Wednesday, 26 November 2008


Ken Berwitz

I'm embarrassed that I didn't think of this angle regarding where Barack Obama was born.......but grateful that Joseph Farah of did. 

Interested in seeing what I'm talking about?  Well, here it is:

Where was Obama born?

Posted: November 26, 2008
1:00 am Eastern


I heard about an elementary school in New York that was renamed for Barack Obama.

You may have heard about the plans to designate Nov. 4 as Barack Obama Day.

But, so far, at least, I have not heard of any plans for so much as a plaque to be installed in the hospital in which the next president was born.

Do you know why?

Because the location of the hospital in which Barack Obama was born is something of a state secret.

It is information the American people should know, because it would be revealed on his birth certificate if only we could see it.

The story, as told in Obama's ghostwritten autobiography, "Dreams of My Father," is that he was born in Hawaii Aug. 4, 1961. Yet, the only alleged birth certificate released by the Obama campaign lacks the significant details normally associated with such a document like specifically where he was born.

This is important constitutionally beyond proving mere citizenship. The Constitution requires presidents to be "natural born" Americans meaning born within the United States. In Hawaii circa 1961, it was possible even routine to register foreign births.

If, as some evidence strongly suggests, including the testimony of two Obama relatives to WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi who say they were present when he was born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961, he was born abroad and merely registered in Hawaii, that would slam-dunk disqualify him from serving unless, like John McCain, both his parents were U.S. citizens. Since Obama's autobiography also states that his mother was a minor and his father a citizen of Kenya, production of the necessary information that only hospital records on a long-form birth certificate could provide.

I've heard various different explanations for why Barack Obama has steadfastly refused to show us the original "vault copy" of his birth certificate.  Not one of them makes any sense to me.

But I hadn't considered the fact that he also won't tell us what hospital he was born at - which might enable someone somewhere to check something.

I challenge anyone to tell me what reason Mr. Obama would have for concealing this information, other than that there are things he does not want us to know about.

Farah alludes to the fact that in 1961, the year Barack Obama was born, Hawaii allowed foreign births to be registered.  Not only is he correct, but the practice continued until 1972.  The certificate of live birth (COLB) which Mr. Obama has offered as proof, could have been derived from that type of registration.  Without the hospital information there's no way to tell.  Therefore, it is not  proof that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.

This also explains Mr. Obama's birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper.  Barack Obama's parents could have registered him and put that notice in the paper for entirely innocent reasons --- because his mother was a US citizen and his grandparents lived in Hawaii, so they wanted him to be registered in their home country.  But it does NOT mean that he was physically born on the Island.

Why won't Barack Obama show us his actual birth certificate?

Why won't Barack Obama tell us what hospital he was born at?

What does Barack Obama have to hide, and how does it affect the legality of his impending presidency?

Ted Best explanation (following 2 you tube videos) I’ve seen for the total media blackout of what is the single greatest news event and domestic threat — let’s call it OBAMAGATE — since the outbreak of the American Civil War and for the sincere prayers of the American people that the United States Supreme Court — let’s call it OUR LAST HOPE — now to have the courage to save our great nation as we have come to know it: (11/27/08)


Ken Berwitz

Well, we've done it. 

For decades we have insisted that schools teach our children just about everything but fundamental facts.  And over this time we've seen it catch up with us in many different ways.  One of them is that the USA has fallen so far behind other countries in math and science. 

And, if that weren't bad enough, look at how many of us don't have the slightest idea of what the country is all about - how it runs, what our rights are, etc.  Basic civics.

Here are excerpts from an article by Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post, which spell it out in grim detail:

Voters Fail the Test
By Kathleen Parker
Tuesday, November 25, 2008; 7:56 PM

WASHINGTON -- So much for the wisdom of The People.

A new report from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) on the nation's civic literacy finds that most Americans are too ignorant to vote.

Out of 2,500 American quiz-takers, including college students, elected officials and other randomly selected citizens, nearly 1,800 flunked a 33-question test on basic civics. In fact, elected officials scored slightly lower than the general public with an average score of 44 percent compared to 49 percent.

Only 0.8 percent of all test-takers scored an "A."

The multiple-choice ISI quiz wouldn't deepen the creases in most brains, but the questions do require a basic knowledge of how the U.S. government works. Think fast: In what document do the words "government of the people, by the people, for the people" appear? More than twice as many people (56 percent) knew that Paula Abdul was a judge on "American Idol" than knew that those words come from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (21 percent).

Only 17 percent of college grads understood the difference between free markets and centralized planning.

