Saturday, 04 October 2008


Ken Berwitz

If Barack Obama was truly born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, why won't he produce a certified birth certificate?  Why is all we have seen a facsimile that appears to have been doctored?

I've blogged about this before.  Many of you have seen the evidence that what has been offered as a birth certificate is a) not original and b) appears clearly to have been altered.

For those of you who have not, just click here.

Hawaiian law requires does not allow anyone but the person in question to request a legal birth certificate.  All Barack Obama has to do to quell this issue is get one and show it to the press.  But he will not do so.  Why?

Phil Berg certainly is wondering why.  He is the Pennsylvania Democrat (that's right, Democrat) who has filed suit challenging Mr. Obama's legitimacy as a candidate.  And here is how that suit is progressing, courtesy of  The bold print is mine:

DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate
Democrat suing his own party says it's 'like they're in cahoots'

Posted: October 04, 2008
12:00 am Eastern

By Drew Zahn
 2008 WorldNetDaily

The man suing Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee for proof of Obama's American citizenship is outraged that his own party rather than just providing the birth certificate he seeks would step in to silence him by filing a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.

As WND reported, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court two months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to be elected president. Berg has since challenged Obama publicly that if the candidate will simply produce authorized proof of citizenship, he'll drop the suit.

Berg told WND the longer the DNC tries to ignore his lawsuit or make it go away instead of just providing the documents the more convinced he is that his accusations are correct.

Despite assertions by the Washington Post, and other organizations that Obama has produced a certified Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg told WND he remains "99.99 percent sure" that the certificate is a fake and he wants a court, not a website, to determine its validity.

Earlier last week, lawyers for Obama and the DNC filed a joint motion to dismiss Berg's lawsuit. The fact that the DNC joined in the dismissal request has Berg fuming, believing his party's leaders have ignored his pleas for proof in order to favor their chosen candidate over a rank-and-file constituent.

"I think it's outrageous," Berg said. "The Democratic National Committee should be ensuring the Democratic Party and the public that they have a qualified candidate up there. To file a joint motion is like they're in cahoots.

"Since then, I have asked by way of press release that Howard Dean resign, because (the DNC members) are not fulfilling their duties," Berg said.

"The DNC has a responsibility to all Democrats in this country to make sure that all of their candidates are properly vetted and properly qualified," Berg added. "I think it's really an outrage to the 18-plus million people who voted for Obama and the people who donated more than $425 million to him under false pretenses."erg is frustrated, not only with his own party's leadership for allegedly not investigating Obama's background, but also with the major news outlets for failing as well.

"I should also be suing the national media and their disgrace for not properly vetting, inspecting or checking on Barack Obama.

"Look what they're doing to Governor Palin: They're opening up her closet doors, they're going through everything personal, but no one has ever gone after Obama. It doesn't make sense," Berg said.

Obama's website counters Berg's claims with links to articles that affirm the validity of his citizenship and an image of a Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, born in Honolulu, Aug. 4, 1961. The webpage is part of the Obama campaign website's "Fight the Smears" section, an effort to prevent reports that Obama claims are false from disseminating as damaging rumors.

Berg acknowledges that as long as his lawsuit remains outstanding, the public will talk, and he told WND he wants Obama to quickly prove him wrong or the court to quickly prove him right.

"I've been on about 50 radio shows around the country," Berg said, "and on every one I've put out a challenge: Barack Obama, if I'm wrong, just come forth with certified copies of these documents and I'll close down the case."

Berg told WND, "I've had 19 million hits on my website. Those people talk to other people, now we're up to 20, 30, 40 million people who are aware of this controversy, and it's going to drastically affect the entire election."

When asked what he would do if the DNC succeeded in getting his case dismissed, Berg said he would "immediately file an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and if we don't get a fair ruling there, immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court."

"We're dealing with the U.S. Constitution and it must be followed," Berg explained. "I want the Constitution enforced; that's my main reason for doing this.

"The real outrage is that there's nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by law," Berg said.

I do not claim to know for sure whether or not Barack Obama is legal.  But I certainly know for sure that it would be catastrophic if he were not.

Forget what your political affiliation (if any) is.  Forget whether or not you support Barack Obama for the presidency.  Just ask yourself what would happen if the election takes place, Mr. Obama wins, and we find out AFTERWARDS that he was not legally eligible to be President.

