Monday, 22 September 2008


Ken Berwitz

Since mainstream media, by and large (maybe that should be lie and large) continue to protect Barack Obama regarding his stand against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA), I will continue to put up the articles appearing in other places, because those are the only places where voters are able to learn about this disgrace.

Here is today's installment, from Ashley Herzog of  The bold print is mine.

Born Alive
If Barack Obama had his way, Gianna Jessen wouldnt be here today.

In fact, if her biological mothers late-term abortion had gone as planned, Jessen would have died in utero after being burned inside and out by a saline solution. But today, she is a healthy 31-year-old -- and she wants voters to know the truth about Obamas stance on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

Were not talking about abortion. Were talking about living, breathing babies who have survived an abortion and need medical care, Jessen explained to HUMAN EVENTS. Obama doesnt think they should get it.
Jessen appears in a new campaign ad sponsored by
In it, she says, Four times, Barack Obama voted to oppose a law to protect babies left to die after a failed abortion. Senator Obama, please support born-alive infant protections. I'm living proof these babies have a right to live. was co-founded by Jessen and Jill Stanek, a former nurse who discovered her hospital, Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, was leaving aborted babies to die in soiled utility closets.

I held a baby boy who had been aborted at 21 weeks because he had Downs syndrome, Stanek says. I cradled and rocked him for 45 minutes before he died.

Stanek was shocked to discover that leaving these babies to die was legal under Illinois law. She became a vocal supporter of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and testified before the state senate -- where she encountered Barack Obama.

He didnt just vote against it. He took a leadership position against the bill, Stanek says. He maintained
that the Born Alive Infants Protection Act would undermine abortion rights.

Stanek believes that Obama is now trying to misrepresent his vote, especially since a nearly identical federal bill passed Congress in 2002.

The federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed with overwhelming support, even from liberal Democrats. Even NARAL [the National Abortion Rights Action League] was neutral on the federal bill, she says. In Illinois, Obama had voted to the left of NARAL. He basically took a stand for fourth-trimester abortions. Why?

Whatever his reasons, Stanek and Jessen are determined to spread the truth about Obamas votes -- as well as the reality of late-term abortion.

I should have been delivered dead, burned and blinded. My birth certificate was signed by an abortion doctor, says Jessen. I hear people say that abortion is a matter of womens rights. I ask them, If abortion is about womens rights, what were mine?

There it is, plain as day.

Barack Obama voted against, and proactively blocked, legislation that would confer human rights upon human beings;  a bill which would prevent "doctors" from just letting them die - which they were doing.

Let's be 100% clear.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with abortions.  The babies in question were born.  They were 100% out of the womb

Incredibly (well, maybe not so incredibly since this is on behalf of Barack Obama), our wonderful, "neutral" media will not force Mr. Obama to explain why he worked for years to prevent this legislation from passing (which it did, with bipartisan support, as soon as the Illinois state senate was rid of him). 

Nor will our wonderful "neutral" media demand an explanation of why Barack Obama lied to our faces by claiming he would have supported the BAIPA bill if it had language that assured abortion rights would not be infringed.  The truth came out that the bill was amended, with that exact language included, and he voted against BAIPA anyway.

Is it asking too much of mainstream media to report that a presidential candidate - one favored to win the presidency - has lied to our faces about his opposition to a bill that was written to prevent infanticide?

Apparently it is.

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


Ken Berwitz

One of the (only) good things about media's ongoing pro-Obama bias is that it means I never run out of material that demonstrates how deep and pervasive that bias is.

Here, from Scott Mirengoff of, is a very small sampling of the stories that Barack Obama would have been nailed for if we had a neutral media or anything close to it.  Please note that each example is fully reference - I urge you to follow the links Scott provides and see for yourself:

Deep secrets of campaign 2008

The news regarding the presidential campaign has been delivered on two tracks. On one track the mainstream media have played their usual role of the Victorian gentleman described by Tom Wolfe in The Right Stuff. In this capacity, to borrow Wolfe's formulation, the mainstream media have prescribed the proper emotion, the seemly sentiment, the fitting moral tone, that must be establishedl; and all information that muddies the tone and weakens the feeling has been thrown down the memory hole.

