Sunday, 21 December 2008


Ken Berwitz

When even a thoroughly corrupt, totally shameless organization like the United Nations has to admit fraud, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is at incredible levels.

And there is little out there that is more fraudulent than the sale of "carbon credits".

Have I got your attention?  Good.  Please read this article, which comes to us from today's Times of London.  The bold print is mine:

UN suspends carbon-trading auditor

THE validity of the Kyoto Protocols $100 billion (67 billion) carbon-trading scheme has been called into question after the United Nations suspended the worlds largest auditor of clean-energy projects.

Norways DNV, which claims to have approved half of the worlds carbon-credit ventures, had its accreditation suspended last month after it was unable to prove that its agents had properly vetted projects that it then approved for the carbon-trading scheme.

The episode will provide fresh ammunition to those who have long criticised the EUs so-called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows investors in developed countries to fund green projects in the developing world. Once approved, they are then granted carbon credits that can be sold on the open market for profit.

Simon Shaw, chairman of EEA Fund Management, an investor in CDM projects and backer of the carbon-trading market Climate Exchange, said: This is embarrassing for everybody and clearly bad news for the industry because DNV is the largest validator. He said his firm had begun using other firms to verify proposed projects after it became apparent that DNV was overloaded.

UN inspectors found five non-conformities when they visited DNV last month, including not being able to get evidence that technical experts had examined the projects they had approved.

Carbon credits derived from CDM schemes comprise roughly 20% of the credits in the $100 billion carbon-trading market. A DNV spokeswoman said the company was confident of being reinstated in January when UN inspectors make their next visit.

A $100 billion dollar "industry".  Phony as a $3 bill.  The company perpetrating the fraud is "confident of being reinstated in January" (that's less than two weeks away).

Does this have the UN's stench all over it, or what?

My only regret is that I didn't invest in this scam.  I should know by now that if a loudmouth leftist (like Al Gore for instance) is selling guilt to the industrialized world - especially the USA - it will sell like there is no tomorrow..........which, it occurs to me, is what they are selling.

The UN again proves it is aptly named.  The organization is UNfair, UNethical, UNequal, UNreliable and UNable to act with even the slightest degree of integrity.


Ken Berwitz

Here is an Associated Press article on a corrupt politician named Marc Dann.

Which party does Dann belong to?  See if you can figure it out:

Report says Ohio's former AG raided campaign cash

The Associated Press

Former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann used his campaign account to bankroll home repairs and family vacations, according to a newspaper review of state investigative reports.

The reports are part of a complaint filed last week with the Ohio Elections Commission by state Inspector General Tom Charles. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner also filed an elections commission complaint against Dann last week alleging misuse of campaign funds.

The Ohio Elections Commission will address both complaints Jan. 22. And state Auditor Mary Taylor plans Monday to release her own investigation into Dann's spending.

Dann resigned in May amid a sexual harassment scandal in his office that included his admission that he had an affair with an employee.

Dann told The Associated Press on Saturday that he planned to prove to the elections commission that his expenditures were legal.

"The allegations that have been made in these complaints are either false or they lack a basis in law," Dann said. "We operated the campaign committee lawfully, and all the expenditures were made with the advice of counsel and were appropriate."

Charles' complaint accuses Dann of reporting incomplete, inaccurate and false information about campaign expenditures. Charles used expressions such as "absolutely incredible" and "defies logic" in describing the allegedly improper campaign spending, according to a review of more than 1,000 pages of reports by The Columbus Dispatch.

Anthony Gutierrez, a former top Dann aide, said in an interview filed with Charles' report that Dann and his wife misused the campaign fund.

"I've never seen people go through money as fast as them two in my life," said Gutierrez, former general services chief in the attorney general's office.

But Charles also criticized Gutierrez, saying he attempted to launder campaign fund money. When Dann spent $40,000 on a new security system and new windows for his house, according to Charles, Gutierrez had a contractor add $5,000 to the bill, then had the contractor cut checks to three businesses to which Gutierrez owed money.

