Friday, 27 February 2009


Ken Berwitz

Here, from,  is Larry Kudlow's take on President Obama's economic policies.  See if it makes as much sense to you as it does to me:

Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More
Friday, 27 Feb 2009 | 4:39 PM ET
Posted By: Larry Kudlow

President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obamas State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economys long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obamas left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obamas cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.

The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obamas rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. Thats one of the messages of the falling stock market.

Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.

Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters especially hedge-fund types who voted for change are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.

There is a growing sense of buyers remorse.

Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?

Expect to see a lot more Kudlow-esque commentaries in the coming weeks.

free` I can't believe that the American people would have voted for obama had the media not committed fraud and actually reported on what obama wanted to do. I am sickened by what is happening to our country, I have never been so discouraged about the future as I am now. (02/27/09)


Ken Berwitz

This comes to us from Marcia Kramer of wcbstv news in New York City:


Jewish Leaders Blast Clinton Over Israel Criticism

Zuckerman, Lawmakers, Local Jews Say Secretary Of State Not The Hillary Clinton They Used To Know

Hillary Pressuring Israel To Speed Up Aid To Gaza


I've asked this many times before, and it bears repeating now:  Why in the world would any intelligent person believe a word Hillary Clinton says?  How could anyone be taken in, when her history of lying is so pervasive?

And why would anyone believe the man who appointed her, Barack Obama, when he lied to supporters of Israel ongoingly throughout his entire election campaign? 

Even as Mr. Obama was assuring us of his undying support, he was stacking his campaign staff with virulent Israel haters.  I've written a dozen or more blogs about them over the past year.  They include Robert Malley, Merrill "Tony" McPeak, Samantha Power, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Joseph Cirincione, etc. etc. etc.

Then there was that stirring speech to AIPAC (The American Israeli Political Action Committee) in which Mr. Obama guaranteed an undivided Jerusalem -- but then said the exact opposite one day later.  Here are his verbatim quotes:

To AIPAC on Wednesday, June 4:  Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israels identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided..

To CNN on Thursday, June 5, upon being asked if his comments meant Arabs had no claim to any part of Jerusalem:  Well, obviously its going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these belief is that, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute 

Twenty Four hours, 180 degree turnaround. 

But because a) Mr. Obama had the fawning adoration of so many people, very much including supporters of Israel and b) our wonderful "neutral" media carefully downplayed this obvious reversal, it somehow didn't count.

Well, does it count now?  Does it count when, through Hillary Clinton, President Obama is attacking Israel and demanding that it facilitate the rebuilding and resupplying of people sworn to destroy it?

According to the exit polls, about 78% of Jews voted for Barack Obama.  Presumably most of them support Israel.  I hope they're happy with what they got.

Speaking as one of the other 22%, I can assure you I'm not.  And that goes double for Hillary Clinton.


Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of Brad Wilmouth at, is another of the countless demonstrations that keith olbermann - and janeane garafalo - are unhinged, hate-filled losers:

Olbermann & Garofalo See Self-Loathing Black Guy Michael Steele, Limbaugh Compared to Hitler

On Thursdays Countdown show, left-wing actress and comedienne Janeane Garofalo appeared to talk about a recent poll finding that Rush Limbaugh is substantially less popular with women than with men. Evoking laughter from host Keith Olbermann, Garofalo remarked that "the type of female that does like Rush is the same type of woman that falls in love with prisoners." After mentioning serial killers Richard Ramirez and Charles Manson, she then compared women who like Limbaugh to Adolf Hitlers girlfriend, Eva Braun: "Eva Braun, Hitlers girlfriend. That is exactly the type of woman that responds really well to Rush."

After mentioning that former CNN anchor Daryn Kagan used to date Limbaugh, Garofalo cracked that Kagan has Stockholm Syndrome, which she also attributed to RNC Chairman Michael Steele, with Olbermann agreeing that Steele suffers from "self-loathing":

Below is a transcript of relevant comments from the Thursday, February 26, Countdown show on MSNBC:

JANEANE GAROFALO: But the type of female that does like Rush is the same type of woman that falls in love with prisoners. [KEITH OLBERMANN LAUGHS] You know what I mean? They like Richard Ramirez or Squeaky Fromme is a good example. I think Charles Mansons Eva Braun, Hitlers girlfriend. That is exactly the type of woman that responds really well to Rush. And there will be some Eva Brauns, Squeaky Frommes out there that will respond really well to this cattle call right now.


GAROFALO, REFERRING TO DARYN KAGAN: She dated him, so either she suffers from Stockholm Syndrome a lot like Michael Steele, whos the black guy in the Republican party who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, which means you try and curry favor with the oppressor.

OLBERMANN: Yes, you talk about self-loathing.

