Wednesday, 18 June 2008


Ken Berwitz

Yeah, I know I blogged about this just yesterday.  But Michelle Malkin has written such a good piece on Haditha, and how the overwhelmingly publicized "massacre" became a barely reported fraud, that I want you to see it:

Haditha Justice

Marines vs. smears.
By Michelle Malkin

Yet another U.S. Marine, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, had charges dropped Tuesday in the so-called Haditha massacre bringing the total number of Marines whove been cleared or won case dismissals in the Iraq-war incident to seven. Undue command influence on the prosecution led to the outcome in Chessanis case. Bottom line: Thats zero for seven for military prosecutors, with one trial left to go.

I repeat: Haditha prosecution goes 0-7. But you wont see that headline in the same Armageddon-sized font the New York Times used repeatedly when the story first broke.

The Times, Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), and the rest of the antiwar drum-pounders who fueled the smear campaign against the troops two years ago should hang their hands in shame. They wont, of course. Perpetuating the cold-blooded Marines narrative means never having to say youre sorry.

It means never having to look Lt. Col. Chessani (charges dismissed), Lt. Andrew Grayson (acquitted), Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum (charges dismissed), Capt. Lucas McConnell (charges dismissed), Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt (charges dismissed), Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz (charges dismissed), Sgt. Frank Wuterich (awaiting trial), and their families in the eyes and apologize for the preemptive character assassination they all faced at the hands of the hyperventilating, noose-hanging press.

Murtha and company applied Queen of Hearts (Off with their heads!) treatment to our own men and women in uniform while giving more benefit of the doubt to foreign terror suspects at Gitmo. It is worth recalling, because the press wont do it for you, what they concluded about the now-crumbling Haditha case in the summer of 2006 before a single formal charge had been filed.

 MSNBC hangman Keith Olbermann, who couldnt wait to define the entire war in Iraq by a single moment about which he knew nothing, inveighed that the incident was willful targeted brutality. Due process? For convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, of course. For our military? Never mind.

 Far-left The Nation magazine railed, Enough details have emerged to conclude that members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment perpetrated a massacre. The publication also judged the event a willful, targeted brutality designed to send a message to Iraqis. Not content with hanging the troops, the Nation pinned blame on the president and a so-called culture of impunity that supposedly permeates the most accountable military in the world.

 Singing the same tune as The Nation, the New York Times spilled a flood of front-page ink on the case and took things a step further in a lead editorial blaming not just President Bush, but also top Pentagon brass for the nightmare killings in Haditha. Times reporter Paul von Zielbauer filed over 30 stories on the case, which the paper wishfully called the defining atrocity of the Iraq war.

 Hoping to facilitate a self-fulfilling prophecy, media tools around the world likened Haditha to the Vietnam Wars most infamous atrocity from the Guardian (My Lai on the Euphrates?) to the London Telegraph (Massacre in Iraq just like My Lai) to the Los Angeles Times (What happened at the Iraqi My Lai?) to the New York Timess Maureen Dowd (My Lai acid flashback) and the Associated Press, which reached into its photo archives to run a 1970 file photo of My Lai to illustrate a Haditha article.

 And, of course, theres the permanent stain left by the slanderous propaganda of Rep. Murtha the stab in the Marines backs heard round the world: Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.

Relatives of the Haditha Marines have called for Congress to censure Murtha, who cuts and runs to the nearest elevator when questioned about the Haditha dismissals. He and the Haditha smear merchants have skated while the men and their families suffered global whippings on the airwaves and eternal demonization in print. Whose culture of impunity?

I decided to check and see how accurate Ms. Malkin was when insinuating that the New York Times would give far different treatment to this latest dismissal of charges than it did to the bringing of them.  So I just read through today's news section to see how they reported it. 

When the Times could call it a massacre, it was front page/lead story news.  But now?   A grudging little afterthought at the bottom of page A9.

