Friday, 17 April 2009


Ken Berwitz

A few days ago I put up video of Tom Tancredo being prevented from speaking at a college campus by group of far left fascists who first screamed and chanted over him and then started breaking property.  The fascists were allowed to disrupt and summarily end congressperson's talk - with no apparent retribution of any kind.

That being the case, I thought you might want to see what happens when the "disruption" is from someone on the right. 

In this case it is documentarian John Ziegler, who, as you will note, is doing nothing but speaking, and asking questions outside of an award ceremony for Katie Couric. 

See if you notice any difference in how this is handled. 


I have to admit I find Ziegler a little annoying and a little goofy.  But what in the world is he doing to engender this kind of treatment --- other than having the wrong politics?

And, with great regret, I note that this is the story of a great many college campuses today.  The way they are contorted to one point of view is maddening. 

Maybe one day they will revert back to being institutions of learning where all views are welcome. 

But not this day.  And not in the forseeable future.


Ken Berwitz

Since I've written about USC's disgraceful suppression of John Ziegler, I would like to show that college fascism is just as alive and well on the east coast.

Here, from, which, like is a web site dedicated to exposing what passes for freedom of speech/open exchange of ideas at our universities these days, is a rundown on the unbelievable cesspool that UMass - Amherst has become:

UMass Amherst Stands by as Student Newspaper is Stolen and Censored

Student Government Senator Ejected for Trying to Uphold First Amendment on Campus

April 16, 2009

FIRE Press Release

AMHERST, Mass., April 16, 2009Multiple First Amendment violations have rocked the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus in recent days. UMass has done nothing about the videotaped theft of and, later, the student government's official censorship of The Minuteman, a conservative campus newspaper that mocked a student government official. Worse, last night, when a student senator offered a bill to reverse the unconstitutional censorship of The Minuteman, the Senate's speaker had the UMass police throw him out (video of this incident is expected soon). These assaults on free speech came in the wake of last month's disgraceful episode in which a speech by columnist Don Feder was shouted down by hecklers while UMass police officers did nothing. The many aggrieved parties on this out-of-control campus have come to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.

"The situation at UMass has spiraled out of control," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "UMass' offenses against the Constitution are legion. So far, it has done nothing after copies of a student newspaper were stolen because the paper mocked a student government official, it has stood by while the student government unconstitutionally censored the newspaper, and it has allowed its police to be used to silence a free speech advocate."

Mob censorship through the theft of newspapers is a recurring problem on America's campuses. FIRE has acquired a video recording of the most recent such newspaper theft on the campus of UMass Amherst. Shockingly, it depicts a UMass police officer idly standing by as hundreds of copies of The Minuteman are stolen out of the hands of a student intending to distribute the paper.

One of the individuals who stole the papers, shown in a photograph as standing on a stack of papers and on video as grabbing them out of the other student's hands, has been identified to FIRE as Vanessa Snow, the leader of UMass' Student Bridges organization, a powerful campus organization strongly supported by the UMass Amherst Student Government Association (SGA). Snow was ridiculed by name in that issue of The Minuteman.

As if the theft was not enough, The Minuteman's mockery of Snow also resulted in official censorship. Last week, the SGA passed a resolution demanding that The Silent Majority, the student organization that publishes The Minuteman, publicly apologize to Vanessa Snow for its constitutionally protected mockery of her, or else face loss of recognition by the SGA, which would shut down both the organization and the paper. At the request of The Silent Majority, FIRE wrote to UMass Amherst Chancellor Robert C. Holub urging that the coerced speech and threat of punishment be rescinded immediately.

But the student government outdid itself last night after student senator Derek Khanna tried to place a resolution on the SGA agenda that would have rescinded the SGA's unconstitutional decree of press censorship. SGA Senate Speaker Shaun Robinson not only refused to hear Khanna's resolution but reportedly threw it on the floor, soon calling the police to eject Khanna from the SGA meeting after Khanna insisted that he be heard. Video of this incident is expected soon and will be posted on FIRE's website.