GAROFALO: Yeah, and theres, any female or person of color in the Republican party is struggling with Stockholm Syndrome.

Pathetically, this is what passes for intelligent political dialogue at MSNBC.  Believe me, olbermann's hateful, smallminded intolerance is hardly unique to the network.

Maybe it is why, after all these years, olbermann still can't come close to the viewership achieved by Bill O'Reilly, the man he hates most of all.  And maybe it is why janeane garafalo was such a flop as a talk show host. 

Playing can-you-top-this with sickening, race-based vomit may wow 'em at, the,, and some of the regulars at the local Democratic club.  But to most people, it's just sickening race-based vomit, period. 

And they're right.


Ken Berwitz

This will be my third blog about charles w. freeman jr., whom President Obama just selected to head our National Intelligence Council. 

The first two showed how much freeman hates Israel.  This one shows what he thinks of our responsibility (that's right, our responsibility) for 9/11.  It comes to us from John Hinderaker at  I have put the 9/11 comments in bold print:

Freeman: Beyond the Pale

We wrote here and here about President Obama's appointment of Saudi shill Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council. Freeman's loyalty to Saudi Arabia and his outside-the-mainstream views on the Middle East make him a strange choice for the post, to say the least. But now even more explosive information about Freeman has emerged.

Check out this April 2002 program in which Freeman participated, sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Freeman's contributions included a tribute to the government of Saudi Arabia that began:

I urge anyone who has not done so to read the most profoundly self-reflective speech by a political leader that I have seen in the last quarter-century: Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah's December 2001 address to the Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Muscat.

Freeman went on:

Saudis and other Gulf Arabs were shocked by the level of ignorance and antipathy displayed by Americans toward them and toward Islam after September 11. The connection between Islam and suicide bombing is a false connection. Kamikaze pilots were not Muslims.

Freeman's fealty to the Saudis was so striking that when it came time for questions from the audience, Michael Stein of the Washington Institute said:

It has been a long time since I read Alice in Wonderland, but I must say there has been a through-the-looking-glass quality to some of the things we have heard here. The Saudis have eliminated 5 percent of their educational material. What of the other 95 percent? What of the Saudi-financed madrassas that teach hatred of the West? I read the newspapers avidly, and I have yet to see a report from an objective journalist coming out of Saudi Arabia. By the way, I served in the navy in World War II; I seem to recall that even kamikaze pilots attacked military targets, not civilians. Perhaps I am not reading the program correctly; I wonder whether Ambassador Freeman was the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, or the Saudi ambassador to America. (Laughter.)

What was really shocking about Freeman's comments, however, were his references to the September 11, 2001 attacks:

And what of America's lack of introspection about September 11? Instead of asking what might have caused the attack, or questioning the propriety of the national response to it, there is an ugly mood of chauvinism. Before Americans call on others to examine themselves, we should examine ourselves.
[I]t is very difficult for me as an American to go to the region and hear such high levels of skepticism about the facts of September 11. I have a lot of confidence, more confidence than Hassan, in our institutions, and I accept that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden almost certainly perpetrated the September 11 attacks. Fifteen of the hijackers probably were recruited in Saudi Arabia. I accept that, but I can tell you, it is not accepted in the Arab region. The polls show that overwhelming numbers of people do not accept the official U.S. explanation of September 11.

I'm not sure whether Freeman's approval requires Senate confirmation or not. If so, one would hope that Republican Senators will ask him whether he still believes the September 11 attacks should have been an occasion for self-examination to determine "what might have caused the attack," and what "cause" he had in mind. Further, he should be asked whether it is still his view that al Qaeda "almost certainly" perpetrated the attack, what grounds for doubt he is aware of, and the identity of those, other than al Qaeda, whom he considers possible suspects.

Is this the man you want in charge of our national intelligence estimates?  Is this the man you want in charge of anything with the word intelligence in it?  Is this the man you want in charge of anything at all?

Well, enjoy him, because he's our guy.  Thank you Barack Obama, and thank you to all the folks - dupes and non-dupes alike - who put Mr. Obama in charge so that he could elevate this pathetic swine to a position of importance.


Ken Berwitz

This Associated Press article says it all:

Mayor who sent watermelon e-mail says he'll resign

LOS ALAMITOS, Calif. (AP) The mayor of a small Southern California city says he will resign after being criticized for sharing an e-mail picture depicting the White House lawn planted with watermelons under the title "No Easter egg hunt this year."

Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose issued a statement Thursday saying he is sorry and will step down as mayor at Monday's City Council meeting.

Grose came under fire for sending the picture to what he called "a small group of friends." One of the recipients, a local businesswoman and city volunteer, publicly scolded the mayor for his actions.