How did your news source(s) handle this story?  Did you see or hear any mention of john murtha or any comment which compared what he said to what we found out when the evidence was presented? 

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


Ken Berwitz

This comes to us from an article by Ben Smith of which I am excerpting below.  Draw your own conclusions:

Muslims barred from picture at Obama event


Two Muslim women at Barack Obama's rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally. 

"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."

Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate's message.

When Obama won the North Carolina primary amid questions about his ability to connect with white voters, for instance, he stood in front of a group of middle-aged white women waving small American flags. On the Republican side, a Hispanic New Hampshire Democrat, Roberto Fuentes, told Politico that he was recently asked, and declined, to contribute to the "diversity" of the crowd behind Sen. John McCain at a Nashua event.

But for Obama, the old-fashioned image-making contrasts with his promise to transcend identity politics and to embrace all elements of America. The incidents in Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the country, also raise an aspect of his campaign that sometimes rubs Muslims the wrong way: The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim. But the denials seem to some at times to imply that there is something wrong with the faith, though Obama occasionally adds that he means no disrespect to Islam.

"I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to," said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. "The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."

In Detroit on Monday, the two different Obama volunteers  in separate incidents  made it clear that headscarves wouldn't be in the picture. The volunteers gave different explanations for excluding the hijabs, one bluntly political and the other less clear.

In Aref's case, there was no ambiguity.

That incident began when the volunteer asked Aref's friend Ali Koussan and two other friends, Aref's brother Sharif and another young lawyer, Brandon Edward Miller, whether they would like to sit behind the stage. The three young men said they would, but mentioned they were with friends.

The men said the volunteer, a twenty-something African-American woman in a green shirt, asked if their friends looked and were dressed like the young men, who were all light-skinned and wearing suits. Miller said yes, but mentioned that one of their friends was wearing a headscarf with her suit.

The volunteer "explained to me that because of the political climate and what's going on in the world and what's going on with Muslim Americans, it's not good for [Aref] to be seen on TV or associated with Obama," said Koussan, who is a law student at Wayne State University.

Both Koussan and Miller said they specifically recalled the volunteer citing the "political climate" in telling them they couldn't sit behind Obama.

"I was like, 'You've got to be kidding me. Are you serious?'" Koussan recalled.

Shimaa Abdelfadeel's story was different. She'd waited on line outside the Joe Louis Arena for three hours in the sun and was walking through the giant hall when a volunteer approached two of her non-Muslim friends, a few steps ahead of her, and asked if they'd like to sit in "special seating" behind the stage, said one friend, Brittany Marino, who, like Abdelfadeel, is a recent University of Michigan graduate who works for the university.

When they said they were with Abdelfadeel, the volunteer told them their friend would have to take the headscarf off or stay out of the special section, Marino said. They declined the seats. 

After recovering from the shock of the incident, Abdelfadeel went to look for the volunteer and confronted her minutes later, she said in an e-mail interview with Politico.

"We're not letting anyone with anything on their heads like baseball [caps] or scarves sit behind the stage," she paraphrased the volunteer as saying, an account Marino confirmed. "It has nothing to do with your religion!"

In most work and school settings, religious dress  such as Jewish yarmulkes, Sikh turbans, Muslim hijabs  is permitted where secular clothing like baseball caps is not.

"The scarf is not just something she can take off  it's part of her identity," said Marino.

Photographs of the event also show men with hats in the section behind Obama and former Vice President Al Gore, though not directly behind the candidate.

Abdelfadeel, like Aref, felt "disappointed, angry and let-down," she later wrote.

She was "let-down that the Obama campaign continously perpetuates this attitude towards Muslims and Arabs  as if being merely associated [with] one is a sin."

The two women's friends who witnessed the incidents were disappointed too. Aref's friend Miller said he was "shocked" by the contrast between Obama's message and their experience.

"He was the one candidate who you would expect to stand up for something like that  and behind the scenes you have something completely contrary to what he was running on," said Koussan, Aref's other friend.

