Wednesday, 17 October 2007


Ken Berwitz

I have written about the horror of Zimbabwe a number of times already.  But, because there is a genocide of its people being conducted by it's own head of state while the world watches and does nothing, I feel it necessary to do so again.

This is the latest news, courtesy of Reuters -- which, disgracefully, does its level best to sanitize what is really happening in this hell on earth:.

Zimbabwe inflation hits record high

By Nelson Banya 39 minutes ago

Zimbabwe's inflation rate jumped to a record high in September, the latest sign that President Robert Mugabe has made little progress in easing an economic crisis analysts say presents the biggest challenge to his rule.

The government's Central Statistical Office (CSO) said on Wednesday annualized inflation rose to 7,982.1 percent in September from 6,592.8 percent in August. Experts estimate it is actually much higher.

Zimbabweans, who face severe food, fuel and foreign currency shortages, can barely afford bus fares. Queues outside of stores are getting longer and many shelves are empty.

Mugabe's security forces, accused of widespread human rights abuses, are cracking down on dissent. But economic pressure is building and the veteran leader has not proven to Zimbabweans that he can take control and ease their hardships.

The opposition is weak and divided, so economic turmoil is more likely to weaken Mugabe, analysts say.

In one sign of growing discontent, the southern African country has been hit by a spate of wildcat strikes in the past month from workers demanding wages in line with the country's inflation, the highest in the world.

Analysts expect the inflation rate to keep rising after businesses obtained government permission to start increasing some prices, which had been frozen under a controversial price blitz that Mugabe imposed in June.

"Fundamentally the increase was largely expected given the strong inflationary pressures in the economy," said David Mupamhadzi, a bank economist.

"The trend is likely to continue beyond December despite the supply side intervention (of extending concessionary loans to producers) by the central bank to improve productivity)," he told Reuters..

To read this account, you'd swear that while there are major problems with the mugabe government, it is trying to help out its people.  In reality, the mugabe government took a relatively prosperous African country and turned it into Dante's Inferno. 

The farming sector, which not so long ago fed all Zimbabweans and exported to other countries, has been taken from the productive farmers (most were too White for Mr. mugabe's taste) and given over to his cronies, who had no idea of how to farm successfully.  So now those same farms produce only a small fraction of what they used to.

People are starving in the streets.  Supplies of even the most basic staples are non-existent. And even if they did exist, with inflation at 8,000%, who could ever afford them? 

Do you understand what an 8,000% inflation rate is?  It means that if a loaf of bread cost $2.50 last year, it costs $200.00 this year.  Two hundred dollars. 

But things are just peachy at the mugabe residence.  Life is sweet, money abounds and luxuries are everywhere.

I will ask now, as I've asked before:  Where is the rest of the world on this?  Where are Zimbabwe's African neighbors on this?  Where is the UN on this?

The people of Zimbabwe are not pieces in a board game.  They are human beings.  Millions of them.  What did they do to deserve this deliberate genocide being visited upon them, other than committing the "crime" of living in Zimbabwe?

And what about most of the rest of the world, which sits by doing nothing as we fight international terrorism except for telling us what we are doing wrong?  What are they doing other than sitting by and doing nothing as Zimbabwean people die at the hands of a head of state with no humanity who couldn't care less?  Exactly the same thing. Nothing. 

And what about the UN, which is supposed to be the prime mover in addressing such situations?  What does it do?  It, too, sits by and does nothing.  No difference at all. 

Think about it.  A head of state who couldn't care less if his own people die in the street, as long as he gets his.  The UN which couldn't care less if Zimbabwean people die in the street as long as the fine restaurants of New York City still accept their charge cards.

How different is robert mugabe from the UN?


Ken Berwitz

I believe in racial equality.  I believe that being Black doesn't make you anything but Black.  It doesn't make you smart or dumb, thin or fat, good or bad at math, openminded or closeminded or anything else.  There are Black idiots and Black geniuses.  The blackness of their skin does not make them either of those things or anything in between.

Because of this, it pains me to note that a number of highly visible Black "leaders" are buffoons who reinforce horribly negative racial images, which some people then apply to the entire Black population.