Is it not clear that this has to be proven before the election takes place?

Again I ask:  If Barack Obama can summarily end this issue by simply requesting and obtaining a legal birth certificate from Hawaii - which would put to rest the issue of whether he has been showing us a doctored fake - why has he not done so?  Isn't that a lot easier and less costly than the DNC fighting Phil Berg in court?

You have to wonder. 

But you don't have to wonder at all about why mainstream media are not demanding that birth certificate, do you?


Ken Berwitz

Has the fawning adoration of Barack Obama as "The One" died down yet?

Take a look at this piece by John Hinderaker at and decide for yourself:

Beyond Satire

The Left has gone stark, raving mad. One manifestation of the Left's loopiness is the reverence in which The One is held. Such reverence can exist only inside a bubble in which no one snickers. Here are a few current examples. First, from a Paris fashion show, earlier today:


So, Obama is what--the new Che? Apparently so.

You've likely already seen this creepy video of an Obama Youth group. It's pretty remarkable; can you imagine if there were videos of paramilitary groups--militias, one might call them--supporting a Republican candidate?

The video begins with the Obama Youth chanting "Alpha, omega...alpha, omega." No doubt most of our readers get the reference: in Christian theology, Jesus Christ is "the Alpha and the Omega." The stained glass window behind the altar in my church features, along with a number of other symbols, an alpha and an omega.

So: how crazy, exactly, are these liberals? Maybe this crazy: "I Will Follow Him": Obama As My Personal Jesus:

Yes, I just said it. Obama is my Jesus. ...

As with many spiritual enlightenments, mine came in the middle of a bleak, hopeless period of my life. The innocent, idealistic world of politics that had shaped my childhood, the one that taught me how the president is a good guy, one who makes you feel safe, gives a speech on TV every once in a while and one you'd feel honored to shake hands with, had been slowly whittled into a deep rooted cynicism to anything politically related.

The crush of the Bush victory over Gore was only the first mar on my previously consummate ideal of the American administration. And the tragedies just kept continuing ...

Then I found my miracle. Stumbling through my hopeless world, afraid to turn to anyone with my political questions of morality, my concerns about the afterlife of the country I called home, a voice spoke to me.

My wife thinks this column, which appeared in the Smith College newspaper, may be a parody. The funny thing is, there's no way to tell. The Left's adoration of The One has literally gone beyond satire.

I wonder if these people have any idea of what Barack Obama actually is, beyond the transcendentally mindless "Change We Can Believe In" slogan that seems to have mesmerized so many.

To them he's a God.  He came from heaven above on a chariot of fire.  He is Saint Barack of the Chicago Democratic Machine.

You don't know whether to laugh, cry, or just shake your head.


Ken Berwitz

It must be wonderful to lie to voters' faces with the confidence that mainstream media will not nail you for it.

That is the only explanation I can think of for Barack Obama's latest lie - that he did not work with ACORN, the corrupt voter-fraud organization that has had legal action taken against it in 12 states (so far). 

Steve Gilbert of is all over this.  How does he do it?  I don't know - but if I wore a hat it would be off to him for his yeoman work in uncovering the documentation you are about to see below.  Here it is:

Obama Claims He Never Worked For Acorn

October 4th, 2008

From Obama campaigns disinformation website, Fight The Smears:

Barack Obama Never Organized with ACORN

Discredited Republican voter-suppression guru Ken Blackwell is attacking Barack Obama with naked lies about his supposed connection to ACORN.

Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.
Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.

In his capacity as an attorney, Barack represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law. For his work helping enforce the law, called Motor Voter, Barack received the IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award in 1995

Never mind this bit of information (we previously posted) from a thirteen year old article from the Chicago Reader:

What Makes Obama Run?

Lawyer, teacher, philanthropist, and author Barack Obama doesnt need another career. But hes entering politics to get back to his true passioncommunity organization.

By Hank De Zutter
December 8, 1995

Another strong supporter of Obamas workas an organizer, as a lawyer, and now as a candidateis Madeline Talbott, lead organizer of the feisty ACORN community organization, a group thats a thorn in the side of most elected officials. I cant repeat what most ACORN members think and say about politicians. But Barack has proven himself among our members. He is committed to organizing, to building a democracy. Above all else, he is a good listener, and we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer.

Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side. Conducting a session in a New Horizons classroom, Obama, tall and thin, looks very much like an Ivy League graduate student. Dressed casually prep, his tie loosened and his top shirt button unfastened, he leads eight black women from the Grand Boulevard community through a discussion of what folks should know about who in Chicago has power and why they have it. Its one of his favorite topics, and the class bubbles with suggestions about how they got to be high and mighty

And never mind that Project Vote is simply a front for ACORN.

From Discover The Networks:


Project Vote is the voter-mobilization arm of ACORN. It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose professed purpose is to carry out non-partisan voter registration drives; to counsel voters on their rights; and to litigate on behalf of voting rights focusing on the rights of the poor and the disenfranchised.

Indeed, check out the office addresses of ACORN in Arkansas (where they began) and Washington DC:

Compare with the Project Votes offices:

Indeed, they dont just share offices, but also their job advertising:

And ACORN has been the top independent contractor by far for Project Vote for the years we have public records, via Guidestar:

(Click all images to enlarge)

Which adds up to $9,612,115 in payments in just three years.

(By the way, Citizens Consulting is Project Votes bookkeeper. Coincidentally, they also keep the books for ACORN.)

And again, note that according to their Forms 990 ACORN and Project Vote once again share the same address:

They even use the same phone number.

But, no, ACORN and Project Vote are clearly two completely different entities.

Just ask Obama.

These documents leave no doubt.  When Barack Obama says he didn't work with ACORN he is lying to our faces. 

But what does it matter when the media - i.e. the folks who are supposed to honestly, neutrally referee this election - are rooting for him? 

It matters no more than when Joe Biden repeatedly lied and misstated facts during Thursday's Vice President debate.  His lies and misstatements were virtually ignored by the same media that have crucified Sarah Palin for two or three gaffes that pale by comparison. 

For god sake, Biden didn't even know what the duties of the Vice Presidency were - Palin had to correct him.  How could a neutral media bury this?  But, in almost all cases, they have.

And that nagging question I keep asking has to be asked again.  If Steve Gilbert, with resources that must be a tiny fraction of what any major media venue has, can find this information, why are major media not finding it? 

Or are they finding it and deciding you shouldn't know about it?

The mainstream media of this country, in aggregate, are rooting for Barack Obama and reporting in a way that furthers his campaign.  It is a classicly stacked deck against McCain/Palin.  Period. 

I wonder if, in the final month of the campaign, enough people will come to this sordid realization for McCain to win anyway.  I hope so.


Ken Berwitz

Earlier today I posted a New York Times article on the relationship between Barack Obama and william ayers.  It was written by Scott Shane. I called it a glossover on behalf of Mr. Obama.

Unlike Mr. Shane, Stanley Kurtz of National Review is the guy who read through the Annenberg Challenge Papers with a journalist's eye.

The Times article I posted earlier today mentions in passing that the Annenberg Challenge documents have been made public.  What it doesn't say is that they were being withheld by the U. of Chicago and it was Stanley Kurtz' pressuring the school that caused them to be released.  Nice of the Times to leave that out.

In any event, here is Mr. Kurtz talking about what a phony, biased coverup the Times story is:

NYT's Ayers-Obama Whitewash   [Stanley Kurtz]

As others have noted, todays New York Times carries a story on the relationship between Barack Obama and unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist, Bill Ayers. The piece serves as a platform for the Obama campaign and Obamas friends and allies. Obamas spokesman and supporters names are named and their versions of events are presented in detail, with quotes. Yet the article makes no serious attempt to present the views of Obama critics who have worked to uncover the true nature of the relationship. That makes this piece irresponsible journalism, and an obvious effort by the former paper of record to protect Obama from the coming McCain onslaught.

The title of the article when it first appeared on the web last night was, "Obama Had Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close." That was quickly changed to, "Obama and the 60's Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths." Perhaps the first headline made the papers agenda a bit too obvious. Even so, the new title simply parrots the line of Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt that the two first met through an early "education project" and since have simply "encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood." Or, as New York Times reporter Scott Shane puts it at the head of his article, since an initial lunchtime meeting in 1995, "their paths have crossed a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obamas first run for office, on the schools project (i.e. the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors."

