in the private Park School and the sale of a smaller rowhouse on the Frosts' block for $485,000 this year and questioned whether the family should be taking advantage of the state program.

That post was picked up by the National Review Online and other Web sites. By Monday, Rush Limbaugh was discussing the family's earnings and assets on the air, and the
blogger Michelle Malkin was writing about her visit to Halsey Frost's East Baltimore warehouse and her drive past the family's Butchers Hill rowhouse. Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, were complaining that the Frosts were being "swift-boated."

"It's really frustrating," said Bonnie Frost, 41, who stated she is upset by the angry Internet posts, e-mails and telephone calls targeting the family. "The whole point of it for me was that this program helped my family, and I wanted it to help others. That's the message, and I can't believe the way the spotlight has been taken off of that."

"It's a distractive technique," said Halsey Frost, also 41. Speaking from their cluttered front room yesterday, the Frosts said they would continue to advocate for government-funded health care.

The Sun, which published articles about the Frosts when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced Bonnie and 9-year-old Gemma at a news conference last month and again when Graeme delivered the radio address, also has drawn criticism from posters on conservative Web sites for not reporting the details of the family's financial circumstances more fully.

At issue is the proposal to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program - also known as SCHIP - which provides coverage for 6.6 million children from families not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Democrats, joined by some Republicans, voted last month to expand coverage to 4 million more children at a cost of $35 billion over five years. Bush has vetoed the bill.

While the president has called for negotiations on the measure, Democrats and their allies have launched a campaign to pressure Republicans into helping to override the veto. The attempt is scheduled for next week.

The Frosts joined the debate through family acquaintance Vinnie DeMarco, the president of the Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative. DeMarco introduced them to the pro-SCHIP organization Families USA, which put them in touch with Pelosi's office.

Bonnie Frost was driving children Zeke, Graeme and Gemma in Baltimore County in December 2004 when the family SUV hit a patch of black ice and slammed into a tree. Graeme sustained a brain stem injury; Gemma suffered a cranial fracture.

The family relied on SCHIP during the more than five months that the children were hospitalized. Graeme had to learn again to walk and talk, his parents say; he remains weak on his left side and speaks with a lisp. Gemma is blind in her left eye; she has difficulty with memory, learning and speech, and sees a behavioral psychologist to help her deal with her frustration.

"Her personality has changed," Bonnie Frost said yesterday. "She's not the same girl."

Bonnie and Gemma Frost joined Pelosi at the Capitol Hill news conference before the SCHIP vote. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked Graeme to record the radio address.

It was the news coverage of that broadcast that set off the blogo- sphere. A pseudonymous contributor to Free Republic cataloged the $20,000 cost of tuition at the Park School, the $160,000 Halsey Frost paid for his warehouse in 1999 and the $485,000 for which a neighbor sold his home in March. Links were provided to photos of the Park School's 44,000-square- foot Wyman Arts Center and the Frosts' 1992 wedding announcement in The New York Times.

Soon strangers were posting accusatory messages describing Halsey Frost as a business owner who lived on a street of half-million-dollar homes, worked out of his own commercial property and paid to send his children to private school, yet still took advantage of government-funded health care.

"Bad things happen to good people, and they cause financial problems and tough choices," Mark Steyn wrote on the National Review Online. "But, if this is the face of the 'needy' in America, then no-one is not needy."

The Redstate contributor was less civil.

"Hang 'em. Publically," the contributor wrote. "Let 'em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens. Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice."

The Frosts say the description of their family's circumstances now circulating is misleading. Halsey, they say, is a self-employed woodworker - he has no employees - while Bonnie works part time for a medical publishing firm. Together, they say, they earn between $45,000 and $50,000 a year.

That would make the Frosts eligible for Maryland's Children's Health Program, which is open to families that earn no more than 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or $82,830 a year for a family of six.

The Frosts declined to show The Sun their 2006 income tax returns, and the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene would not confirm their enrollment in the program. But John G. Folkemer, the deputy secretary for health care financing, said yesterday that applicants must prove their income levels through Social Security numbers or tax returns to be accepted for coverage.

Folkemer said a family's assets are not considered in determining eligibility. Halsey Frost purchased the family home for $55,000 in 1990, according to city records, and refinanced in 2005, he says, to make improvements to accommodate the return of Graeme and Gemma from the hospital. The 1936 brick rowhouse, on a side street near Patterson Park, has an assessed value of $263,140.

Halsey Frost purchased a 1920 warehouse in East Baltimore for $160,000 in 1999, according to city records. It is assessed at $160,500. Frost says he is still paying off the mortgages on both properties.