Did you draw your own conclusions?  Good.  Here's mine.

This another "I'm appalled" moment:

-He heard jeremiah wright spew hatred for 18 years and then, when votes were at stake, he was appalled by it;

-He was pals with william ayers and bernardine dohrn but when votes were at stake he was appalled by them;

-He was a major recipient of money from Antoin "Tony" Rezko (who also facilitated the purchse of Mr. Obama's home and adjoining property) but when votes were at stake he was appalled by Rezko;

-He has stocked his campaign with anti-Israel staff, including Merrill "Tony" McPeak, Joe Cirincione, Samantha Powers, Zbigniew Brzezinski but when votes were at stake he was appalled by anti-Israel sentiments and  expressed his undying love for the country;

Now his people are telling Muslims with headscarves to get lost and when voters find out about it he is appalled by that too.

The question is, how many times will this work?


Ken Berwitz

Did you see the "I'm voting Republican because...." insult-video that Obama's pals (not his campaign so far as I know) have put out?  It is vile beyond belief, and therefore is unlikely to be condemned by much of the mainstream media or just about anyone on MSNBC.

Well, Ben Shapiro saw it.  And he has a very interesting reaction.  Here it is:

Ben Shapiro
Why I'm Voting Democrat

A new video on YouTube is taking the Internet by storm. Entitled "I'm Voting Republican," the satirical clip depicts actors playing conservative Americans of all shapes and sizes explaining why they would vote for the GOP.

"Arnold Jones" says he's voting Republican because "all other countries are inferior to us" -- and his wife, "Trudy Jones," adds, "and we should start as many wars as we need to keep it that way." A soldier in Iraq states that he's voting Republican "so I can stay in Iraq" -- and a young boy, labeled "future draftee," points a fake gun at the camera and smiles while saying "so I can go to Iran!"

A black couple says they're voting Republican because they "like a conservative majority on the Supreme Court," with the wife noting, "we really like knowing that even if we're separate, we'll still be called equal."

This insulting nonsense is precisely what liberals think of conservatives: We're all warmongers, racists, environmental rapists and secret emissaries of big corporations. We're going to reinstitute the draft, start a war with Canada and then relocate African-Americans to Quebec.

This sort of tripe should be dismissed out of hand. In the spirit of evenhandedness and fair play, however, I feel it my duty to explain why I'm going to vote Democrat.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that the best strategy in war is defeat. It broadens the mind to learn Japanese, German and Arabic. Talk about multiculturalism!

I'm voting Democrat because I'm mad that George W. Bush hasn't caught Bin Laden. That's because Bin Laden is the only Islamic terrorist in the world.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that if I don't have enough money, the solution is for the government to take more of my money. Who needs money when gas is $5 per gallon?

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that the ideal family is two homosexual bonobos, a goat and a parrot raising a human baby. Love and compassion is all it takes to make a successful family!

I'm voting Democrat because it's my body, and if I want to kill my baby, I'll do it, even if its head is in the birth canal. If I want to cut out my intestines and feed them to the crocodiles, I'll do that too. That's the freedom our forefathers enshrined in the Constitution.

I'm voting Democrat because our enemies on the battlefield deserve comfy hotel rooms, Pay-Per-View, prostitutes and all the benefits of American citizenship.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe we need other countries' permission for me to turn down my thermostat.

I'm voting Democrat because I care about the real victims of crime -- criminals.

I'm voting Democrat because the real cure for racism includes preferential policies based on race -- particularly in presidential voting. If you believe that a black candidate ought to be qualified, as well as black, you're worse than Bull Conner.

I'm voting Democrat because everyone deserves crappy healthcare. Sure, you'll have to wait years for that life-saving cancer surgery. But it's first come, first served at the cemetery!