There is nothing "sporadic" about Barack Obama delivering hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of many years to fund Bill Ayers radical education projects, not to mention many millions more to benefit Ayers radical education allies. We are talking about a substantial and lengthy working relationship here, one that does not depend on the quality of personal friendship or number of hours spent in the same room together (although the article greatly underestimates that as well).

Shanes article buys the spin on Ayers supposed rehabilitation offered by the Obama campaign and Ayers supporters in Chicago. In this view, whatever Ayers did in the 1960's has somehow been redeemed by Ayers later turn to education work. As the Times quotes Mayor Daley saying, "People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life." The trouble with this is that Ayers doesnt view his terrorism as a mistake. How can he be forgiven when hes not repentant? Nor does Ayers see his education work as a repudiation of his early radicalism. On the contrary, Ayers sees his education work as carrying on his radicalism in a new guise. The point of Ayers education theory is that the United States is a fundamentally racist and oppressive nation. Students, Ayers believes, ought to be encouraged to resist this oppression. Obama was funding Ayers "small schools" project, built around this philosophy. Ayers radicalism isnt something in the past. Its something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers radicalism, hes flat wrong. Obamas funded it.

Obama was perfectly aware of Ayers radical views, since he read and publically endorsed, without qualification, Ayers book on juvenile crime. That book is quite radical, expressing doubts about whether we ought to have a prison system at all, comparing America to South Africas apartheid system, and contemptuously dismissing the idea of the United States as a kind or just country. Shane mentions the book endorsement, yet says nothing about the books actual content. Nor does Shane mention the panel about Ayers book, on which Obama spoke as part of a joint Ayers-Obama effort to sink the 1998 Illinois juvenile crime bill. Again, we have unmistakable evidence of a substantial political working relationship. (Ive described it in detail here in "Barack Obamas Lost Years."

The Times article purports to resolve the matter of Ayers possible involvement in Obamas choice to head the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, yet in no way does so. Clearly, the article sides with those who claim that Ayers was not involved. Yet the piece has no credibility because it simply refuses to present the arguments of those who say that Ayers almost surely had a significant role in Obamas final choice.

Steve Diamond has made a powerful case that, whoever first suggested Obamas name, Ayers must surely have had a major role in his final selection. Diamond has now revealed that the Times consulted him extensively for this article and has seen his important documentary evidence. Yet we get no inkling in the piece of Diamonds key points, or the documents that back it up. (Ive made a similar argument myself, based largely on my viewing of many of the same documents presented by Diamond.) How can an article that gives only one side of the story be fair? Instead of offering both sides of the argument and letting readers decide, the Times simply spoon-feeds its readers the Obama camp line.

The Times also ignores the fact that Ive published a detailed statement from the Obama camp on the relationship between Ayers and Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (See "Obamas Challenge.") Maybe thats because attention to that statement would force them to acknowledge and report on my detailed reply.

Shanes story also omits any mention of the fact that access to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge records was blocked. Whats more, thanks to a University of Chicago law students Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, we now know that access to the documents was blocked by an old Obama associate, Ken Rolling, on the day I first tried to see them. And as a result of my own FOIA, we also have evidence that Rolling may have been less than fully forthcoming on the question of Ayers possible role in elevating Obama to board chair at Anneberg. In fact, Rolling seems to have been withholding information from a New York Times reporter. Ive made this material public in a piece called, "Founding Brothers." How could a responsible article on the topic of Obama, Ayers, and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge ignore the story of the blocked library access and the results of the two FOIA requests? How could a responsible paper fail to aggressively follow up on the questions raised by those requests, and by the documents and analysis presented by Steve Diamond?

Most remarkably of all, Shane seems to paper over the results of his own questioning. On the one hand, toward the end of the piece we read: "Since 2002, there is little public evidence of their relationship." And its no wonder, says Shane, since Ayers was caught expressing no regret for his own past terrorism in an article published on September 11, 2001. Yet earlier in Shanes article we learn that, according to Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt, Obama and Ayers "have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005." Very interesting. Obamas own spokesman has just left open the possibility that there has indeed been phone and e-mail contact between the two men between 2002 and 2004, well after Ayers infamous conduct on 9/11. Yet instead of pursuing this opening, Shane ignores the findings of his own investigation and covers for Obama.