In my opinion, al sharpton is arguably the single most conspicuous example..... and john conyers is close behind.

With this in mind, here is a report in today's Washington Post of al sharpton's testimony at john conyers' hearing...with copious buffoonery from keith ellison and sheila jackson-lee tossed in for good measure:


Justice Denied, Sharpton Delayed

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, October 17, 2007; A02

Twenty-two members of the House Judiciary Committee took their seats for yesterday's hearing into the Jena, La., racial conflagration. Cameras and a standing-room-only crowd jammed the hearing room. But where was the star witness?

"Let me apologize," the Rev. Al Sharpton told the committee after strolling in an unfashionable one hour and 42 minutes late. "I have been on the tarmac in New York for the last two hours, so it was the airlines, not me, that is responsible."

Not exactly, Reverend. True, Sharpton's 8:30 Delta Shuttle flight was canceled, but even if it had been on time, it would have put Sharpton on Capitol Hill well after the hearing's start time. The real reason: Sharpton had to be on the set of NBC's "Today" show in New York yesterday morning.

As it happens, Sharpton may have done the lawmakers a favor. Before his arrival, Democrats, Republicans and the other witnesses managed to have a relatively low-key discussion about the case.

Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, argued that the white students who hung a noose at their high school shouldn't be prosecuted for hate crimes just because black students had been unfairly punished by a nefarious district attorney for beating a white schoolmate. Likewise, Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree urged the committee to focus on failing schools and ways to improve race relations in Jena.

But overshadowing this dialogue was the empty chair at the witness table. "If I were compiling a group of witnesses to encourage the diminishing of racial disharmony, I don't know that Mr. Sharpton would have made my cut," Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.) advised Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).

As if on cue, Sharpton, in a three-piece suit, walked in a few minutes later and, to the tune of hundreds of camera-shutter clicks, took his seat. Conyers asked if he wished to make a belated opening statement, and Sharpton certainly did.

"It is almost like the national government is not in the country while we're watching nooses on the news every night," he said so loudly that microphones were superfluous. "The Justice Department," he continued, poking his fingers in the air, "needs to step into Jena and the Jenas of this country and establish that . . . the states did not win the Civil War."

Conyers, with civil rights credentials of his own, reminded Sharpton that he was "in the federal government right now before the Judiciary Committee, who I think has responded in quite a timely manner." The chairman further advised Sharpton: "I'm not sure if you had the benefit of what I thought was some excellent discussion."

But it was no use. It may have been Sharpton's words, his presence, or merely a coincidence, but after his arrival, the session quickly turned into an attack on the Bush administration and its representative at the hearing, U.S. Attorney Donald Washington of Louisiana, an African American himself.

Cohen, the civil rights lawyer, appealed for "cooler heads" and cautioned that "the wheels of justice grind slowly." But Sharpton demanded immediate action. "I know that the wheels of justice may turn slow, but it seems that it's at a standstill."

Soon after that, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Tex.) exploded with rage at the U.S. attorney. "Tell me why you did not intervene," she shouted at the witness, who clenched his jaw and fiddled with his pen. "These broken lives could have been prevented if you had taken the symbolic responsibility that you have, being the first African American appointed to the Western District," she said, her voice breaking into a shriek at times as the audience cheered. "I am outraged."

Washington, a former oil company lawyer, seemed anguished. "I am a child of the '60s," he replied. "I am, I think, what Dr. King was trying to get us to do, trying to get us to be." But, he argued, "there are only certain things that a United States attorney can do . . . with respect to a state and how it handles its criminal justice system."

Sharpton didn't accept that "disturbing" excuse. "I think that this is tantamount to aiding and abetting people that Dr. King fought against," he determined.

The Republicans fled the room soon after Sharpton's arrival, leaving Sharpton boosters on the dais. "There are people who will criticize you, Reverend, and say that you only go where the cameras are," Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) told Sharpton. "But I'll say that wherever you go, the cameras go."

Whatever the order, Sharpton knew how to play to the cameras. After Cohen repeated that "I don't fault the U.S. attorney for not filing charges," Sharpton came back with the allegation that this is "why we're seeing nooses all over America."