The four Frost children depend on financial aid to attend private school, the Frosts say. In addition, they say, Gemma receives money from the city for special education made necessary by her injuries.

Halsey and Bonnie Frost say they still have no health insurance. Bonnie Frost said she priced coverage recently at $1,200 a month.

Malkin wrote that the Democrats' use of Graeme Frost to deliver the radio address was "poster child abuse"; Limbaugh told listeners that Democrats had "filled this kid's head with lies."

Pelosi fired back yesterday.

"I think that the attack on this family is just breaking new ground and stooping to new lows in terms of what happens in Washington, D.C.," she told reporters. "I think it's a sad statement about how bankrupt some of these people are in their arguments against SCHIP that they attack a 12-year-old."

The Frosts say they stand by their support of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"I'm just trying to understand this moment of nastiness," Bonnie Frost said. "The nastiness caught me by surprise."

Now, the letter I wrote to Matthew Hay Brown:


For god sake, read your own article.

These people are telling you that their combined income - of a skilled tradesman and clerical worker - is $45-50,000.  But they won't show you their tax return.  Do you believe that?

The head of household is telling you that he makes a minimal income and has no employees.  But he purchased a warehouse in 1999 and owns it to this day. 

What the hell is he warehousing?  The tax returns he wont show you?

The Frosts own a house that apparently is worth almost half a million dollars, their four children all go to private school, but they dont have insurance?  He needs S-CHIP just like someone out of work living in a tenement?

When do you suspend disbelief?  What does it take to get you to see this was a maudlin, cynical tear-jerking political routine? 

Would you believe this if the Frosts were Republicans?.

I'll let you know if I get a response.  If there is one, I'll post it for you.

This should be interesting.


Ken Berwitz

Camille Paglia is a best selling author, an educator and a social critic.  She is also a chronic iconoclast who has no problem whatsoever in departing from the party line on anything. 

Politically, Paglia is a Democrat.  And her iconoclasm is just as strong in politics as it is everywhere else. What an interesting person she is.

Ms. Paglia's column/blog/whatever you want to call it can be found at  Today she has done a Q and A with people who have written to her on various subjects.  Two of those subjects are the Democratic presidential candidates and the (often celebrity-driven) media frenzy over global warming.

I agree with some of what Ms. Paglia says and disagree with some of it, and expect that you will too.  But no one can accuse her of being coy or of waffling on issues, that's for definite sure.

Here are the questions to Ms. Paglia which I referenced above and the answers she gave.  I promise it will be good, thought-provoking reading:.

Frankly, I have greater respect for Osama bin Laden than for any of the Democratic senators. Finding myself between al-Qaida and the DNC/ Kos in a war zone, I would be hard-placed to know which way to shoot.

Phillip J. Hubbell
Omaha, Neb.

Surely you don't really mean what you say. Surely this bloody scenario is a rhetorical sally, meant to shock and amuse.

The senators of my party, with a few stellar exceptions like Dianne Feinstein, may be a pack of vain, spineless, poll-puking, strutting peacocks, but they are not mass murderers. They did not coolly plan an amoral strike on American landmarks and cause the unspeakable suffering, death and incineration of nearly 3,000 people, U.S. citizens as well as foreign nationals.

As for the Democratic Party's governing committee or the combative, impudent left-liberal activist groups, they are just as committed to their altruistic vision of a future America as are conservatives, who base their values on tradition and faith. Both sides deserve respect.

However, I must confess my own exasperation with the Democratic leadership, who spout tiresome platitudes but achieve little and who stampede off on puerile publicity stunts that alienate potential voters across party lines. The latest example is the near-delusional campaign to turn popular radio host Rush Limbaugh, who has unwaveringly supported the military for nearly 20 years, into an anti-military antichrist. If Democrats are serious about ideology-based government regulation of talk radio, then the party is fast abandoning its fundamental principles, central to which should be constitutionally protected free speech.

To return to your war zone hypothetical, I doubt that the sociopaths of al-Qaida would be moved to mercy by your extermination of (probably pacifist and fumblingly unarmed) fellow Americans. Wouldn't you be next in the terrorists' line of fire?

This kind of partisan rancor and mutual recrimination are the sad legacy of two self-destructive administrations in a row. Bill Clinton's lies about his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky paralyzed the government and tainted his legacy, while George Bush's poor judgment and managerial ineptitude have mired us in an endless, brutal war with little chance for a happy ending.