Then again, we can't blame the children for what they haven't been taught. Civics courses, once a staple of junior and high school education, are no longer considered important in our quantitative, leave-no-child-behind world. And college adds little civic knowledge, the ISI study found. The average grade for those holding a bachelor's degree was just 57 percent -- only 13 points higher than the average score of those with only a high school diploma.

Most bracing: Only 27 percent of elected officeholders in the survey could identify a right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Forty-three percent didn't know what the Electoral College does. And 46 percent didn't know that the Constitution gives Congress power to declare war.

I urge you to click on the link I've provided and read the entire article.  It is guaranteed to make you think about what's going wrong with our educational system.

Too bad Ms. Parker couldn't have stayed on message, though.  But she couldn't resist working in a BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) comment: "Civics courses, once a staple of junior and high school education, are no longer considered important in our quantitative, leave-no-child-behind world".

There you have it.  The reason adults - not kids in public schools but college students and adults out of school - don't know squat about civics is President Bush's "leave no child behind" initiative. 

FYI, No Child Left Behind was signed into law January 8, 2002 (less than 7 years ago) and, obviously, has been implemented for less time.

Maybe Ms. Parker could use a refresher course or two herself.  I suggest starting with "Remedial Common Sense and Logic", followed by "Journalism Without Mindless Bias".  That should do the trick. 


Ken Berwitz

This just came from my friend Bob.  He read it and now he understands things better.  Same here.  See if it moves you forward too:

Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump (1994)  

Mortgage Backed Securities are like boxes of chocolates. Criminals on Wall Street stole a few chocolates from the boxes and replaced them with turds. Their criminal buddies at Standard & Poor rated these boxes AAA Investment Grade chocolates. These boxes were then sold all over the world to investors. Eventually somebody bites into a turd and discovers the crime. Suddenly nobody trusts American chocolates anymore worldwide.

Hank Paulson now wants the American taxpayers to buy up and hold all these boxes of turd-infested chocolates for $700 billion dollars until the market for turds returns to normal. Meanwhile, Hank's buddies, the Wall Street criminals who stole all the good chocolates are not being investigated, arrested, or indicted.

Mama always said: 'Sniff the chocolates first, Forrest'.

Quote of the day from a fund manager:

"This is worse than a divorce... I've lost half of my net worth and I still have my wife.."

The bailout, a different perspective

Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country to a pack of nit-wits who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling booze?



Ken Berwitz

It has been said that the definition of a conservative is a liberal who gets mugged.  (In the interests of fairness, I also believe that the definition of a liberal is a conservative who is accused of the mugging).

The point is that people behave differently depending on circumstances.

This brings us to Michelle Malkin's latest column, which explores the sudden level of respect for Guantanamo displayed by Barack Obama and some of his cronies, now that he, rather than George Bush, will become responsible for our safety:

Playing games at Gitmo
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

The human rights crowd is right: Life is hard for a Guantanamo Bay detainee. The deprivation is unspeakable. Their brains have not been stimulated enough, according to the facilitys cultural advisor. Which is why this Thanksgiving, America is drawing up plans to provide the 250 or so suspected jihadists at the notoriously Spartan detention camp with basic sustenance including movie nights, art classes, English language lessons, and Game Boy-like electronic devices, according to the Miami Herald.

Next up: Wii Fit, Guitar Hero, Sudoku, People magazine, and macram. Anything less would be uncivilized.

On a deadly serious note, the detainees arent the only ones playing games at Gitmo. Some top legal advisors and supporters of Barack Obama, whose name detainees chanted on election night, are now rethinking the President-elects absolutist campaign position on shutting the center down and flooding our mainland courts with every last enemy combatant designee. Yes, reality bites and Democrats must now grapple with the very real possibility that an Obama administration could potentially release a Gitmo denizen who would turn around and commit mass terrorist acts on American soil or abroad.

Nothing clarifies the mind like a jihadi boomerang. Never before have an administration and its followers matured so quickly in office and they havent even taken office yet. While Obama paid lip service to the Close the Gitmo gulag! agenda on 60 Minutes over the weekend, his kitchen cabinet is proceeding more pragmatically. Believe it or not, the Obama crowd is now contemplating a preventive detention law and an alternative judicial system for the most sensitive national security cases involving the most highly classified information. Information that has no place being aired in the civilian courts for public consumption.

Listen to relentless Bush critic David Cole, who told the New York Times last week: You cant be a purist and say theres never any circumstance in which a democratic society can preventively detain someone. Added Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution: Im afraid of people getting released in the name of human rights and doing terrible things.