Wolfe's description has obvious application to the press's treatment of Barack Obama during this campaign season, with the result that important stories illuminating Obama's character, judgment and lack of seriousness have been thrown down the memory hole if they have ever seen the light of day. Here are five of them, briefly noted with links.

The Teamsters endorse Obama: Wall Street Journal reporters Brody Mullins and Kris Maher reported in early May how Barack Obama won the Teamsters' endorsement for president. In a meeting earlier this year, he privately "told the union that he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption[.]"

Obama holds himself out as a new kind of politician who refuses to play the old games. The Mullins/Maher story should have blown Obama's pretense up several times over -- Obama delivers change the Teamsters can believe in! -- but it has generated next to no coverage.

Some Democrats recently sought the impeachment of an attorney general for politicizing justice by the firing of eight United States Attorneys. Many Democrats joined in driving the attorney general from office on the charge. Democrats now seek the election of a presidential candidate who is engaged in something that looks very much like the genuine article, with the appearance of corruption thrown in for good measure.

Obama rattles the saber on Iran: During the run-up to the primaries, Senator Obama did not appear in the Senate to vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment calling on the government to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist entity and thus suffer the imposition of sanctions.

On the day of the vote on the amendment, however, Obama issued a statement announcing that he would have voted against it. In the statement, the closest he came to addressing the merits of the amendment was his assertion that "he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran." The amendment passed the Senate 76-22 on September 26, 2007, with many Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, and Chuck Schumer voting in its favor.

Obama mercilessly attacked Hillary Clinton for her vote in favor of the amendment. Obama likened it to her 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war. "This saber-rattling was a repetition of Iraq," he said.

The day after securing the Democratic nomination, however, Obama appeared at the AIPAC policy conference in Washington and delivered a speech calling for "boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization." The time had arrived for Obama (to use his words) to rattle the saber.

Suffice it to say that Hillary Clinton has a special insight into the naked cynicism that fuels Obama's campaign. However, to the extent that Obama's cynicism makes her look like a highly principled politician, Senator Clinton may have somewhat mixed feelings about it.

Obama's friendship with some guy who lives in his neighborhood: During the primaries Obama famously described unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers has "some guy in my neighborhood." More recently, in his interview with Bill O'Reilly on FOX News, Obama asserted that Ayers was just one of the thousands of acquaintances he's made over the years.

Obama's description of his relationship with Ayers is simply deceitful. Thanks to the work of Steve Diamond and Stanley Kurtz among others, followers of the campaign on the Internet have discovered that Obama had a close working relationship with Ayers.

Apparently thanks to Ayers, Obama was named the chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the foundation of which Ayers was a founder and guiding force. Their working relationship gave rise to what Kurtz describes as close and ongoing political partnership.

Obama's devout belief in abortion: Obama holds himself out as a sort of moderate on the subject of abortion, asserting, for example, that abortions during the second and third trimesters should be rare. Asked by Pastor Rick Warren when the fetus acquires the rights of personhood, Obama declared the question above his "pay grade." No abortion ideologue he.

As a member of the Illinois legislauture, however, we now know (if you get your news from the Internet) that in 2001 Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as persons. As David Freddoso has reported: "The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted 'present' on the bill after denouncing it. It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee."

Fredosso also reports that in 2003 Obama voted was one of six Illinois senate members to vote against the Illinois bill that mirrored the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The federal version of the bill had by then passed the Senate unanimously and been signed into law. The true history of Obama's record on abortion places him on the fringe with abortion rights extremists in his own party.