I find it hard to believe that my fellow Democrats want to backtrack and relive every tedious scandal from the Clinton era. But that's what we'll get if Hillary is the nominee -- a long, sulfurous night of the walking dead, with chattering skeletons tumbling out of every closet. I've been discouraged by the clumsy missteps of the Edwards campaign, but I'm still hopeful about Barack Obama, who had the guts and good sense to publicly oppose the Iraq war from the start and whose ascent promises a clean, invigorating break from the sordid past.

I too grew up in upstate New York. I am an environmental groundwater geologist (who almost majored in fine arts). Your take on the Al Gore/global warming pseudo-catastrophe was right on target. Anyone can read up on Holocene geology and see that climate changes are caused by polar wandering and magnetic reversals. It is entertaining, yet sad to read bloviage from Leonardo DiCaprio, who is so self-centered that he thinks the earth's history and climate is a function of his short personal stay on this planet. Still he, Al Gore, Prince Charles and so on, ad nauseam, continue with their jet-set lifestyles. What hypocrisy!


Thank you for your input on the mass hysteria over global warming. The simplest facts about geology seem to be missing from the mental equipment of many highly educated people these days. There is far too much credulity placed in fancy-pants, speculative computer modeling about future climate change. Furthermore, hand-wringing media reports about hotter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rarely balanced by acknowledgment of the recent cold waves in South Africa and Australia, the most severe in 30 years.

Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.


Ken Berwitz

Maybe it's just me, but:

-Fred Thompson looked gaunt and drawn at the debate, like someone who just got over a major stomach virus and lost a quick 15 pounds;

-Barak Obama will live to regret his explanation for not wearing a flag pin;

-The more excited Ron Paul gets when he speaks, the more he reminds me of Judge Doom, the toon character from Who Framed Roger Rabbit, when he squealed "Remember me Eddie?  This is how I looked when I killed your brother!!!!";

-If there were ever a world smug contest, Chris Matthews would win it hands down;

-Dan Abrams, who runs MSNBC, should be ashamed of himself for allowing keith olbermann to make the unbelievably vicious personal attacks on Bill O'Reilly he vomits out night after night.  O'Reilly, smartly and with dramatically more dignity than either olbermann or Abrams are showing, has not responded in kind and won't even say olbermann's name.  olbermann has responded to O'Reilly's ignoring him by doing his best imitation of Rumpelstiltskin and getting angrier and angrier, and spewing more and more repulsively abusive insults.  If this were a conservative show host talking about a leftwinger he despised, Abrams would have put a stop to it in one week flat.  Allowing such petulant, juvenile garbage from olbermann shames Abrams and shames MSNBC;

-Between Hannity fawning over holier-than thou farts like James Dobson, and Colmes trying to do a Chris Mouthews imitation by not letting anyone finish a sentence let alone a thought, Hannity & Colmes is becoming less and less watchable every day;

-When Chris Mouthews gratuitously asked Rudy Giuliani if the Yankees should fire manager Joe Torre, instead of saying something clever, vague or diplomatic, Giuliani answered directly that he hoped to god it wouldn't happen because Torre is such a great manager.  Compare that to Hillary Clinton's weasely lie in 2000 that she was a Yankee fan, and see the difference between a straight shooter and a phony;

-Do you know anyone who thinks Rush Limbaugh is unpatriotic and anti-troops because the LAMBs and their acolytes in the Democratic party are trying to sell this ludicrous premise?  I don't either;

-New Yorkers are every bit as nice as people in other major cities which have a better reputation for niceness (like Chicago, for example).  It's the abruptness New Yorkers effect, because of the city's pace, that create this misperception;

-Remember that saying during the 60's "Don't like cops?  Next time you need help call a hippie"?  I think it should be updated for today's San Francisco to:  "Don't like our military?  Next time you need it to defend you, call gavin newsom or nancy pelosi";

-If Israel really did knock out a budding nuclear arsenal in Syria, that would be another of the many reasons to respect and admire Israel;

-If North Korea really did supply Syria with the nuclear material Israel would have knocked out, that would be another of the many reasons to not trust kim "Ill" jong, its leader, as far as you could throw him.


Ken Berwitz

I don't know much about the Waterbury (Connecticut) Republican-American newspaper.  But it does have a flair for editorials.  Here is yesterday's, which talks about racial dishonesty in the 2008 campaign:.

The politics of blatant falsehood

Mr. Obama told an NAACP forum that "more young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America." The Census Bureau says young black men number nearly 1.9 million, of whom 530,000, or 28 percent, are enrolled in college. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports 193,000 young black men, or 10 percent, are behind bars. Even if "you expanded the age group to include African-American males up to 30 or 35," the Post fact-checkers said, "the college attendees would still outnumber the prisoners." So Mr. Obama deliberately lied.