"Not only has the SGA decided to unconstitutionally censor the press, it tried to do so through the unconstitutional method of coercing speech, and then it threw out the one person in the student government who was standing up strongly for Constitutional rights. It is difficult to imagine how the SGA could have more thoroughly abused the First Amendment and humiliated UMass," said Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program. "UMass Amherst and Chancellor Holub must act immediately to rein in the SGA's outrageous behavior before it results in further embarrassment and legal liability for the university."

UMass' spate of free speech problems on campus began in February, when a large group of students calling itself the Coalition Against Hate posted flyers inviting people to protest at a speech by columnist Don Feder that was to be hosted by the Republican Club. In response, the UMass Police Department pressured the Republican Club into paying an additional $444.52 for extra security at the event due to the threatened protest. The club agreed to pay the money, but the organized hecklers nevertheless disrupted Feder's speech. (Video of the disrupted event is available online.)

Having been charged extra for security that was not even effective, the Republican Club contacted FIRE for help. FIRE wrote UMass, reminding the university of the Supreme Court's holding in a 1992 decision that "[s]peech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob." After FIRE also published an op-ed in The Boston Globe, UMass publicly relented in a letter to the Globe. The letter announced that UMass would return the excess fee but deceptively claimed that UMass had only charged more money because of greater anticipated attendance at Feder's lecture.

"UMass' deceptive claim that it charged more for security only because of greater anticipated attendance fails to mention the fact that the university knew that attendance was greater only because a large number of students attended to protest and disrupt the event," said Kissel. "A policy of charging a group for extra security when large numbers of people plan to disrupt an event will only encourage hecklers to shut down further events at UMass."

Unbelievable.  But this is standard-issue activity at UMass-Amherst, and many other major universities.   

Freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas has been replaced by left wing fascism.  And it is a national disgrace.

Hey, I just had a radical thought:  given the behavior of these thugs posing as students, I wonder if keith olbermann will make them his "worst person(s) in the world" tonight. 

I would put the chance of olbermann doing so slightly below the chance that Nancy Pelosi will switch parties and take over the Eagle Forum from Phylis Schlafly.

free` Absolutely disgusting, every time i read about this taking place at our schools i get more discouraged about the direction our country is headed. I don't understand how these people think what they are doing is good or correct behavior. I am surprised that the groups having their freedom of speech disrupted don't respond with violence. I know if people did this to me i would kick there butts. (04/17/09)


Ken Berwitz

The New York Times publishes a columnist named Roger Cohen. 

Cohen is a British Jew who claims to be a strong supporter of Israel.  However, this "strong supporter of Israel" has written several columns which tell us that Iran (on record as wanting Israel "wiped off the face of the map" and currently creating nuclear weaponry) is not a real threat.  Cohen also criticizes Israel for "overplaying its hand" against hamas and hezbollah, both terrorist entities specifically committed to Israel's destruction.

Remember the saying "With friends like this, who needs enemies?"  Even Johnny Cochran would have agreed it fits Roger Cohen like a glove.

In any event, the Times ran five letters today reacting to Cohen's latest foray into la-la land.  As you would expect from the Times, a majority are anti-Israel (the only surprise is that it's 3-2 against Israel instead of 4-1 or 5-0).

But I thought the two pro-Israel letters were especially intelligent, thoughtful and provocative.  So I'm posting them below.  See if you agree:

To the Editor:

Roger Cohen continues to play down Irans intentions against Israel or other countries in the Middle East.

Last I checked, Iran was doing all that it could to destabilize the region through its support of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iraqi Shiites.

What does the region have to gain by giving Iran all that it wants? Do any rational, fair-minded people really believe that this would produce a good outcome for the region?

How much evidence is needed to see Irans dangerous game? Should we really believe that Iran has no intention to develop a nuclear weapon when its leaders have repeatedly stated their desire to wipe Israel off the map?

We ignore threats at our peril. We would be wise to do all we can to ensure that Iran does not continue its path of destabilization throughout the Middle East. To pin our hopes on a laundry list of behavioral changes that Iran may promise but not deliver is to capitulate to a very dangerous regime.

Edwin Andrews
Malden, Mass., April 13, 2009


To the Editor:

The Iranian government and its religious leaders would clearly like Israel and Jews everywhere to disappear. They will have the means to do so if they develop a nuclear weapon. The crisis is coming, and whether it is two years or five years from now is almost irrelevant.