The New York Times in the tank for Obama? You bet. And sinking deeper every day.

In my book, I mentioned that the Times should rehire Jayson Blair for the boost it would give its credibility.  I wonder if he's still available.


Ken Berwitz

I'm posting this short article from without additional commentary.  Anyone who can't see why it should make them skeptical of political polling is beyond my ability to explain it to:

MN Senate: Somebody's Wrong

Yesterday SurveyUSA came out with a poll showing Norm Coleman beating Al Franken by ten points: 43 to 33.

Today the Minnesota Star-Tribune released a poll showing the opposite: Franken leading Coleman by nine. According to the Star-Tribune survey, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, Franken leads Coleman 43 to 34.

The only thing the polls agree on is the support for Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley. SurveyUSA has him winning 19% of the vote, the Strib has him winning 18%.


Ken Berwitz

Well well well.

The New York Times has a major front page story on the connection between Barack Obama and unrepentant terrorst william ayers.

Its conclusion?  Mr. Obama may have understated his involvement with Ayers.  But don't worry folks, they really weren't close.  Vote, I mean we remain neutral regarding the election.

If you want to read the entire glossover, be my guest.  Just click here.  But, for your amusement, I'll post a few excerpts:

CHICAGO At a tumultuous meeting of anti-Vietnam War militants at the Chicago Coliseum in 1969, Bill Ayers helped found the radical Weathermen, launching a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and United States Capitol.

Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obamas first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors.

A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close.

Since earning a doctorate in education at Columbia in 1987, Mr. Ayers has been a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the author or editor of 15 books, and an advocate of school reform.

Hes done a lot of good in this city and nationally, Mayor Richard M. Daley said in an interview this week, explaining that he has long consulted Mr. Ayers on school issues. Mr. Daley, whose father was Chicagos mayor during the street violence accompanying the 1968 Democratic National Convention and the so-called Days of Rage the following year, said he saw the bombings of that time in the context of a polarized and turbulent era.

This is 2008, Mr. Daley said. People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life.

In March 1995, Mr. Obama became chairman of the six-member board (of The Annenberg Challenge) that oversaw the distribution of grants in Chicago. Some bloggers have recently speculated that Mr. Ayers had engineered that post for him.

In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obamas appointment.

Archives of the Chicago Annenberg project, which funneled the money to networks of schools from 1995 to 2000, show both men attended six board meetings early in the project Mr. Obama as chairman, Mr. Ayers to brief members on school issues.

It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obamas home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor. That was one of several such neighborhood events as Mr. Obama prepared to run, said A. J. Wolf, the 84-year-old emeritus rabbi of KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, across the street from Mr. Obamas current house.

If you ask my wife, we had the first coffee for Barack, Rabbi Wolf said. He said he had known Mr. Ayers for decades but added, Bills mad at me because I told a reporter hes a toothless ex-radical.

In addition, from 2000 to 2002, the two men also overlapped on the seven-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charity that had supported Mr. Obamas first work as a community organizer in the 1980s. Officials there said the board met about a dozen times during those three years but declined to make public the minutes, saying they wanted members to be candid in assessing people and organizations applying for grants.

You have to love the Times. 

-Barack Obama becomes the administrator of a $50 million dollar grant overseen by william ayers, but ayers didn't have anything to do with putting him there.  Several people who haven't been heard from in the months this story has circulated suddenly come forward and say so, just for the New York Times.  Yeah, right. 

-Barack Obama's political career was launched in william ayers' home but that doesn't count because an 84 year old rabbi - one who apparently is friendly with ayers - says maybe it was when he and his wife had Obama over for coffee.  The fact that the woman whose state senate seat Obama was running for introduced him at ayers' house?  A trifling detail.

-Then there is the fawning ayers rsum.  Why, he wrote books and advocated for school reform, didn't he?  What did he say in those books?  What specific school reforms did he advocate?  No mention.

And I love Richard Daley saying how much good ayers does as an educational activist.  I've blogged previously about what his activities in that capacity...I hope readers go back in time to see just what he was doing, and continues to do, in that regard.  I assure you the radical left won't be troubled by his efforts.

This, folks, is exactly the kind of article I would expect from the New York Times.  No skepticism, no doubts, just a one-note apologia for Saint Barack.

Then they wonder why people call them biased.

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!!