I'm voting Democrat because I believe in minority rights (except in Muslim countries), free speech (with regard to pornography but not conservative talk radio), environmentalism (unless we're talking about Al Gore's house) and diplomacy (but never backed by the threat of military force).

I'm voting Democrat because I like the words "hope" and "change." Also "kazoo." That's a funny word.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that America's founders were rich, white, greedy xenophobes, and that America's founding principles are hogwash requiring periodic editing from an unelected group of liberal judges.

Most of all, I'm voting Democrat because I like the ideas they have over in France, but I don't feel like moving there. I'll threaten to move, but I really won't. After all, I have a good job, healthcare, lower taxes, free speech and a social framework that promotes family structure. And all of it is defended by the most effective fighting force on the planet.

If only the institution of far-left values resulted in a great country. Oh, well. That won't stop me from voting Democrat, though. After all, I'm voting Democrat because thought isn't one of my strong suits.
I can't say that I agree with everything Mr. Shapiro has written.  I could certainly have lived without the homosexual reference, for example.  But his overall point is right on target. 
Hate is hate, even if it comes from the simon-pure Democratic set.  And handing back a taste of their own medicine might wake a few of these folks up - I hope. I doubt it, but I hope.


Ken Berwitz

Here is another either gaffe or statement of ignorance - maybe both- from Barack Obama that is going virtually unreported in the mainstream media, which is is too busy drooling over Mr. Obama to act like journalistic professionals.  It comes to us courtesy of John Hinderaker at and columnist Jennifer Rubin:

Not Ready for Late Night Infomercial Time

Repeatedly through the campaign so far, Barack Obama has demonstrated a troubling lack of familiarity with American history, especially diplomatic history. Obama's cluelessness about diplomacy has raised troubling questions about whether he is qualified to be President. This one may have answered the question:

Democrat Barack Obama misused a "code word" in Middle East politics when he said Jerusalem should be Israel's "undivided" capital but that does not mean he is naive on foreign policy, a top adviser said on Tuesday.

Addressing a pro-Israel lobby group this month, the Democratic White House hopeful said: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Obama backed off almost immediately when Palestinians protested his remarks to AIPAC. The adviser, Daniel Kurtzer, continued:

Daniel Kurtzer, who advises Obama on the Middle East, said Tuesday at the Israel Policy Forum that Obama's comment stemmed from "a picture in his mind of Jerusalem before 1967 with barbed wires and minefields and demilitarized zones."

"So he used a word to represent what he did not want to see again, and then realized afterwards that that word is a code word in the Middle East," Kurtzer said.

I don't believe Kurtzer's explanation for a moment--why would Obama's mental picture of Jerusalem date from a time when he was five years old?--but it seems clear that, as Kurtzer says, Obama did not understand the significance of an "undivided Jerusalem."

Diplomacy is full of "code words," and for a President not to understand them can be lethal. It could also be dangerous for a President to have a "picture in his mind" of Jerusalem that is forty years out of date, if that really is the case. Maybe Obama should stop off there on his trip to Iraq, whenever that may take place.

It has become clear that Barack Obama has a great deal of learning to do before he is ready to serve as President. (One wonders, actually, what he is doing in the Senate.) Worse, he seems to have little understanding of his own limitations and no interest in putting in the hard work it will take for him to become even moderately conversant with foreign policy issues. Once again, we see the dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance that characterizes Obama's Presidential campaign.

Via Jennifer Rubin.


What if it had been John McCain instead of Barack Obama? 

Do you think media would have buried this bait-and-switch the way they've buried it for Mr. Obama?  Do you think they'd reference Mr. McCain's age if he said it? 

Or if he said there were 57-59 states, the way Mr. Obama did? 

Or if he called Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq "President Maliki", the way Mr. Obama did?

Or if it were Mr. McCain providing any of the other numerous gaffes and outright lies we have detailed from Mr. Obama over the past months?