Lawmakers piled on. "Mr. Washington, you used your discretionary latitude to decline the juvenile proceedings for the noose hangers," Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) lectured. When Washington tried to disagree, Ellison told him: "I'm not going to let you waste my time."

"I almost fell off my chair when you invoked the name of Martin Luther King to say that you were somehow the culmination of his work," Ellison continued.

"You hit it on the head," Sharpton encouraged.

"Martin Luther King did not do his work so you could get a nice house," Ellison tag-teamed.

"The height of ingratitude," Sharpton concurred.

The hearing adjourned to audience chants of "Free the Jena Six.".

This, folks is a kkker's delight.  Lying about the reason for being late, screaming, shouting and insults instead of serious discussion, with a rowdy mob cheering it all on, etc. etc. etc. 

These buffoons apparently think they come across as very impressive.  But the reality is that their actions are literally a recruiting device for kkk and aryan nation groups.  This, they will tell potential members, is what you get when you put Black people into power.

The saddest part, of course, is that people like sharpton, conyers, ellison, et al are not in any way representative of the millions upon millions of decent Black people who live their lives, go about their business and, I strongly suspect, cringe at the stereotypes that this bunch are reinforcing.  But they saddle the general Black population with these stereotypes nonetheless.

Aren't there enough White racists out there who negatively stereotype Black people?  Do there have to be Black buffoons to do it as well?

Too bad the next few planes sharpton could have taken weren't cancelled too.


Ken Berwitz

New York magazine hates Rudy Giuliani. 

This is hardly surprising, since Giuliani is the antithesis of the dilletantish Manhattan elite crowd it tries to be at the center of.

And New York magazine, like the leftward Democratic elites it sucks up to, especially hates the enormous, larger-than -life contribution of Mr. Giuliani to New York City (and the free world) during and after 9/11.

So it is joining the Democratic party, by trying to make 9/11 a liability for Mr. Giuliani if he wins the Republican presidential nomination.  The idea is that he should be attacked as an exploiter of 9/11 if he so much as mentions it.

Their favorite, Heroine Hillary, has no such problem.  Since she has no accomplishments (Giuliani pointed that out on Hannity & Colmes just last night and is dead-on correct) she certainly can't be in the position of exploiting them.  That would be like me bragging about hitting a home run that won the world series. 

In any event, here is New York's latest attempt to demonize Giuliani over 9/11.  Please take special note of their source, which they link to at the bottom of the piece:.


Giuliani Begins Returning $9.11 Checks

 You know how Rudy's been hating on the Big Apple all over the place lately? Well, it looks like he's making at least a slight effort this week to make nice. After New Yorkers (and others) became outraged that a California supporter threw a fund-raiser for him asking for donations in the denomination of $9.11, the Giuliani campaign quietly began returning the checks. It's a small gesture (literally how much money could he have raised? If 200 people sent in checks, that's still well under the maximum amount one person can donate alone), but it's something. Is he finally recognizing how offensive it is for him to try to own the September 11 tragedy? Is he taking note that if his home city finishes turning against him, he'll have a hard time convincing people that he has a great mayoral legacy? Does this signify personal growth on his part? Eh, probably not. It's just $9.11, people.

Giuliani Camp Returning $9.11 Donor Checks [HuffPo].

You have to tip your, hat to New York Magazine.  This is a hatchet job that would have done their kindred spirits at The New York Times proud, and then some.

First of all, note that they accuse Giuliani of "hating on" New York City (interesting turn of phrase).  If you click on the link they provide, you find another squib by them, based on a New York Times hit piece.  And what do you see?  You see a claim that Giuliani is "Trash-Talking" the city. 

And what is this trash talk they refer to?  It is that Giuliania says he did a lot to clean New York City up and make it safer.

See, the "logic" here is that if you say you accomplished a lot, you must be saying that the city was down the toilet beforehand, and therefore by talking about your accomplishments you are trash talking the city.

That, presumably, would make every politician who ever cites his/her accomplishments a trash talker too.  You want idiocy on toast, there it is for you.

(Incidentally, they supplemented this idiocy with about as awful a picture of Giuliani as they could find.  Please click on their link, not just to read the idiotic attack but to see the picture I'm talking about.  Real classy).