What is Roger Cohens solution? To urge President Obama to finally get tough with Israel. A country is presented with an existential threat, and Mr. Cohens solution is to blame the potential victim.

Isnt it clear that Israel will act to neutralize any development of a nuclear weapon in its neighborhood? It has done this in the past against other would-be nuclear powers in the region, and it is wishful thinking to assume it will not do so in the case of Irans nuclear program.

Perhaps Mr. Obamas great crisis will come when he has to make the decision to allow Israeli jets to fly toward Iranian targets, or conversely to shoot them down or warn Iran.

Peter W. Dorfman
Las Cruces, N.M., April 14, 2009


Edwin Andrews I am the person who wrote one of the letters highlighted here. I appreciate the compliment and encourage people to write letters whenever you can. I actually do think that the NYT tries to balance out pro- and anti-Israel letters, but I think we all look for bias against us. I am very conscious of that and find that they are usually evenly split, or even slightly more pro-Israel. Blogs on some of the columns (specifically Cohen's columns) are actually rather frightening. (04/29/09)


Ken Berwitz

It figures that janeane garafalo said this on keith olbermann's daily hate-fest -- and that he didn't challenge her on it. (Why would he, what part of it would he disagree with?)

From Amanda Carpenter at the Washington Times:

Liberal actress and political activist Janeane Garofalo, in all seriousness, said activists who attended tea parties are racists with dysfunctional brains in a recent prime-time television appearance.

"Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House," she said on MSNBC's "The Countdown" with Keith Olbermann Thursday evening. "This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that."

Olbermann did not once try to challenge her on those assertions.

The actress went on to describe the brain size of typical "right-winger, Republican or conservative or your average white power activist." 

"Their synapses are misfiring. ... It is a neurological problem we are dealing with," she said. This isn't the first time she's offered this analysis, either. Ms. Garofalo said similar things about Alaskan GOP Governor Sarah Palin's brain last February in an interview with an environmental blog.

The actress went on to bash the GOP on MSNBC Thursday because it had "crystallized into the white power movement" as well as Fox News, which she said has captured the "Klan demo[graphic]."

"Who else is Fox talking to? Urban older white guys and their girlfriends who suffer from Stockholm Syndrome," she said.

Ironically, Ms. Garofalo is currently playing a role on the drama 24, which is aired by the Fox Broadcasting Company and is popular among conservative circles.

My one major point of contention with Ms. Carpenter's piece is that she characterizes janeane garafalo as "liberal". 

garofalo is full-to-overflowing with hate and intolerance.  That is anything but "liberal" to me.


Ken Berwitz

This enlightened little tidbit is about john edwards, his wife and the mother of all but one of his children Elizabeth, and his non-wife but the mother of his other child,  rielle hunter.  It comes to us from a web site called - I kid you not -

Apr 17

John Edwards mistress agrees to interview with ABC

waverly inn 160508

The situation for disgraced former presidential candidate John Edwards is really starting to get sticky. We told you how Edwards privately admitted to his wife that he is indeed the father of mistress Rielle Hunters 1-year-old daughter, Frances. Now, Elizabeth Edwards, who is dying from terminal breast cancer, will be making an appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show. Its not clear what Mrs. Edwards will be talking about, but Rielle Hunter is prepared to respond to any potential remarks by making an appearance of he own in an exclusive interview with Diane Sawyer or Barbara Walters.

John Edwards mistress Rielle Hunter is ready for her close-up with her first national TV interview since the cheating scandal wrecked his career, The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.

In a startling change of heart, Rielle Hunter has decided to face the cameras and has narrowed her choice of interviewer to either ABC News correspondents Diane Sawyer or Barbara Walters, say sources.

Rielle had previously assured John she wasnt going to spill the beans, said a close source. But shes changed her tune after thinking Elizabeth Edwards might disparage her in the upcoming interview shes already taped with Oprah Winfrey.

The interview will be broadcast in mid-May to coincide with the publication of Elizabeths new book in which shes likely to address the affair.

As a result, a behind-the-scenes war of words is breaking out between Rielle and Elizabeth.

Rielles decided shes not going to sit back while Edwards wife gives her side of the story, said the close source. As much as John hates it, hes defenseless to stop either woman from saying what she wants. Its now erupted into a war between his wife and his former mistress over who will have the last word in what could be dueling TV interviews.