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


Ken Berwitz

The Minnesota Democratic Party (actually DFL:  Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party) has a problem.  His name is Al Franken

Franken is now the party's candidate for U.S. Senate.  He aspires to unseat Norm Coleman, who appears to be one of the more vulnerable incumbent Republican Senators out there. 

Given Mr. Franken's name recognition and Mr. Coleman's vulnerability, you would think this is good news for the DFL, but it isn't.  Because Al Franken's issues appear to far supersede Senator Coleman's. 

I'll let Brian Mahoney, of fill you in on the details.  Be sure to click on each of his links so you can see how completely his commentary is referenced:


When Even MSM Is Stunned, Isn't There A Problem?

When the Washington Post feels the need to run an
obscene content disclaimer at the top of a piece about your party's US Senate nominee, is it time to admit there's a problem?

Though Minnesota's DFL Party has designated alleged funnyman Al Franken its nominee, questions about his shady and downright creepy background continue unabated.

Why would any party want this weirdo to represent them in Congress?

First, it was his questionable antics while at Air America Radio, then his tax dodge and worker's compensation scandals, accusations of strange public behavior and now, lingering concerns over his infamous "Porn-O-Rama" Playboy column. Has any candidate ever had this much baggage going into an election?

Though Franken would like "Porn-O-Rama" to disappear, that seems unlikely anytime soon, especially with today's
Washington Post piece by Michael Gerson. Take note of the disclaimer at the top:

Vulgarian at the Gate

Warning: The following contains extreme vulgarity by a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

In the razor-close and nationally important Senate race in Minnesota, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman is presented with a unique political problem. Should he raise in his ads the issue of comedian Al Franken's offensive vulgarity? Or would this risk a backlash against Coleman for coarsening the public conversation? Remember that when Ken Starr detailed Bill Clinton's most repulsive antics -- stained dresses and such -- it was Starr who was accused of sexual obsessiveness.

Franken's defenders explain that his edginess is the result of being a "satirist" -- a term he embraces. "My work, dare I say, is provocative, touching and funny," Franken has explained. "It sounds immodest, but I now have a brand name in political satire."

So what is Franken's "provocative, touching and funny" contribution to the genre? Consider his article in Playboy magazine titled "Porn-O-Rama!" in which he enthuses that it is an "exciting time for pornographers and for us, the consumers of pornography." The Internet, he explains, is a "terrific learning tool. For example, a couple of years ago, when he was 12, my son used the Internet for a sixth-grade report on bestiality. Joe was able to download some effective visual aids, which the other students in his class just loved." Franken goes on to relate a soft-core fantasy about women providing him with sex who were trained at the "Minnesota Institute of Titology."

"Porn-O-Rama!" is a modern campaign document every voter should read -- the Federalist Papers of lifestyle liberalism. It has the literary sensibilities and moral seriousness of an awkward adolescent nerd publishing an underground newspaper to shock his way into campus popularity. But, in this case, the article was written in 2000 by a 48-year-old man.

Franken's "brand name" includes other highlights. In 2006, after a long monologue about a dog and its vomit, Franken impersonated the deceased Sen. Strom Thurmond as saying: "Yeah, I screwed a woman who was vomiting once." He once proposed a television sketch about a female CBS reporter being drugged and raped. He has suggested that his next book title might be "I F -- -- -- Hate Those Right-Wing Motherf -- -- -- !" At an event hosted by the Feminist Majority Foundation in 1999, Franken offered this thigh-slapper: "Why don't we focus on what Afghan women can do? They can cook, bear children and pray. As I recall, that was fine for our grandmothers."

Again, to the Democrats, here's a question they still refuse to answer: why do you want this creep in the US Senate? Is this really the best you have to offer?


As political baggage goes, that is a cargo-hold full of it.  Can Franken possibly overcome his background - as well as the fact that he is running for the senate without ever having held any public office (Coleman was the mayor of St. Paul) - and win?  How dispiriting would that be?