Obama's historical howlers: Obama has repeatedly made it clear when invoking American history to support his positions that he is shockingly ignorant. In support of his advocacy of presidential negotiations with Iran, for example, Obama points to the constructive role that the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit in Vienna played in the ultimate American victory in the Cold War.

By all accounts, however, the Vienna summit was a disaster for the United States. It led, among other things, to the emplacement of the Berlin Wall by the Soviet Union, to the Cuban missile crisis and to the enhancement of the American role in Vietnam. Either Obama is familiar with the history and is deliberately exploiting the ignorance of his supporters, or he has no idea what he is talking about. (I incline to the latter view.)

The anonymous Victorian gentleman who titled his underground sexual autobiography My Secret Life has his counterparts among the mainstream media this year, only they won't write the book that should be called My Secret Campaign.

Let me emphasize again that this is a very small sampling.  The list of gaffes and stupidities and dishonesties goes on and on and on.....right past our wonderful "neutral" media.

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


Ken Berwitz

Earlier I posted the comments of McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt who unloaded on the New York Times for what he (and I) consider its heavy bias in favor of Barack Obama.  He said:

Let's be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this is that whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that everyday attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Senator McCain, attacks Governor Palin, and excuses Senator Obama.

This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective, that it is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate in this case John McCain and advocate for the election of the other candidate, Barack Obama."

Strong words and then some.

Well, New York Times editor Bill Keller has heard Steve Schmidt.  And he has spoken.  Here is Keller's rejoinder:

"The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively. It's our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisors. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it's what our readers expect and deserve."

That's it? 

The campaign manager for a major party presidential candidate has essentially called his newspaper a fraud, and this is all Keller can muster?

No specifics to rebut what Schmidt said (i.e. here is how many negative articles we wrote on Obama, just as many as McCain)?  Just a generic, form-letter-quality version of "did not, did not", which went over big during 4th grade recess but doesn't work very well for the editor of a major newspaper.

To me, this means one of two things:  either Keller is so pompous that he thinks he doesn't need to say more, or he has no credible defense, so this is all he can say. 

Personally, I'm going with door #2.

What do you think?


Ken Berwitz

Are you outraged by that title?  Do you find it baseless, tasteless and disgusting?  Should I be ashamed beyond words to have put it there.

Well, hold those thoughts, and now read this, from

NBC jokes: Todd Palin has sex with daughters
'Saturday Night Live' skit suggests Sarah's husband guilty of incest

Posted:  September 21, 2008
2:18 am Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
 2008 WorldNetDaily

A week after a high-profile send-up of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on "Saturday Night Live," the NBC comedy show returned to making fun of the Alaskan governor in a skit where New York Times reporters sought to probe the possibility Palin's husband, Todd, was having sex with the couple's own daughters.

"What about the husband?" asked a Times reporter during a mock assignment meeting for the paper. "You know he's doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It's Alaska."

The assignment editor for the Times, portrayed by actor James Franco, responded: "He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin."

The skit featured a photo of one reporter and an on-screen message that stated, "In 2009 [reporter] Howland Gwathmey Moss, V was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his Times series on unproven, yet un-disproven incest in the Palin family. Sadly, he was to die 3 months later, run over by a snow machine, driven by a polar bear."

The final shot showed an image of a New York Times page, with headlines that included:

"While No Direct Evidence of Incest in Palin Family Emerges, Counter Evidence Remains Agonizingly Elusive" and "In a Small Alaska Town, Doubts Still Linger."

The sketch seemed to be designed to mock how out of touch journalists from the Big Apple are when it comes to their knowledge of Alaska, with left-leaning, Manhattan-dwelling reporters mistaking a snowmobile for a "baptizing machine," a crucifix and a NordicTrack exerciser in photographs held up for them.

Some viewers expressed outrage.

"It is time the Palin family brought out the big guns. They need to sue General Electric, NBC, 'Saturday Night Live,'" said Al Barrs of Bascom, Fla. "This is clearly criminal and defamation of character of an entire family and state. All the above needs to be taken to their knees big time once and for all."