Rielle intensified talks with the ABC superstars in early April in preparation for going in front of the cameras.

No deal is done, but Rielle seems to favor Barbara Walters over Diane because Barbara admitted recently she engaged in a long-ago affair, said the close source. This makes Rielle believe Barbara will show her more compassion than Diane would.

Following a series of world exclusive Enquirer exposes, the former presidential candidate finally admitted to the affair last summer - after our reporters caught the ex-senator visiting Rielle and her baby in a Beverly Hills hotel.

Both Edwards and Rielle have publicly maintained that Edwards is not the father.

Rielle claimed that the father is Andrew Young, a married Edwards crony. But weve reported that Rielle has privately told close friends that she never had a sexual relationship with Young - and has confided that Edwards is really the babys father.

Will Rielle spill her guts on national TV?

[From The National Enquirer print version, April 27, 2009]

Between his wife doing Oprah and his mistress doing ABC news, John Edwards head must be about to explode. And I say, serves him right! This jerk thought he could get away with cheating on his terminally ill wife AND fathering a child with that mistress. He admitted in that interview last year that not only did he cheat, but he is a narcissist. Damn right. I dont really have any interest in hearing what this Rielle person has to say. Shes just as bad as he is. Its not like she didnt know what she was getting herself into with Edwards. The person Id love to hear from is Elizabeth - although it seems like she has chosen to stand by her man- even though hes a total scum bag.

The way I look at it, with a 28,000 square foot home on over 100 acres, edwards can probably keep both of them close by, without either really seeing the other very much. 

To think: this slimy oil slick on legs could have been the President or Vice President of the United States....


Ken Berwitz

From KUSA, Denver:

9NEWS Meteorologist Ashton Altieri says rain in the metro area will continue to change into snow through the morning on Friday. Many areas above 6,000 feet had already reported snow and up to 10 inches of accumulation before sunrise on Friday.

A WINTER STORM WARNING has been posted through Saturday morning for almost the entire Interstate 25 corridor as well as most mountain areas in Colorado. Most of southern Wyoming, including the Interstate 80 corridor, is also under a warning through Saturday at noon.

As usually is the case in Colorado, snow totals from this storm will be very closely related to elevation. Locations above 6,000 feet in Jefferson, Boulder and Larmier Counties will see the most significant accumulation. Communities such as Bailey, Evergreen, Genesee, Nederland, Estes Park and Red Feather Lakes could see a total of 18 to 36 inches by Saturday.

Locations along the Palmer Divide in Douglas and Elbert Counties including Castle Rock, Franktown, Parker, Elizabeth and Kiowa will likely see between 15 and 30 inches of total accumulation.

The snow forecast for areas below about 5,550 feet including the Denver, Aurora, Lakewood, Boulder and Fort Collins areas is much more complicated.

According to Ashton, the freezing level will seesaw between about 5,200 feet and 5,600 feet on Friday and Saturday meaning the precipitation could alternate between rain and snow. Obviously, the more rain the metro area sees, the less snow accumulation can be expected.

It appears temperatures will be cold enough in Denver on Friday and Saturday for the freezing line to remain low enough for almost all the precipitation to remain snow.

Assuming that happens, the Denver, Lakewood, Aurora, and Boulder areas could see 10 to 20 inches of heavy, wet snow with the highest amounts near the base of the foothills. About 4 to 8 inches would fall on Friday during the day before another 4 to 8 inches falls on Friday night. The remainder would fall on Saturday.

Northern Colorado including the Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley areas will likely see 8 to 16 inches of snow with the highest amounts on the west side of Fort Collins near Horsetooth Reservoir. Even higher amounts are possible along Interstate 25 from Wellington north into Cheyenne, Wyo.

On Thursday night, state transportation officials shut down I-25 from Wellington, about 65 miles north of Denver, to the Wyoming state line because of snowy, slushy conditions. They also closed U.S. 287 from Ted's Place, north of Fort Collins, to the Wyoming line.

On the Eastern Plains, this event will be mostly rain for locations such as Sterling, Limon, Lamar and Burlington. However, these areas could see snow with minor accumulation on Friday night.