Now let's get to the main event:  A fundraiser for Mr. Giuliani asked for $9.11 checks, presumably to reference Mr. Giuliani's (utterly stellar) performance at that time.  Giuliani clearly is embarrassed by the way it was done and has been returning the checks. 

In the real world, you would be complimenting Mr. Giuliani for not accepting money donated this way.  YOU would, but not New York Magazine.  To them it is a chance to bash Rudy by making it seem as though he has had some kind of an epiphany about what a piece of excrement he is.  In their words, "Is he finally recognizing how offensive it is for him to try to own the September 11 tragedy?"

Now that I've shown you how small, and hate-filled this bunch is, let me show you just how accomplished Mr. Giuliani is.  Not with sound bites and BS, but with facts.

The narrative of Rudy Giuliani's accomplishments is far, far too long for this blog.  But you can read it all at

Please, please, take the time to do so.  Rudy Giuliani's body of accomplishments are jaw-dropping...and 9/11 is just one part of them.

I will end by posting a fraction of the analysis - which specifically addresses 9/11.  I urge you to NOT just read what I've copied below.  The entire piece is eminently worth your time and attention.

Today, Americans see Mr. Giuliani as presidential material because of his leadership in the wake of the terrorist attacks, but to those of us who watched him first manage America's biggest city when it was crime-ridden, financially shaky and plagued by doubts about its future as employers and educated and prosperous residents fled in droves, Mr. Giuliani's leadership on 9/11 came as no surprise. What Americans saw after the attacks is a combination of attributes that Mr. Giuliani governed with all along: the tough-mindedness that had gotten him through earlier civic crises, a no-nonsense and efficient management style, and a clarity and directness of speech that made plain what he thought needed to be done and how he would do it.

Like great wartime leaders, Mr. Giuliani displayed unflinching courage on 9/11. A minute after the first plane struck, he rushed downtown, arriving at the World Trade Center just after the second plane hit the South Tower, when it became obvious to everyone that New York was under attack. Fearing that more strikes were on the way--and without access to City Hall, the police department or the city's command center because of damage from the attacks--Mr. Giuliani hurried to reestablish city government, narrowly escaping death himself as the towers came down next to a temporary command post he had set up in lower Manhattan. "There is no playbook for a mayor on how to organize city government when you are standing on a street covered by dust from the city's worst calamity," one of his deputy mayors, Anthony Coles, later observed.

Mr. Giuliani understood that he needed not only to keep city government operating but to inspire and console as well. Within a few hours, he had reestablished New York's government in temporary headquarters, where he led the first post-9/11 meeting with his commissioners and with a host of other New York elected officials on hand to observe, prompting even one of his harshest critics, liberal Manhattan congressman Jerrold Nadler, to marvel at the "efficiency of the meeting." Within hours, the city launched a massive search-and-recovery operation. Some half a dozen times that day Mr. Giuliani went on TV, reassuring the city and then the nation with his calm, frank demeanor and his plainspoken talk. As the nation struggled to understand what had happened and President Bush made his way back to Washington, Mr. Giuliani emerged as the one public official in America who seemed to be in command on 9/11. He became, as Newsweek later called him, "our Winston Churchill."

In the weeks following the attacks, Mr. Giuliani became both the cheerleader of New York's efforts to pick itself up and the voice of moral outrage about the attacks. Mr. Giuliani exhorted private institutions within the city--the stock exchanges, the Broadway theaters--to resume operations and urged the rest of America and the world to come visit the city. Not waiting for federal aid, the city rapidly began a cleanup of the World Trade Center site, which proceeded ahead of schedule, and of the devastated neighborhood around the site, which reopened block by block in the weeks after the attacks. Meanwhile, the mayor led visiting heads of state on tours of the devastation, because, he said, "You can't come here and be neutral." He addressed the United Nations on the new war against terrorism, warning the delegates: "You're either with civilization or with terrorists." When a Saudi prince donated millions to relief efforts but later suggested that U.S. policy in the Middle East may have been partially responsible for the attacks, Mr. Giuliani returned the money, observing that there was "no moral equivalent" for the unprecedented terrorist attack. He attended dozens of funerals of emergency workers killed in the towers' collapse, leading the city not just in remembrance but in catharsis. 