The complaint also claimed that Dann laundered campaign funds by paying communications director Leo Jennings $3,000 a month for "consulting services," then had Jennings pay the rent and utilities at a condo shared by Dann, Jennings and Gutierrez.

Messages seeking comment were left Saturday with Gutierrez and Jennings.

A corporation that Dann established to pay for his inauguration and transition gave more than $12,000 to Zesty Dishes, a business owned by his wife, Alyssa Lenhoff Dann, Charles said.

The campaign fund also paid for a "family excursion" to a Utah resort and a "spring break vacation" to San Francisco timed with official Dann trips to those places, Charles' complaint said.

Dann's attorney, campaign finance attorney Don McTigue, said the complaint was baseless. Dann's spending involved "lawful and appropriate uses of campaign funds," he said.

So which party is it?  (Hint:  You don't see any party mentioned, do you?)

Yes, you're right.  Marc Dann is a Democrat.

How'd you guess?


Ken Berwitz

Want to see some world class spin?  Ok, I'll show you.

Today's New York Times features a story titled "White House philosophy stoked mortgage bonfire".  What does that tell you?

It tells me that President Bush's policies were what caused the mess we're in. 

In point of fact, Mr. Bush did have a lot to do with this mess.  It is true that he bears a good part of the blame.  But the headline doesn't indicate that he is part of the problem, it indicates that he is the lynchpin of it all.

Ok, now I'll post the first part of the article.  Please read it and see if you find any other culprits.  The bold print is mine:


White House philosophy stoked mortgage bonfire

WASHINGTON : "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home." President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when President George W. Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, "scared the hell out of everybody."

It was Sept. 18. Lehman Brothers had just gone belly-up, overwhelmed by toxic mortgages. Bank of America had swallowed Merrill Lynch in a hastily arranged sale. Two days earlier, Bush had agreed to pump $85 billion into the failing insurance giant American International Group.

The president listened as Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, laid out the latest terrifying news: The credit markets, gripped by panic, had frozen overnight, and banks were refusing to lend money.

Then his Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson Jr., told him that to stave off disaster, he would have to sign off on the biggest government bailout in history.

"How," he wondered aloud, "did we get here?"

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of homeownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how we got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them an old prep school buddy pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

So, did you find any other people involved? 

Bush wanted people to own their homes, especially minorities (for all the good it ever did him on election day).  He spent years trying to fix Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, but wouldn't "cut a deal" (translation:  he wouldn't water the fix down so that it wouldn't work). 

Oh, and the lenders, some of the homebuyers and Wall Street are to blame too (that's a lot of people, folks).

Then there is that matter of a "recalcitrant congress".  I guess it was only space limitations that precluded the Times from mentioning the lion's share of recalcitrance was from Democrats, not Republicans.  (Besides, why ruin a reliable story line?)

But to the casual reader, who skims the headline and the few paragraphs, determines that bastard Bush did it again, and goes on, this is entirely lost. 

The fact that Bush's motives were salutary and he tried to fix the problem years before this collapse?  Irrelevent 'n immaterial. 

Nice hit job, Times. 

Then they wonder why people call them biased.



Ken Berwitz

Here, from the New York Post and complete with graphics, is 2008:   the Democratic year of corruption (click on the picture to enlarge it....or, if that doesn't work, click here ):

(Click To Enlarge)

Were there corrupt Repubicans too?  Sure there were.  But how often did you hear about Democrats compared to them? 

The Post has done us a service by reminding us of how corrupt Democrats were this year (and how little, comparatively speaking, most mainstream media reported about it).  And I'm passing it along.


Ken Berwitz

By now, most people know that Rick Warren is going to give an invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration (assuming Mr. Obama doesn't cave in to the pressure, that is).  But what do most people know about Elizabeth Alexander, who has been chosen to read her poetry at that same inauguration?