We'll find out in November.  And if I were a Minnesotan I would be plenty worried about it. A state that elected Jesse "The Body" Ventura, a professional wrestler, as its governor is capable of anything. 


Ken Berwitz

This insanity regarding a Bush judicial nominee comes to us from Paul Mirengoff of  You won't believe your eyes:

Maryland's Democratic Senators embarrass themselves

The eight year campaign by Senate Democrats to prevent President Bush's judicial nominees from receiving up-or-down votes has been characterized by nearly every form of intellectual and factual dishonesty imaginable. At this late date, one wouldn't have expected any recently developed obstructionist arguments to stand out for cynicism.

Nonetheless, as this Examiner editorial notes, my two Senators (Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin) seem to have broken new ground. They are blocking the nomination of the exceptionally well-qualified Rod Rosenstein to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the ground Rosenstein "is doing a good job as the U.S. attorney in Maryland and thats where we need him. Who would have thought that excellence as a U.S. attorney would be a career-limiting gesture?

Sensing the absurdity of their rationale, Mikulski and Cardin offer an alternative one; they claim that Rosenstein's roots in the Maryland legal community arent deep enough. But Rosenstein has been in Maryland since 1997, and has served in legal public service the entire time. Moreover, the Senate unanimously approved him as Marylands U.S. attorney in 2005, with Mikulskis support. Since Rosenstein is charged with (and viewed by Mikulski and Cardin as indispensable for) protecting Marylanders from federal crimes, it's difficult to understand how his legal roots in the state can be deemed inadequate.

Since Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy has said he will not allow hearings for nominees without the support of their home-state senators, the absurd verdict of Mikulski and Cardin seems final.

He's TOO GOOD to be appointed?  TOO GOOD?

There it is, folks, right on the square.  And grow old waiting to see a bad word about it in the New York Times or a segment about it on the Today show or any show on MSNBC. 

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


Ken Berwitz

I used to go to quite a bit, to see how the far-out left wing was thinking.  I also used to post comments there.  Let us say that I didn't get a warm reception.  It would be hard - maybe impossible - to overstate the hatred that was piled on even the most neutrally worded dissent there.

Today I decided to take a nostalgic little stroll back to crooksandliars, to see if the people who run it have calmed down their regulars (remember, everything that is on a web site is allowed to be there - the people running a site can remove any material they find unsuitable).

Well, I came upon a blog, written by someone calling him/herself "Silent Patriot, about John McCain.  The blog itself, while strongly anti-McCain, was not objectionable to me.  But then there were the comments - many by people whose names I recognize from when I used to go there regularly. 

I thought you might like to see a sampling of their wit and wisdom.  Here it is:

I do not feel that I am obligated in any way to honor his heroic service. What is heroic about being shot down and then spending five years in captivity, some of it spent collaborating with the enemy? Puh-leeze. If anybody needed to be swiftboated in the most severe way, its this piece of shit, that supposedly was tortured during those five years but now thinks torture is just fine. The guys a complete dick and needs to be flayed alive.

Apparently, the GOP looks at mentally unfit as a requirement for their presidential nominees.

I think the media looks at McCain as the pitiful elderly ex POW and they are afraid if they say anything negative they will look like they are being disrespectful of him.

In view of the fact that Kerry released his entire military record, we should accept nothing less from McSame.  Fork it over Gramps. (NOTE:  Kerry had never released his entire military record)

Being captured doesnt make you a hero. It makes you a POW. There were POWs who were heros and Grandpa McCain was not one of them.

McCain claims he was tortured. How do we know that is true? He has a proclivity to make it up as he goes along, so we need to really
know more about this chronic liar. If he did serve, so what anyway? He is now a pathological liar and would eagerly start another war to get elected or stay in power. That creep needs to retire and leave the future to us. Screw him!!!

Why are we obligated to honor his heroic service? Why does anyone think this plane-crashing moron is a hero? Because he says he was tortured? Fuck him.