For the high country, a WINTER STORM WARNING continues until Saturday morning for most central mountain areas west of Vail Pass to the northern mountains around Rabbit Ears Pass. These areas will see at least 8 to 16 inches of total snow accumulation.

A WINTER STORM WARNING is also in effect for mountain areas east Vail Pass including the mountains of Summit County, Winter Park, and Rocky Mountain National Park. These areas could see a total of 1 to 2 feet of snow.

For Colorado Springs and the southern I-25 corridor, a total of 1 to 2 feet of new snow is possible for mountain areas and 6 inches or more could potentially fall over the adjacent plains.


Ken Berwitz

Here John Hinderaker's ( take on the so-called "torture memos" released by the Obama administration.  I think you'll find he is spot-on correct:

About Those "Torture Memos"

The Obama administration has made public four memos that were authored by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2005, in which lawyers from DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel responded to requests by the CIA for legal opinions as to whether harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, could legally be used on a few high-level al Qaeda detainees. DOJ concluded, among other things, that the use of such techniques would not violate the statute that prohibits torture.

You can read the memos here. If you do, you will see that DOJ's lawyers grappled carefully and fairly with issues that are, by their nature, both difficult and distasteful. I find much to agree with in the memos and little, if anything, with which I disagree from a legal standpoint. Several things about the memos are striking: the concern that is shown for the health and well-being of the detainees; the very limited circumstances under harsh interrogation techniques were used (only when the CIA had reason to believe that the detainee had knowledge about pending terrorist attacks, among other limitations), and confirmation of the fact that thousands of American servicemen have been waterboarded and subjected to the other techniques in question, as part of their training--a practice that continued at least up to the dates of the memos.

I think the opinions were correct in substance; in any event, CIA officials were obviously justified in relying on them. In this context, the Obama administration's announcement that it will not prosecute the CIA personnel involved is evidently grandstanding. Of course they won't be prosecuted: to do so would be a double-cross of the worst sort, and the likelihood of getting a conviction would be nil. The fact is that the CIA officials who extracted valuable information from captured al Qaeda leaders--information that we have every reason to believe prevented successful terrorist attacks--are heroes. Their task was a thankless one, but, based on all the information we have, including the newly-released DOJ memos, they performed it well.

It would be good to remember this common-sense logic as you see and hear the usual suspects railing about how terrible the USA is -- er, excuse me, was until January 20th.


Ken Berwitz

For the last couple of days we have been hearing outraged howls from Democrats regarding the awful "torture" a small number of enemy combatants was subjected to.  (The fact that it was determined not to be torture at the time somehow is lost in the haze). 

Nancy Pelosi, in the February/March issue of Washington Monthly, had this to say about the subject:

The use of torture violates fundamental American values. It damages the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the international community, and it increases the risks for our military personnel, diplomatic officers, and intelligence agents around the world. Many intelligence professionals have stated that torture is ineffective: it is unlikely to produce the kind of timely and reliable information needed to disrupt terrorist plots. The negative consequences of the use of torture far outweigh the supposed benefits.

For decades, the United States used the Geneva Conventions as the standard for the treatment of captives, and we regularly condemned conditions and practices not in accord with the Conventions. Now, Bush administration officials have admitted that the United States has used waterboarding on at least three suspected terrorists, while refusing to define which interrogation methods would constitute torture.

To uphold American values and to underscore our belief that torture is wrong, the House of Representatives in December voted to expand the current prohibition against torture so that it applies not only to the Department of Defense but to all U.S. government personnel. America is on stronger ground ethically, morally, and practically when our practices for holding and interrogating captives are consistent with the Geneva Conventions-when we don't torture. The next president should make the return to that standard our highest priority.

Oh yeah?

From The Weekly Standard we have this demonstration (as if anyone still needed it) that nancy pelosi is a fraud and a hypocrite:

Friendly Reminder: Pelosi Knew about Harsh Interrogations in 2002 and Didn't Object

Peter Wehner reminds us of this Washington Post story:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIAs overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk. Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised.

The Post added that the during the CIA's 30 congressional briefings on these matters only one formal complaint was issued, and Porter J. Goss told the paper that there was bipartisan "encouragement" for the CIA's program:

"Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing, said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.