Mr. Edwards said America soon is "not going to have a young African-American male population" because they're "all going to be in prison or dead." A Bureau of Justice Statistics statistician dismissed the statement as, in the Post's words, "wild exaggeration with no factual foundation" a lie.

Many young black men are caught in a vicious cycle of poverty, violence and criminality. Men of honor should be offering constructive ways for them to escape that cycle rather than feeding their feelings of hopelessness and victimhood. But since Messrs. Obama and Edwards are not honorable men, they will heartened to learn the Washington state Supreme Court last week cloaked deliberate lies by politicians with the First Amendment.

In striking down a law that barely slapped the wrists of politicians who lie maliciously, the majority rendered a high-sounding opinion that dissenters said "advances the efforts of those who would turn political campaigns into contests of the best stratagems of lies and deceit" so that "honest discourse and honest candidates are lost in the maelstrom."

Though we ordinarily would agree the "best remedy for false or unpleasant speech is more speech," this ruling gives politicians license to lie with impunity. The danger is that lies spoken repeatedly morph into"conventional wisdom" that is impervious to the truth.

The sad reality is that Obama and Edwards lie to reinforce the perception among many Black voters that they are helpless and hopeless without daddy Democrat giving them things.  Black people who buy into this are a virtual lock to vote Democrat again in 2008.  Unfortunately, many will believe it and will therefore not even consider the Republican alternative.

Incredibly, Republicans played right into the Democratic strategy when their four major candidates found reasons not to show up to debate at a traditionally Black school, Morgan State University, last month. 

How stupid!  Their no-show was a Christmas present to the Democratic party, and was accepted gleefully.  The result of this foolish and shortsighted move is that a large percentage of the Black voters who might have been receptive to a Republican appeal, will not give them the time of day now -- not to mention the loss of White voters who are also offended by this slight to Black people.

From this we learn (as if we didn't already know it) that Republicans can be amazingly self-destructive. But that does not change the fact that Democratic politicians are cynically playing Black voters, and are immensely successful at it. 

Too bad, all around.


Ken Berwitz

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I'm no fan of John Edwards, whom I nonaffectionately refer to as "the human oil slick".

But if you think I don't like Edwards, read this column by Joseph Farah of World Net Daily.  Next to Farah, I look like an advance man for the Edwards campaign.

I don't agree with everything Farah says, and think he's stretching quite a bit to tar Edwards with the "racist" accusation.  But I have to admit he has points worth thinking about.  And since thinking is the point of this blog, here is Farah's column.  See what you make of it..

John Edwards, racist

Posted: October 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

I'm beginning to think John Edwards may be the dumbest human being ever to seek the office of the presidency.

I admit I am not familiar with many who have unsuccessfully sought the office prior to the 1960s. But I just can't imagine there could have been anyone so thoughtless and clueless as John Edwards.

I devoted two recent columns to his unfathomable answer to a question about whether he though second-graders should be forced to listen to stories about same-sex marriage and homosexuality.

And then I saw his equally unbelievable response to a question at the MTV/MySpace Forum on what he would do about "inner-city kids partaking in violence."

"We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating pretty soon we're not going to have a young African-American male population in America," he said. "They're all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two."

That's right. A major presidential candidate believes all young black men in this country every single one of them will wind up dead or in prison without his intervention.

(Does that suggest to you this North Carolinian has much respect for young black men in America?

Does it suggest to you he believes we are all created equal?

Or does it suggest to you we have a latent racist cracker in the presidential woodpile?

I'll tell you what it suggests to me. This is a man who believes blacks especially young black males need to be controlled and regulated by government because they are unable to control and regulate themselves.

Try to imagine the outcry if a Republican spoke with such blatantly racist hyperbole.

Obviously, there is a crime problem that is acute within the black community. Obviously, young black males are more likely to commit acts of violence than are young white males. But equally obvious is the fact that the problem is nowhere near as dire and apocalyptic as Edwards suggests.

In fact, there are four times as many black men between the ages of 18 and 24 in college than in prison. I'll bet that would surprise John Edwards.

And the fact that such a statistic would undoubtedly come as a surprise to John Edwards demonstrates just how racist he is.

No, it wasn't affirmative action that put all those young black men in college, despite what John Edwards might think. Young black men are just as able to achieve as their white counterparts if they are not treated as animals in social policies promoted by people like Edwards.

By the way, this is the same John Edwards who thinks it is wrong for parents to make moral decisions for the kids. He thinks it is wrong for parents to instill in their children their most sacred beliefs ideas such as marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. It is exactly this kind of parental moral training that is the difference between the kids who end up in jail and the kids who end up in college white or black.