So?  Feel the love?  And, believe me, there is plenty more where that came from.  As I said, this is just a sampling.

It's nice to know that some things just don't ever change.


Ken Berwitz

Here is an excerpt from the Associated Press story concerning differences between Barack Obama and John McCain's tax proposals:

The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, gives a preliminary estimate that over the next decade, McCains tax proposals would reduce federal revenues $3.7 trillion while Obamas cuts would amount to $2.7 trillion.

The center said the cuts would slice roughly 10 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of the federal revenues scheduled for collection under current law. But the centers estimate seemingly the first nonpartisan comprehensive comparison of the plans is incomplete because it doesnt account for health care tax proposals or, at least in McCains case, consider how proposals to slash spending would offset some costs

Overall, the Tax Policy Center said people with very high incomes would benefit the most under McCains proposal, while low- and middle-income taxpayers would see larger tax breaks under Obamas plan and wealthy taxpayers would see their taxes increase


Why that dirty bum!  How dare McCain give all those goodies to the rich and screw over the poor!  And we know this is true, because the NONPARTISAN Tax Policy Center said so.  Just read the Associated Press article and see.


The great web site has checked the "nonpartisan" Tax Policy Center's creators and found, let us say, a slightly different reality.  Here it is, along with sweetness-light's reaction:

The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute

What a laugh. The Brookings Institution is a Democrat Party think tank.

From Discover The Networks:

Brookings Institution

Brookings has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including the Global Governance Initiative, which aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government, based in part on economic and Third World considerations. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petition opposing President Bushs tax cuts in 2003

The Brookings Institutions President since 2002 has been Strobe Talbott, who served as President Clintons Deputy Secretary of State. The Board of Trustees features Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of John Kerry; Zoe Baird, failed Clinton appointee for Attorney General

And the Urban Institute is even more far left Democrat Party organ. Again from Discover The Networks:

Urban Institute

In 1980, UI called for socialized health care in the United States, and in 1982 began a running critique of the Reagan Administration under its Changing Domestic Priorities Project; the critique ran to 26 volumes, with research paid for by the Ford Foundation.

In 1990, UI put together a similar critique of the administration of President George H.W. Bush. In the wake of the Los Angeles riots in 1992, UI became a leading policy-center apologist for urban black violence, focusing on societal and economic, rather than moral and criminal, factors in its analysis of the riots.

In 2001, UI and the Brookings Institution began collaboration on a Tax Policy Center (TPC) to discredit President George W. Bushs tax cut plans, which UI claimed disproportionately and unjustly favored "the wealthy."

Making a case for taxpayer-funded system of socialized medicine, another May 2006 UI report concludes that "public insurance appears to offer the best financial protection from high out-of-pocket expenses and financial burden for low-income families."

In a June 2006 report on immigration and government tax revenues, UI concludes that: "Immigrants in Washington, D.C. pay their fair share of the regions tax bill. The most educated foreign-born earners actually pay more in taxes than natives; the lower skilled contribute too." This report makes no distinction between legal immigrants and illegal aliens, the latter of whom it refers to as "unauthorized immigrants."

But the professional propagandists at the Associated Press foist the press release from these groups as an "unbiased" study.

[T]he first nonpartisan comprehensive comparison of the plans is incomplete because it doesnt account for health care tax proposals

Gee, one wonders why they didnt include those. (Or any of the dozens of other budget busting programs Mr. Obama has promised in exchange for votes.)

However the AP does manage to work in their near ubiquitous but false claim that "the country is teetering on the brink of if not already in a recession."

But no lie is too large for the AP in the service of their Democrat masters.

See, this is how they manipulate you.  A mention, in passing/almost subliminal in nature, that what you are about to read is nonpartisan.  But a reality that the "nonpartisan" source is the creation of two hardline partisan pro Democratic/anti Republican groups.

And if you didn't read this, it is probable that you would never know. 


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!!