Grose says he accepts that the e-mail was in poor taste and has affected his ability to lead the city. Grose said he didn't mean to offend anyone and claimed he was unaware of the racial stereotype linking black people with eating watermelons.

Located in Orange County, Los Alamitos is a 2 1/4-square-mile city of around 12,000 people.

dean grose was unaware of the racial stereotype linking Black people with eating watermelons?  Unaware?  Yeah, ok.

The term "racist" is tossed around a lot these days; sometimes for ridiculous reasons.  Sadly, however, there are many times when it fits 100%.  And this is one of them.

I'm glad dean grose had enough after-the-fact sense to apologize.  But, much more importantly, I'm relieved that he resigned as mayor.  To paraphrase that great Ray Charles song:

"Hit the road, dean, and dontcha come back no more, no more, no more, no more....."


Ken Berwitz

In 2007, President Bush became convinced that a troop surge would be greatly beneficial to our effort in Iraq.  At that time, Barack Obama stated that he was not persuaded it would help at all, and believed it would have an opposite effect.  His exact, complete statement was:

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops is going to solve the violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

"I think it is fair to say that the President has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that we've been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American people and our troops."

"We can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."

President Bush did not take the advice of General Obama.  He ordered the surge anyway.  And, as just about everyone now agrees (including Mr. Obama), it was immensely successful.  That success has continued and grown right up to the present.

Largely because of how successful the surge was, we are no longer fighting a war in Iraq at all. 

Do you see any news in the paper or on the networks about battles being fought?  Of soldiers being engaged in more than sporadic, minor skirmishes? 

Most of our wonderful "neutral" media have not reported it as such, but these days we are far more involved in the continued training of Iraqi forces and in maintaining what we have accomplished than we are in fighting of any kind.

What a great opportunity for President Barack Obama!

Remember, it was then-candidate Obama who pledged that if he were elected President he would remove all troops from Iraq in 16 months.  He said it very specifically and repeated it over and over again to anyone who would listen. 

Well, now he's President, and the country is almost completely pacified.  So it's a piece of cake to remove those troops, right?

Er, if you just agreed with that last sentence I urge you to read this article by Steven Thomma of the McClatchey newspaper chain:.

Obama to extend Iraq withdrawal timetable; 50,000 troops to stay

By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON Amid complaints from has own party that he's moving too slowly to end the war in Iraq, President Barack Obama will announce Friday that U.S. combat troops will be withdrawn by Aug. 31, 2010, but that as many as 50,000 Marines and soldiers would remain until the end of 2011.

Obama will announce his plans during a visit with troops at Camp Lejeune, N.C., where he'll also visit with Marines who are being deployed to Afghanistan, senior administration officials said.

As he moves to draw down the war in Iraq after six years and more than 4,200 U.S. dead, he's also moving to escalate the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

The 18-month timetable for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq is two months longer than he promised during his campaign. Aides who spoke on condition of anonymity to speak frankly said that military commanders wanted the extra time. "The president found that compelling," said one senior administration official.

The pace of the drawdown will be left to commanders and determined by events on the ground as well as politics in Washington. Although U.S. and Iraqi casualties have dropped sharply, and recent provincial elections were held without major incidents, it's not clear whether Iraq's rival factions and their militias have abandoned violence or are merely biding their time.

A key factor in the pace of the U.S. drawdown will be making sure that there are sufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to assure that national elections scheduled for December are peaceful, officials said. Another will be the speed with which Iraqi military and security forces gain the ability to maintain order without American help.

Under Obama's plan, a force of between 35,000 and 50,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after Aug. 31, 2010, to train, equip and advise Iraqi forces, help protect withdrawing forces and work on counterterrorism. They'd remain until Dec. 31, 2011, the date on which the Bush administration agreed to withdraw all troops under a pact with Iraq.

That number, too, could depend on conditions in Iraq and on the need for additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban have made significant gains, and where national elections also are scheduled.

The plan to leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq after August 2010 upset several top Democrats in Congress, who want far fewer troops left after the August date.

"I'm happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president, but when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., before meeting with Obama at the White House.

Obama started reviewing options in mid-December, aides said, then "really began in earnest" after taking office. He met on Jan. 21 with top commanders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Army Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of the U.S. Central Command; and Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq.

What did President Bush say he would do?  He said that, as Iraqi forces became more capable of securing the country, he would draw down troops to a much lower level.  He said that eventually we would have a residual force there, with the Iraqi army predominantly in charge of military responsibilities.

Does that sound anything like what President Obama is now proposing?  Like exactly, precisely and totally the same thing?

No wonder the left is in such an uproar.  Apparently Barack Obama doesn't want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  So, at least as of now, he is operating from the Bush blueprint - which, you can bet, he will try to take credit for as time goes on.

Who would have thought it.  Maybe we should start calling him Barack Bush.

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!!