Let me tell you something. No amount of midnight basketball is going to stop young black men from killing one another if steps are not taken to put the black family back together. The black family was destroyed by people like John Edwards people who believe blacks can be domesticated by government programs that provide them subsistence livings and make them dependent on Uncle Sam for their material needs.

Racist politicians like Edwards have not only done their best to destroy the black family, they have emasculated the American black male, turning him into an urban pimp caricature. They malign black men of achievement and intellect such as Clarence Thomas. They pander to Snoop Dog and Akon.

Now, I admit I don't like John Edwards. Just hearing him talk is like listening to someone grating a rusty nail on a chalkboard. I don't like him because he strikes me as little more than a racist hillbilly who made a fortune fooling people as a trial lawyer. In fact, that characterization is unfair to hillbillies because Jed Clampett had far more intellectual appeal and demonstrated better values.

Am I the only one actually listening to what this guy is saying?

Has the rest of America fallen into a coma?

Why hasn't this man been tarred, feathered and run out of American politics on a rail? .

Wow.  That is cold. 

And, again, while I don't know that I would go as far as Mr. Farah has in condemning John Edwards as a racist, I have to admit it gave me pause.  Racism is certainly one of the possibilities when someone makes statements like Edwards has.

What do you think?


Ken Berwitz

I've already said my piece on this ridiculous fraud, which the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade and their Democratic suckups have tried to foist on the American public.

I noted that while people may or may not like Rush Limbaugh's radio show, they certainly know his affinity for and support of our troops, as well as his support of the war in Iraq. 

I said that the political strategy of trying to make Rush Limbaugh look like he is anti-troops and unpatriotic, apart from being a complete lie, would not work. 

And it didn't - at least not beyond a few self-congratulory slaps on the back from the LAMB crowd and its facilitators, like the farbissoner-puss keith olbermann.

Now Walter Williams, an educator, columnist, economist and conservative thinker, has checked in with his take on the non - issue.  He has written it so well that I want you to see it too.  So here it is:


Attacking Talk Radio
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, October 10, 2007

The major news media no longer have the monopoly they once enjoyed. The way millions of Americans get their news and news analysis is through talk radio. The Rush Limbaugh Show stands at the very top of talk radio, carried on more than 650 radio stations and listened to by an estimated 20 million people each week. As an occasional fill-in for Rush, and being a professor, I see the show as being my big classroom, but I learn a lot as well.

Over the span of some 20 years, Rush has been attacked from just about every leftist corner, as would anyone who tirelessly espoused the founding principles of our nation -- private property, rule of law and limited government. What has made Rush so effective with this message has been his ability to put things, and ask questions, in a manner that the average citizen can understand and relate to, and do so with a bit of humor. Humor creates madness among leftists who want their interventionist agenda taken seriously.

Rush's show, as well as many of his competitors' shows, has ended much of the isolation among Americans. For example, if you were against racial quotas, you were made to feel like a racist by the major media. With the growth of talk radio, people found out that they were not alone and that being against racial quotas didn't make one a racist. As such, talk radio has been a painful thorn in the sides of those whose agenda is to control the news and debate as a means to control our lives. This is why the priority agenda for leftists is to attack talk radio, and their biggest target is Rush Limbaugh.

The latest attack from the left alleges that Rush referred to our fighting men, who disagreed with our Middle East policy, as "phony soldiers." The truth of the matter is that Rush was referring to people like Jesse Macbeth, who became the poster boy for the anti-war and anti-military movement. Macbeth passed himself off as an Army Ranger and a Purple Heart recipient. He said he participated in gruesome war crimes with other U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. An investigation proved that none of his claims was true; he wasn't an Army Ranger or a Purple Heart recipient, and he didn't serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, he was kicked out of the Army after 44 days of boot camp.

Last September, Macbeth was sentenced to five months in jail and three years' probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. Macbeth, idolized by the anti-war movement, is truly a despicable person. On a video translated into Arabic, for Middle East consumption, he said, "We would burn their bodies . . . hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

False misrepresentation of oneself as a soldier has become so widespread that Congress enacted the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 to prosecute people posing as veterans. In fact, a Sept. 29 ABC News report by Charles Gibson did an expose on people such as Macbeth, and they were called "phony war heroes."

The members of Congress who are attacking Limbaugh know all of this, but they're trusting that the average American doesn't so they can pull the rope-a-dope. By attacking Limbaugh, they hope to breathe some life into the Fairness Doctrine, which was repealed by a unanimous vote by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1987. The doctrine, said the FCC, "restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters and actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists." .

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!