"What if somebody did one with this kind of humor on Obama and his daughters?" asked Jim Cash of Chattanooga, Tenn. "What an uproar there would be. This line of humor is tasteless and moronic and about as low as they could go. There simply must be an uproar over this. We cannot let this just pass."

But others, such as Ana Jimenez, believe the episode was all in good fun, since the program is a comedy show.

"Anyone that watched Saturday's show and believed the skit in which it was suggested that there was incest in the Palin household needs to have [his] head examined," said Jimenez. "The purpose of the joke (tacky and crude as it was, I did not care for it at all by the way) was to show how out of touch journalists are not an attack on the Palin household. Sheesh, get a grip!"

NBC's website for "Saturday Night Live" normally contains video clips of the show's comedy routines, but, interestingly, the clip of the incest sketch was never posted online.

The show opened with a brief skit making fun of truth-enhanced TV ads John McCain was approving for his campaign. One ad claimed that since
Barack Obama was in favor of universal health care, that meant coverage for everyone in the entire universe, including terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

The Politico reported the opening scene was crafted with the help of former castmember Al Franken, a Democrat currently running for the U.S. Senate from Minnesota.

How do you feel about what you just read?  The same way you felt about the title I used?  If so.... 


I hope you now understand that the only reason I put up that title was to demonstrate how disgusting a "comedy" skit that used it would be.  And therefore how disgusting it was when Saturday Night Live used it on Sarah Palin's husband and daughters.

If SNL had ever done something like that with Barack Obama and his daughters - maybe using the obtuseness of a small-town paper's reporter as the rationale - it would have been front page news everywhere today.  The howls of outrage would have been deafening.

But it was done with Todd Palin and his it's just a comedy skit.  No front page stories.  No media outrage.  No harm done.  Move along, sheeple, nothing to see here.

If, until now, you didn't realize how blatant the double standard is between coverage of Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin, maybe this will bring it home.

Or, if you still don't, maybe you're so far in the tank for Obama/Biden that nothing will make you open your eyes.  Not even something this blatantly disgusting.

If so, say hello to the news media.  They're all around you at the bottom of that tank.

One last thought:  Since this is the episode would-be U.S. Senator Al Franken decided to do some writing for, maybe he helped with the Todd Palin incest skit too.  He's certainly found abusive sex a source of TV humor in the past -- like when he proposed a Saturday Night Live "joke" about news reporter Lesley Stahl being drugged and raped.

You have to wonder if he was behind this one too.


Ken Berwitz

As readers of this blog know, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations disinivited Governor Sarah Palin from its anti-Iran protest rally at the UN this past weekend.

The reason Ms. Palin was disinivited was that Hillary Clinton, putting partisan politics above any concern for Israel, refused to be on the podium with her.  So instead of admonishing Clinton for caring more about politics than Israel, they told Palin not to come -- thus proving conclusively that they are liberal Democrats first and Jews second. 

In other words, instead of criticizing Hillary Clinton for partisanship over Israel, they did it too.

This being the case, I thought you might be interested in what Sarah Palin was going to say at that rally.  The New York Sun has published her speech, and I am now passing it on to you:


I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.

The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the "Iranian nation would not retreat one iota" from its nuclear program.

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.

If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.

But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran's desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.

Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran's official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government's threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.

It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.

If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed.

If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.

But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the "One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws." The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women's rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of "propaganda against the system." After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to "only" 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!

Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime's dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran's behavior.

Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.

We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran's allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran's refined petroleum imports.

We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran's economic influence.

We must target the regime's assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.

President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.

We must sanction Iran's Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization.

Together, we can stop Iran's nuclear program.

Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.

Thank you.

There it is.  Every word. 