What a fraud.  What a hypocrite.  But don't count on this being picked up by our wonderful "neutral" media any time soon. 

It's good to have a D- after your name.


Ken Berwitz

From, comes congressperson jan schakowsky's view of peaceful protest - when the protestors do not agree with her:

April 16, 2009

Schakowsky: Tea parties 'despicable'

@ 1:23 pm by Eric Zimmermann

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) blasted "tea party" protests yesterday, labeling the activities "despicable" and shameful."

"The 'tea parties' being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs," Schakowsky said in a statement.

"It's despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt," she added. "Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians."

This is the strongest language to date opposing the protesters, which, according to some estimates, topped 250,000 across the country.

Now let's see what schakowsky doesn't consider despicable or shameful.  The following is excerpted from an article in USA Today, August 31, 2005:

Congresswoman's husband pleads guilty to two felonies
CHICAGO (AP) The husband of an Illinois congresswoman pleaded guilty Wednesday to tax violations and bank fraud for writing rubber checks and failing to collect withholding tax from an employee.

Robert Creamer, a political consultant married to four-term U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, could face four years in prison on the two felony counts when he is sentenced Dec. 21.

"In my heart, I know that these mistakes do not define or diminish this good man, or the good work that he has done over the last 40 years or that he will do in the future," Schakowsky, D-Ill., said after her husband's court hearing.

The indictment alleged Creamer caused a series of insufficiently funded checks and wire transfers to be drawn on accounts he controlled as executive director of the Illinois Public Action Fund. According to the indictment, he allegedly then used the inflated balances to pay the group's expenses and own salary.

Creamer pleaded guilty to one count each of bank fraud and failure to collect withholding tax. In exchange for his plea, prosecutors dropped several other counts.

His lawyer, Theodore Poulos, said he hopes Creamer can avoid prison and serve whatever sentence he receives in a halfway house or under house arrest.

Schakowsky, who lives in the Chicago suburb of Evanston, said she doesn't think her husband's plea would prompt a primary challenge next year in her heavily Democratic district.

FYI, Creamer was sentenced to 5 months in jail and 11 months in home confinement. 

But his thievery wasn't "despicable" or "shameful", was it?  To the same jan schakowsky, he is "a good man" who has done "good work".   schakowsky also said, in her statement after he was convicted, that ..."More than anything, I am proud of who Bob is. ... He has been a constant crusader."

He sure did do good work and was a constant crusader.  Too bad for him that he got caught doing the crusading.

I think, maybe, schakowsky should get a better handle on what is  "despicable" and "shameful" in this country.  HINT:  It ain't hundreds of thousands of people who peacefully assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

Oh, by the way, when creamer was bilking people out of millions of dollars and pocketing the dough?  schakowsky signed their tax returns right along with him.  What does that make her? 

Can you come up with any adjectives?


Ken Berwitz

On April 15th, hundreds of "tea parties" took place in cities and towns, large and small, throughout the USA.  The crowds ranged from less than 100 to 5,000 and more (Atlanta alone may have had 15,000 - 20,000).  I don't know the exact number - no one does - but the total certainly is in 6 figures.

This was accomplished despite a virtual blackout of news coverage for the entire lead-up to these parties -- and other than Fox News, which treated this as the major event it was, almost all of the meager coverage from our wonderful "neutral" media ranged from negative to sarcastic to condemnatory.

If coverage had been a small fraction of what we saw for, say, the "million man march"  or for cindy sheehan when she sat outside of then-President Bush's Crawford Texas ranch, with maybe a dozen supporters, it's a very good bet that the number of tea party participants would have been dramatically higher.  But that didn't happen.

In the last two days I have blogged about the sickeningly crude attacks on participants by some media, which apparently think it is professional, fair and funny to tie tea party protests to the sexual act of "tea-bagging".  Frankly, it is none of those three.  It is little more than a demonstration of the stunning level of bias these people have - and empirical proof that if they perceive the subject to be conservative, they feel it is open season to disregard all norms of journalism.

Yesterday I looked through the New York Times to see how it reported the tea parties.  I figured there would be a small front page reference that would take up part of one column below the fold.  But I was wrong. 