Ken Berwitz

With almost two days left to bid, the DCC's*** smear letter against Rush Limbaugh, signed by 41 of its members, is now bid at $102,300. Obviously this is going to get a lot higher.

Still no word on any DCC member matching any part of that money, all of which is pledged to an educational fund for the families of fallen marines and police officers.

Limbaugh has managed in one fell swoop to turn their idiotic attack on him into a reason for THEM being a national laughingstock and gotten a huge contribution for an eminently worthwhile cause in the bargain.

We're still waiting to see if DCC members are willing to match the bid for their letter.  So far not a peep out of any one of them.


***Democratic Clown College

Russ Rush announced on his show that he is going to match the bid which will add to the support of fallen soldiers' children's education fund. (10/17/07)


Ken Berwitz

This comes to us via  They say it so well that there's little need to embellish:.

Somalis Take Over United Nations Compound

October 17th, 2007

From an outraged AFP:

[AFP caption:] Somalis carry food aid distributed by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) in Jowhar, September 2007.

Somali forces storm UN compound in Mogadishu

by Mustafa Haji Abdinur

Somali government forces stormed the UN compound in Mogadishu on Wednesday and arrested the World Food Programmes (WFP) top representative in the capital.

The Rome-based WFP promptly responded by suspending food distribution to more than 75,000 people in the city.

The relief agency said between 50 and 60 armed members of the National Security Service (NSS) stormed the UN offices in southern Mogadishu at 8:15am (0515 GMT) and took away the WFP country head, Idris Mohamed Osman, at gunpoint.

Mr Osman is being held in a cell at NSS headquarters near the presidential palace. WFP has not received any explanation for this action, which violates international law, it said in a statement.

The agency also noted that international law bars entry to UN premises without prior permission.

A UN official in Mogadishu told AFP that the operation was carried out by troops with machine guns who arrived aboard two trucks and forced their way into the compound.

No shots were fired during the incident.

Peter Smerdon, the WFPs spokesman in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, said the agency was urgently taking up the matter with the Somali authorities

What a shock! The United Nations surrendered without a shot.

The agency also noted that international law bars entry to UN premises without prior permission.

Oh, my sides. They should pass a resolution condemning these bandits. And maybe write a stiff letter.

By the way, note the caption of the photo at the top:

Somalis carry food aid distributed by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) in Jowhar, September 2007.

Then look closely at the bags in the photo. Notice the American flag and the US-AID label.

But thats what the UN does best: take credit for the good work and generous taxpayers of the United States.

(Actually, what the UN does best live like pashas off of the billions of dollars they scam. But that is another story.)



Ken Berwitz

Jeff Jacoby is the house non-liberal of the Boston Globe.  He is also a terrific writer who usually is right on target with his ideas and analysis....and today's one of those usual days.

Here is Jeff on the sorry state of our public schools:


By Jeff Jacoby

TheBoston Globe


Wednesday, October 17, 2007


"Freedom of education, being an essential of civil and religious liberty . . . must not be interfered with under any pretext whatever," the party's national platform declared. "We are opposed to state interference with parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children as an infringement of the fundamental . . . doctrine that the largest individual liberty consistent with the rights of others insures the highest type of American citizenship and the best government."


     Now which political party said that? The Libertarians? The Barry Goldwater Republicans of 1964? Some minor party on the right-wing fringe?


     Actually, that ringing endorsement of parental supremacy in education was adopted by the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1892, which just goes to show what was possible before the Democratic Party was taken hostage by the teachers unions. (The same platform also warned that "the tendency to centralize all power at the federal capital has become a menace," blasted barriers to free trade as "robbery of the great majority of the American people for the benefit of the few," and pledged "relentless opposition to the Republican policy of profligate expenditure.")


     Today, on education as on so much else, the Democrats sing from a different hymnal. When the party's presidential candidates debated at Dartmouth College recently, they were asked about a controversial incident in Lexington, Mass. , where a second-grade teacher, to the dismay of several parents, had read her young students a story celebrating same-sex marriage. Were the candidates "comfortable" with that?