Please note that the closest Governor Palin's remarks get to politics is when she compliments Hillary Clinton and states that she and Mr. McCain agree with Cinton's position on Israel.  In other words, the only political statement in her speech was NON-PARTISAN.

This is why, in a previous blog, I called The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations a bunch of whores.  It's because they are.

Shame on them all.


Ken Berwitz

Just how dirty is the Obama campaign and how great is the media intention to cover it up?  Based on this report from Michelle Malkin, the answers are "completely" and "huge" in that order:

Here are the facts that you will not read in mainstream media, completely referenced so you know they are true:

By Michelle Malkin    September 22, 2008 04:44 AM


Follow the disappearing YouTube account

The blogosphere is doing the job the MSM thinks no one else can do.

A collaborative investigative effort by our friends at The Jawa Report to expose an apparently astroturfed, anti-Sarah Palin smear campaign seems to have caused late-night panic in Barack Obama-linked p.r. circles. The bloggers digging into the provenance of anti-Sarah Palin smears on the web got results last night/early this morning while most elite journalists were still in their pajamas sleeping.

First, read this. Read the whole thing. Rusty Shackleford with help from Jane of Armies of Liberation, Stable Hand, the Jawa team, Dan Riehl, Ace of Spades, and Patterico traced a Palin-bashing YouTube video to a Democrat public relations firm, Winner and Associates, and one of its employees, Ethan S. Winner. They believe the voiceover for the ad which spreads the lie that Sarah Palin belonged to a fringe third party, the Alaska Independence Party was done by a professional whose voice they believe was also featured in several Obama ads and other spots produced by Obama top strategist and astroturfer extraordinaire David Axelrods firm.

The Jawa Reports bottom line:

While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign. Namely:

* Evidence suggests that a YouTube video with false claims about Palin was uploaded and promoted by members of a professional PR firm.

* The family that runs the PR firm has extensive ties to the Democratic Party, the netroots, and are staunch Obama supporters.

* Evidence suggests that the firm engaged in a concerted effort to distribute the video in such a way that it would appear to have gone viral on its own. Yet this effort took place on company time.

* Evidence suggests that these distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who is unconnected with the family running the company.

* The voice-over artist used in this supposedly amateur video is a professional.

* This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with David Axelrods firm, which has a history of engaging in phony grassroots efforts, otherwise known as astroturfing.

* David Axelrod is Barack Obamas chief media strategist.

* The same voice-over artist has worked directly for the Barack Obama campaign.

This suggests that false rumors and outright lies about Sarah Palin and John McCain being spread on the internet are being orchestrated by political partisans and are not an organic grassroots phenomenon led by the left wing fringe.

Now, heres the juicy part. Within an hour of publication of the Jawa Reports investigation, eswinner deleted the smear video that he had uploaded several times on September 11. Heres a screenshot of the cached copy:


Let me underline that: At some point between approx. 12 midnight - 2am Eastern, eswinner logged into his account and tried to erase all traces of the deceitful, Palin-bashing ad.


And at 4:26am Eastern, heres the message that appeared when attempting to view eswinners previously accessible account:


That was fast.

Eswinner didnt just delete the Palin/AIP smear ad and his entire account. A related YouTube account, Gocamerica, that was spreading the lie has now also tried covering its tracks and has been closed. Ace and Dan Riehl are tracking the cover-up.

The Jawas, who have been at the vanguard of smoking out jihadis on the web, of course saved the video and all relevant websites.

Rusty wonders:

If eswinner isnt Ethan Winner of the Publicis Groupe, then why did eswinner yank the video so quickly? Or if this was just an innocent homemade ad, then what does he have to hide? Youd think hed want more attention for it.

Indeed. Here it is, captured by a quick-thinking watchdog and reposted on YouTube.

I highly doubt eswinner will dare to send a takedown notice and reveal himself and the lawyers and money behind him.

But its only a matter of time before the truth comes out.

Stay tuned.