The tea party story did not make the Times' front page.  It was buried on page A16 (the lesser-read left side page) on the bottom. 

The article's sub-head told us that "thousands" participated, which, while technically true, dramatically downplays the extent of  actual participation.  And the article made a special point of noting that conservative groups became involved in the tea parties (did the Times feature which left wing and racist groups were behind the" million man march" as prominently?  At all?)

Lamentably, nothing that you just read is remarkable at all.  It isn't even surprising. 

The truly remarkable thing is that the New York Times, and so many of its kindred media venues, claim to be neutral.  Even more remarkable (and horribly sad) is the fact that, though their numbers are clearly dwindling, some people still believe them.


Ken Berwitz

matt taibbi is a nasty, vituperative, hate-filled left wing "journalist" (I put the word in quotations because what he writes is not what I think journalism to be).

Here is a put-down of Taibbi from whoever runs the web site

I warn you.  It is rude.  Extremely rude.  And extremely non-PC.  And just as profane as taibbi's screeds are.

If you can put up with that (and you're still reading, aren't you?), then enjoy taibbi's come-uppance.  It is a classic:

Matt Taibbi wrote this post called Teabagging Michelle Malkin

Aside from his covering for the worst math ever used in a budget, he fails real world economics 101: Costs are passed down, to the bottom.

He also pushed the liberal talking point from his favorite lefty blogs, that nobody was on the street over TARP I:

  •  I didnt see anyone on the street when we forked over billions of dollars to help JP Morgan Chase buy Bear Stearns. And I didnt see anyone on the street when Hank Paulson forked over $45 more billion to help Bank of America buy Merrill Lynch, a company run at the time by one of the worlds biggest assholes, John Thain. Moreover I didnt see any street protests when the government agreed to soak up hundreds of billions in troubled assets from Citigroup, a company that just months later would lend out a jet furnished with pillows upholstered with Hermes scarves to former chief Sandy Weill so that he could vacation in Mexico over Christmas

Now Matt writes this simply because he cant type bailout protesters into Google. Back when Michelle Malkin was leading the charge against Hank Paulson, every right of center blog, from Little Green Footballs to little ol TRN, was saying either the idea was bad, or was publishing pictures of the protesters at the time.

Far left groups like Code Pink were out early, and so were libertarians and independents of varying stripe. Many of these folks, came out and met conservatives on 4/15/09. You would know that if you went to a tax protest instead of waiting for CNN to tell you what to think.

Try Google next post Matt, its so easy, even you can do it.

The good part is he attacks a far more talented writer so he can get some attention, because his talent couldnt cut it.

He actually uses the words:

  • Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.

I could see how a conversation between The Rude Dog and Matt would play out:

  • The Rude Dog: Hey your Matt Taibbi, the guy who has sexual fantasies about Michelle Malkin.
  • Matt: Yeah. (Wipes some spittle from his mouth)
  • The Rude Dog: Do you really think she would get with you? I didnt know she was into eating pu**y.
  • Matt: (cries)

I think anybody who is in the vicinity of Mr. Taibbi should tell him what a piece of shit he is.

So many of these liberals have pushed the sex jokes ad nauseum this week, and their ratings have suffered for it. Only John Stewart can get away with this crap, and you know what? He was the most classy liberal broadcaster that made fun of the protests. 

While CNN and MSNBC were busy high-fiving each other over teabagging replays, John Stewart pointed out that some tax protesters were protesting government waste, by buying thousands of teabags. It was funny, poigninat, and he didnt giggle and smirk (anymore than usual) about tea bagging every ten seconds. I guess you can see the difference talent makes. 

Back to Matt. The idea of a male writer talking about putting balls into the mouth of a female writer would have caused liberals to go wild years ago. Then their guy Clinton molested a bunch of widows and interns, and they were silent. The unleashing of sexual insults against Sarah Palin showed us just how far liberals will go. Now every woman writer or pundit who does not subscribe to liberalism, is a prime target of sexual invective from pseudo intellects and wannabe bad boys.

Its too bad Rolling Stone employs swine like this. He makes Rachel Maddows teabagging tirade look classy. At least she has the equipment to teabag with.

Whew.  Remind me never to get on this guy's bad side. 

If I see a response from taibbi I promise to post it.

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!!