     "Yes, absolutely," former senator John Edwards promptly replied. "I want my children . . . to be exposed to all the information . . . even in second grade . . . because I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children. . . . I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right." None of the other candidates disagreed, even though most of them say they oppose same-sex marriage.


     Thus in a little over 100 years, the Democratic Party -- and, for that matter, much of the Republican Party -- has been transformed from a champion of "parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children" to a party whose leaders believe that parents "don't get to impose" their views and values on what their kids are taught in school. Do American parents see anything wrong with that? Apparently not: The overwhelming majority of them dutifully enroll their children in government-operated schools, where the only views and values permitted are the ones prescribed by the state.


     But controversies like the one in Lexington are reminders that Big Brother's ideas about what and how children should be taught are not always those of mom and dad.


     Americans differ on same-sex marriage and evolution, on the importance of sports and the value of phonics, on the right to bear arms and the reverence due the Confederate flag. Some parents are committed secularists; others are devout believers. Some place great emphasis on math and science; others stress history and foreign languages. Americans hold disparate opinions on everything from the truth of the Bible to the meaning of the First Amendment, from the usefulness of rote memorization to the significance of music and art. With parents so often in boisterous disagreement, why should children be locked into a one-size-fits-all, government-knows-best model of education?


     Nobody would want the government to run 90 percent of the nation's entertainment industry. Nobody thinks that 90 percent of all housing should be owned by the state. Nobody believes that health care would be improved if the government operated 90 percent of all hospitals, pharmacies, and doctors offices. Yet the government's control of 90 percent of the nation's schools leaves most Americans strangely unconcerned.


     But we should be concerned. Not just because the quality of government schooling is frequently so poor or its costs so high. Not just because public schools are constantly roiled by political storms. Not just because schools backed by the power of the state are not accountable to parents and can ride roughshod over their concerns. And not just because the public-school monopoly, like virtually all monopolies, resists change, innovation, and excellence.


     All of that is true, but a more fundamental truth is this: In a society founded on political and economic liberty, government schools should have no place. Free men and women do not entrust to the state the molding of their children's minds and character. As we wouldn't trust the state to feed our kids, or to clothe them, or to get them to bed on time, neither should we trust the state to teach them.


     What Americans in an earlier era knew in their bones, many in the 21st century need to relearn: Education is too important to be left to the government. .


While unstated in so many words, Jeff  clearly appears to be endorsing the concept of school vouchers. 


At any rate, I hope he is.  Because I strongly support them -- in no small part because they enable people of limited means to extricate their children from the stifling provincialities of the public schools of this country. 


Freedom doesn't end at the schoolroom door.


Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest on Rush Limbaugh's auction of the condemnation letter signed by 41 members of the DCC (Democratic Clown College):

With over two days to go, the bidding for this letter is at $65,100. 

Watch for it to rise appreciably.

And remember, Rush Limbaugh is donating all proceeds to an educational fund for the families of fallen marines and law enforcement members.

Remember, too, that he has challenged senate malaise leader harry reid, and his other 40 signees, to match the amount that will eventually be paid for their smear letter.  So far, not a peep out of them.

I said it days ago and I'll say it again now:  Did they ever eff with the wrong guy.


Ken Berwitz

As you probably know, two stories were reported yesterday about Randi Rhodes, the leftward radio show host of Air America.

-The first story was that she was brutally mugged while walking her dog in Manhattan, she lost several teeth in the mugging and would be off the air for several days while she recovered;

-The second was that Ms. Rhodes was not mugged at all.  Her lawyer said (this is verbatim from the Daily News article)...shes not sure what happened, and only knows that she fell down and is in a lot of pain. The lawyer said Rhodes expects to be back on the air Thursday. He stressed there is no indication she was targeted or that she was the victim of a hate crime.

Ok, these things happen.  An early report was wrong.  So it goes.

Except for the fact that this gives us another opportunity to see how the LAMB crowd (the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade) views the world. 

Michelle Malkin compiled some representative commentary from various right and left wing bloggers, all worth reading.  But she also pulled some representative comments that were posted by readers of the most popular left wing site,  These are LAMBs in good standing and happy to show their true feelings since, within the dailykos, they are among friends.