Here's what they (and probably you) don't know, courtesy of Colleen Raezler at

BREAKING: Media Skips Inaugural Poet's Racy (and Racial) Poems of Pickled Genitalia, 'Naked Buttocks'

On Dec. 18, all three network evening news programs reported president-elect Barack Obamas announcement that Rev. Rick Warren had agreed to give the Inaugural Invocation. Each noted as well the divisive nature of the pick, at least in the eyes of the gay community.

NBCs Brian Williams asked during the Nightly News broadcast "Is it disrespectful to some Obama supporters?" CBS Katie Couric reported that "Obama is drawing anger from gay rights advocates upset that hes chosen evangelical minister Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration." ABC devoted a "Close Up" segment during World News with Charles Gibson to the controversy, complete with quotes from Joe Solmonese, president of the gay-activist group, Human Rights Campaign.

Amidst all the furor from gays and the left, its easy to see how the networks failed to give the same attention to Obamas selection of his friend, poet Elizabeth Alexander, to write and recite a poem at his inauguration ceremony. But as a Dec. 18 Investors Business Daily editorial "An X-Rated Inauguration?" pointed out, Alexander could be more divisive than Warren.

First, theres Alexanders use of language. Her poem "The Venus Hottentot" is about black female exploitation and contains the line, "her genitalia will float inside a labeled pickling jar." And: "Since my own genitals are public I have made other parts private." And: "I am a black cutout against a captive blue sky, pivoting nude so the paying audience can view my naked buttocks." And, most notably, this:  

In this newspaper lithograph, my buttocks are shown swollen and luminous as a planet.

Monsieur Cuvier investigates between my legs, poking, prodding, sure of his hypothesis.

I half expect him to pull silk scarves from inside me, paper poppies, then a rabbit.

Let's hope she refrains from such imagery during a televised ceremony. (See the poem read on YouTube.) 

More importantly, theres Alexander's view of race. Her Venus poem ends with a murderous desire from the exploited woman:

If he were let me rise up from this table, Id spirit his knives and cut out his black heart, seal it with science fluid inside a bell jar, place it on a low shelf in a white mans museum so the whole world could see it was shriveled and hard, geometric, deformed, unnatural.

The IBD editorial noted:

In an essay on the Rodney King beating that made a big splash in radical circles, Alexander contended that "a language of black male bestiality and hypervirility, along with myths of drug abuse and superhuman strength, was deployed" by lawyers for the police officers in Kings first trial. But as brutal and inexcusable as Kings videotaped pummeling was, attorneys for both sides agreed that Kings intoxication was no myth.

The Associated Press and Washington Post coverage of Alexanders role in Obamas inaugural ceremonies focused on the story of Alexanders attendance at Martin Luther Kings "I Have a Dream" speech as a toddler.

Tree Swenson, executive director of the Academy of American Poets, told the AP that Alexander "is a superb choice for the Obama inauguration: She is from Washington, she represents Obamas generation, and she has written about the civil rights conflict and other historical events that have shaped the character of this country."

But AP and Washington Post ignored her writings on race, the graphic imagery of her poetry, and critiques of her work.

Other links:

Daily Kos approves.

The New York Times gets no more specific than "Ms. Alexander said she believes her poetry 'attends to history,' including 'sometimes thorny and difficult American history,' even as it speaks in contemporary moments and landscapes."

The Hartford Courant hails the "fresh" poet's voice and provides historical background for the "Venus Hottentot" poem.

Alexander in May on Rodney King:

The 1991 beating created a space for group self-definition and self-knowledge, read Alexander. But it was also a signpost along a dark historical road.

Black bodies in pain for public consumption have been an American national spectacle for centuries, she read from the public lynchings of yesterday to the basketball and boxing of today.

Warren's religious position on homosexuality?  Shout it from the rooftops.

Alexander's poetry on human genitals, hearts (along with who knows what other organs), violence and stereotypes of Black people?  Hidden from view.  You're not supposed to know. 

Move along, sheeple, nothing to see here.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you 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!!