Moreover, Obama transition team members have suggested to the Wall Street Journal that despite his campaign season CIA-bashing, Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.

Next thing you know, theyll start arguing that the world has been fooled by years of sob-story propaganda about the Gitmo detainees funded by Kuwaiti government-subsidized lawyers who cast them all as innocent potato farmers and schmucks dazed and confused on battlefields.

Next thing you know, theyll rediscover the facts that detainees have systematically lied and exaggerated stories about mistreatment at Gitmo and that interrogators and military personnel have bent over backwards to accommodate their personal and religious needs and wants.

Next thing you know, theyll start reminding us that dozens of former Gitmo detainees have been released and recaptured on the battlefield while committing acts of terrorism.

Funny, when President Bush and his homeland security team realized these very realities seven years ago, they were branded terrorists and hounded relentlessly by Congress, the media, and the Left. When Attorney General Michael Mukasey eloquently defended these administrations counter-terrorism policies at the Federalist Society before he collapsed, he was heckled as a tyrant. And when I wrote my second book expounding on this very thesis, I was branded a racist and fascist whose ideas exploring the proper balance between security and civil liberties had no place in public discourse.

Now, at long last, some liberals have realized that the sacred goal of regain[ing] Americas moral stature in the world, as Obama put it, may be less important than ensuring that al Qaeda killers dont strike on American ground again.

Viva la Hope and Change!

Funny how things change when you have to do more than just campaign.....

Maybe we'll be very lucky and the Guantanamo epiphany will be the first of many for Mr. Obama.


Ken Berwitz

Here, from Scott Johnson of, is an excellent update of the effort to steal Norm Coleman's senate seat:

Minnesota Senate Recount, Update VIII

November 26, 2008 Posted by Scott at 5:09 AM

The Franken campaign and its allies such as Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman are now focusing on rejected absentee ballots. In today's Star Tribune Kevin Duchschere shows that Ritchie is now improvising in advance of the state Canvassing Board meeting today which will consider the treatment of rejected absentee ballots:

Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman proposed a process for reconsidering rejected absentee ballots that would partly skirt the Canvassing Board: Have local elections officials review such ballots and identify those possibly improperly rejected.

Freeman, a DFLer who backed Franken, said that he and Anoka County Attorney Bob Johnson worked on the plan after Secretary of State Mark Ritchie asked them and other county attorneys for ideas to improve the process.

In a statement, the Coleman campaign said: "This is a back-door effort by both the Franken campaign, and Mr. Freeman, to try to gain influence on the eve of the discussions by the Canvassing Board, and there needs to be further explanation for why the Hennepin County Attorney is using his office in such an overtly partisan manner."

But Freeman disagreed with that assessment. "This is trying to count all the ballots. How the hell is that partisan?" he said.

The vast majority of rejected absentee ballots appear not to raise such issues. Duchschere comments:

The Star Tribune has analyzed the reasons absentee ballots were rejected in 28 counties, and only two counties -- Ramsey and Itasca -- specifically cite election officials' error. In Ramsey County, it appeared that 53 rejections were tied to administrative error.

Elsewhere the Journal reports that the Franken campaign has purportedly obtained information from 66 Minnesota counties on 6,432 rejected absentee ballots. The Franken campaign concedes that most of those ballots were properly rejected, but has forwarded an affidavit containing examples of improperly rejected ballots to the Canvassing Board. (Duchschere also reports on the mysterious appearance and disappearance of ballots during the recount in Becker County and in Crystal.)

As we suggested earlier this week, John Fund shows that the batlle for Minnesota is just getting started. Fund picks up on the question of rejected absentee ballots:

The problem with adding absentee ballots is state law. According to an advisory opinion issued last week by the office of Democratic state Attorney General Lori Swanson, "Only the ballots cast in the election and the summary statements certified by the election judges may be considered in the recount process." A recount manual prepared this year by the office of Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, also a Democrat, makes clear that the canvassing board only supervises "an administrative recount" that is "not to determine if absentee ballots were properly accepted."

But Mr. Franken's attorneys are now arguing that Minnesota law also requires that each county's election report include "the complete voting activity within that county." They are also invoking the Equal Protection arguments cited by the Supreme Court in Bush vs. Gore, as well as rulings from Washington State's disputed 2004 governor's race -- that contest was decided for Democrat Christine Gregoire by 133 votes after an initial count and two subsequent recounts.