You can read the LAMB comments at Ms. Malkin's website:   And for god sake don't blame me for the awful language, this is what THEY said, not what I said.

Anyone who wants to see naked hatred as it really is should click on that link and read every comment.

UPDATE:  It is about 2:00PM eastern time, and I just checked the air america website (  Not one word about Randi Rhodes.  Not even to wish her well and hope she comes back soon.  Nothing. As if she didn't exist.

Boy did THIS story die.


Ken Berwitz

I complain a lot about the UN being ineffective (to say the least). 

Well, what about our congress?  Mainstream media, as per usual, are running interference for them, as senate malaise leader harry reid and disparager of the house nancy pelosi get virtually nothing done.

Think I'm exaggerating?  Hey, I MUST be, you didn't read this in the New York Times or see it on the Today show or the network news, did you?  Therefore it can't be true.

Or can it?

If you read Investor's Business Daily, you know all about this sorry lack of performance, complete with specifics.  Here is their editorial on the subject:.


Little To Show

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 17, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Congress: When President Bush wanted to expose congressional Democrats' ineptitude, it wasn't hard. He just had to point to their glaring absence of achievements during the more than nine months they've held power.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democratic leaders are in the habit of complaining that the Iraqi parliament hasn't yet solved that country's deep-seated ethnic disputes. But the Congress over which they preside can't even pass one single spending bill. Now a new fiscal year is upon us.

As the president pointed out during a Wednesday press conference, "major pieces of legislation aren't moving, and those that are, are at a snail's pace." All in all, "Congress has little to show for all the time that has gone by."

When the Pelosi-Reid Congress isn't actually paralyzed, it's playing politics:

The FISA law governing the terrorist surveillance programs that have helped foil numerous bomb plots is something this Congress cannot bring itself to authorize on a permanent basis. It expires in February, and Democrats are intent on weakening it.

As the president asked: "Why change a good law? The way that law was written works for the security of the country . . . it enables our intelligence experts to . . . find out the intentions of al-Qaida."

On SCHIP, a poor children's medical assistance program, Congress knew its attempt to increase eligibility to $83,000 would fail via a presidential veto. The president called it "an attempt by some in Congress to expand the reach of the federal government in medicine" by encouraging people "to move from private medicine" to government coverage. That could engender more support for socialized health care if a Democrat becomes the next president.

In August, the White House proposed reforms to make it easier to refinance mortgages. "More than six weeks later, Congress has yet to finish work on any of these measures," the president noted.

Trade bills expanding access to markets in South America and Asia are languishing.

Congress has yet to complete the Veterans Affairs appropriations bill funding veterans' benefits. Even in this area on which Democratic congressional leaders and the White House supposedly agree, they cannot get the job done.

Yet with all that work unattended to, Congress does find time to try to pass a resolution condemning Turkey for nearly 100-year-old crimes by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians. The president made note of the fact that "both Republicans and Democrats, including every living former secretary of state, have spoken out against this resolution." (Yes, even Madeleine Albright thinks what Pelosi & Co. are doing is dangerous.)

With all the work it has to do, Congress should not be "antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that is providing vital support for our military every day," Bush said.

In the case of the Turkey resolution, there's little doubt that Speaker Pelosi and the others who are pushing it realize that slapping an invaluable Muslim ally would destabilize the improving situation in Iraq.

Turkey's parliament has just approved a military incursion into northern Iraq to move against the bases of the Kurdish guerillas waging an armed campaign for self-rule in Turkey. The Turkish prime minister said such action in Iraq would not take place immediately, but "in proper time on the proper ground."

The president stressed that for those serving in government, protecting the American people is "our most solemn duty." But whether it's blocking terrorist surveillance, sabotaging Iraq by affronting a Mideast ally or falsely accusing the White House of depriving poor children of medical care, this Congress sees itself as having a different mission: impairing this presidency every chance it gets.

That sorry enough for you?  What a disgraceful record.  90% show and 10% obstruction.

When do these people start legislating for the needs of our country?  And when do media stop protecting them by not educating voters on how little they are doing?

Or put another way, when do media stop treating them as Democrats?


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!!