The dirtiness of the Obama campaign has actually become amazing.  These people seem determined to set a new standard in this category.

And the utter dishonesty of mainstream media, as they look the other way every time, is cynically pulling wool over the eyes of many people -- while simultaneously making media a pathetic joke to more and more others.

Sean Hannity (someone I don't always agree with) has said that this is the year journalism in the USA died.  The more I see and hear from Obama's stooges, the more I conclude that he is disquietingly close to being right.


Ken Berwitz

Here is another installment of the voluminous body of negative information about Barack Obama that most mainstream media are dilligently - deperately - trying to withhold from you until after election day.

It comes to us from David Freddoso, writing for  Freddoso is the author of "The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate", a huge best-seller which blows the cover off of Mr. Obama's record (and which is barely even noticed by those good folks on the network news, at the NY Times, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.).

Here is Mr. Fredosso's piece.  Read it and know the truth which they are trying so hard to withhold from you:

Obamas Real-Estate Bust
He did for Illinois taxpayers what shady mortgage lenders have done for the economy.

By David Freddoso

Last week, Sen. Barack Obama compared the Savings and Loan bailout of the late 1980s to the situation of the mortgage-securities markets today:

Too many S&Ls took advantage of the lax rules set by Washington to gamble that they could make big money in speculative real estate. . . . [T]hey made hundreds of billions in bad loans, knowing that if they lost money, the government would bail them out. And they were right. The gambles did not pay off, our economy went into recession, and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Sound familiar?

Indeed, it does sound familiar it sounds a lot like what Barack Obama did to Illinois taxpayers as a state senator in Springfield. Using his elected office and his clout, Obama helped Tony Rezko and other unscrupulous low-income housing developers obtain millions of dollars in state grants, tax credits, low-interest loans, and regulatory advantages.

Taxpayers had no serious chance of recouping these investments in Rezko and other developers. And many beneficiaries went one step farther, depriving the public of even the benefits they could have gotten. These developers took government help to build low-income housing, and then let their buildings deteriorate into uninhabitable slums.

To date, the most complete account of this sad story is
Binyamin Appelbaums piece in the Boston Globe. Not only does it demonstrate the monumental failure of the low-income-housing policy that Obama vocally championed as a state senator, it gives a detailed look at how some of Obamas donors and friends the beneficiaries of that policy neglected their own housing developments at the expense of the inhabitants.

There is no indication that Obama approved (or even knew) of the massive and systemic neglect of these properties in his own state-senate district. But there is also no question that he was an enabler in these transactions. He cosponsored at least six bills to give special tax breaks, tax credits, building-and-maintenance subsidies, and zoning exemptions to the developers. In 1998, he
wrote letters to state and city officials requesting $14 million for a project developed by Tony Rezko and another close Obama friend the politicians old law-firm boss, Allison Davis.

In his Globe piece, Appelbaum describes the low-income Grove Parc Plaza complex, which was developed by

Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.

Sewage backups seem to be a common problem in Daviss low-income slums another of his buildings, Appelbaum reports, was cited in 2007 after chronic plumbing failures resulted in raw sewage spilling into several apartments.

Valerie Jarrett, Obamas campaign adviser and the subject of a recent fawning interview by Katie Couric, is the chief executive of the company that managed that Grove Parc slum until just recently. Appelbaum writes that her company managed another housing complex until its condition became so poor that the federal government seized it in 2006.


Cecil Butler, another Obama donor, had his Lawndale Restoration complex confiscated by the government in 2006 after city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations.

Appelbaums piece gives some sense of just how closely Obama was, and still is, tied to the slum-lord world. Hes taken contributions from its big players and pushed legislation favorable to them. His closest ally in that sphere has been Rezko, who raised $250,000 for Obamas campaigns before being convicted on unrelated corruption charges earlier this year.