Intent on harvesting absentee ballots, the Franken campaign has presented affidavits from four voters who claim their ballots were improperly rejected. It hopes to find more, now that a Ramsey County judge has agreed to a Franken demand that it have access to data from that county on whose absentee ballots had been rejected. After initially saying rejected absentee ballots shouldn't be part of the recount, the secretary of state's office now says the information should be made public.

If the absentee names are made public, a mad scramble will ensue to contact those voters and get them to demand their ballots be counted. That's just what happened in the 2004 governor's race in Washington State after King County Judge Dean Lum allowed local Democrats access to the list of provisional voters that hadn't been counted because either there was no signature or no match between the signature and the voter registration on file with officials.

It should be noted that the Attorney General's opinion to which Fund refers was actually provided by Assistant Attorney General Ken Raschke, who specializes in Minnesota election law. As Politics in Minnesota observed last week, you don't mess around with Ken.

Fund then turns to the ominous Washington state connection to the Minnesota recount courtesy of the Franken campaign:

Democrats with experience from the Washington recount are now advising Mr. Franken. Paul Berendt, a former chair of the Washington Democratic Party, was in Minneapolis this month. "What I bring to this effort," he told Oregon Public Radio from the Minneapolis recount office, "is that I understand every single step of this recount process and the things that you need to look for in order to make sure that every vote is counted."

At the conclusion of his column Fund cites some troubling history:

If the strategy of adding previously rejected ballots to the Minnesota Senate recount is successful, a final outcome could be months away. In 1975, the U.S. Senate refused to accept New Hampshire's certification that Republican Louis Wyman had won by two votes. The seat was vacant for seven months, with the Senate debate spanning 100 hours and six unsuccessful attempts to break a filibuster and vote on who should be seated. The impasse ended only when a special election was agreed to, which was won by Democrat John Durkin.

I trust we won't be holding a do-over of this election, but the Washington connection adduced by Fund provides a nightmare scenario by itself.

They are desperately trying to steal this election.  Right in front of our faces.  In the middle of town.  On the 50 yard line. 

And it stinks.


Ken Berwitz

Here, from Pablo Guzman of New York's CBS-TV news, is vivid proof that even smart people sometimes come up with dumb ideas:

NYC On Ticket Blitz; 200 Traffic Agents Added

Better Be On Your Best Behavior With Your Car Because Cash-Strapped City Is Out To Raise $66 Million

Manhattan To Get 100 Agents; Staten Island Spared ... For Now

NEW YORK (CBS) ― You may have begun to notice more traffic tickets being written. And you may have guessed -- correctly -- that it has to do with getting New York City more money. Well, brace yourselves, the city is putting 200 more ticket-writing traffic agents to work.

The city's latest move to close the budget gap is annoying New Yorkers to no end. Soon, you may not be able to avoid the police no matter what you do. Approximately 100 of the agents will be in Manhattan; the other 100 will be spread out across the other boroughs.

"You get stuck out there in the middle; not because you're not paying attention," driver Rob Frangavilla said. "People walk across; you're stuck there. I just think it's a crazy way to raise money."

"No more tickets, because they're so aggressive," driver Ephraim Kaufman said. "It's unbelievable. Like, you go to pay the ticket -- for machine -- but while you put in the money to buy the ticket they give you a ticket!"

NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly laid out the plan on Tuesday.

"[We will put them] in Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. We will not deploy them right now in Staten Island," Kelly said.

The agents will be looking primarily for drivers who "block the box" at intersections. That ticket will cost $115.

However, Mary Jo Albanese thinks it's a good idea.

When asked if she'd be annoyed if the traffic agents came up to her and ticketed her instead of putting the notice n her car, Albanese said, "Well if I was doing the right thing, I wouldn't get a ticket."

The city thinks it can raise an extra $66 million this way.

An extra $66 million?  Really?  Is that estimate before or after:

-Deducting all the cars that won't come into the city because of these 200 extra ticketers - the ones filled with people who spend money on goods and services, on restaurants and plays? 

-Deducting the business that will be lost to retail merchants, which not only hurts the merchants themselves but lowers tax revenues? 

-The cost of the 200 ticket-givers themselves?  Since the "profit" on a ticket is only a fraction of the penalty, and not all tickets are paid anyway, how many have to be written per day just so the city will break even?

What a great idea. 

Branch Rickey, the great baseball executive, used to talk about "addition by subtraction".  This meant that sometimes a team could improve by getting rid of a player.

My congratulations to Mayor Bloomberg for giving us the corollary:  Subtraction by addition.


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!!