Rezko had been leveraging his fundraising abilities to win alliances with other politicians long before Obama got his start. He applied for his first subsidized-housing loan from the City of Chicago six days after Mayor Richard M. Daleys election in 1989. Within the first six years of Daleys reign, Rezkos company, Rezmar, received $24 million in government loans and $8.5 million in federal tax credits. Over the following decade, it would rake in more than $100 million in loans from the city, state, and federal governments, as well as private bank loans to fix up 30 Chicago buildings for low-income public housing.

Despite all this cheap and free taxpayer money, all of Rezkos 30 buildings eventually ran into financial difficulties. As of 2007, 17 had gone into foreclosure. Six were boarded up and abandoned.

The City of Chicago sued Rezmar at least a dozen times for failing to heat its properties. During the winter of 1997, Rezmar claimed it lacked the funds to heat a 31-unit building in Englewood on the south side of Chicago one of eleven Rezmar buildings in Obamas state-senate district. Tenants there went without heat from late December 1996 through mid-February 1997. Despite his companys financial hardship, Rezko signed a $1,000 check for the campaign fund of the newly elected state senator Barack Obama on January 14, 1997.

When Barack Obama talks about risky real-estate investments and failures of government oversight, remember how he put Illinois taxpayers on the hook for some of the worst real-estate investments of all investments in his close friend and in other slum landlords who took the publics money and betrayed their trust.

The fact that Freddoso's book has been so big a best-seller, despite a significant portion of media simply ignoring its existence, tells you that there are plenty of people out there who want to hear something other than mainstream media's daily paean to Barack Obama.   It also tells you pretty clearly that mainstream media have no intention of obliging.

Thanks to Mr. Freddoso for researching and supplying this badly needed reality. 

And congratulations to you for being a great deal more educated about Barack Obama than mainstream media intend for you to be.  Be sure to tell your friends.


Ken Berwitz

Ok.  I admit this is a little like saying that 2 + 2 = 4, that the sun sets in the west and that Frank Sinatra was a pretty good singer.  Eminently obvious is eminently obvious.

But I have to admit that it does my heart good when a major candidate's campaign manager has the gonads to bluntly state that a newspaper is biased against him during the campaign, when that paper can avenge the comments by continuing hurt him, maybe even worse than before.

Most campaigns would hold their fire on the theory that to speak up could make a bad situation even worse.  But not today.  Not Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager, talking about the New York Times.

CBS News (which ain't exactly simon pure in their own right) has the details.  The bold print is mine:

September 22, 2008, 1:38 PM

McCain Campaign Trashes The New York Times

Posted by John Bentley|

From CBS News' John Bentley:

(PHILADELPHIA) John McCains campaign manager Steve Schmidt lashed out at the media today, specifically the New York Times, on a conference call with the media.

Let's be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this is that whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that everyday attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Senator McCain, attacks Governor Palin, and excuses Senator Obama, Schmidt said.

This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective, that it is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate in this case John McCain and advocate for the election of the other candidate, Barack Obama."

Once a candidate that called the national media his base, McCain and his campaign have not held a press conference with the press corps that follows him for over a month, and Palin has yet to hold a press conference with the national media.

Schmidts anger has apparently bubbled over to McCain supporters as well. At a town hall in Scranton today, instead of asking the candidate a question, a woman issued a diatribe against the media.

I also want to take the opportunity to ask the media, where is your 30 investigators over in Chicago looking at Ayers? We want the media to start doing their job and stop picking on little children because of their age and their pregnancies. Shame on you! Shame on all of yous!

That is a great question, McCain responded.

I have lost count of the blogs I've written detailing the Times' enormously pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias.  I think most fairminded people see it, even Barack Obama supporters (though it's a good bet that they aren't as unhappy about it as Steve Schmidt is).

Good for him.  And, hey, who knows?  Maybe it will even cause the Times, out of shame if nothing else, to provide evenhanded reporting......for a couple of days before going right back to what they have been doing throughout this campaign.

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!!