Tuesday, 12 May 2009


Ken Berwitz

In case you're wondering what kind of conservative the laughably partisan MSNBC cable news network would like, here is your answer.

Here's a story by Menachem Z. Rosensaft, writing for the New York Daily News, which lays it out about as clearly as can be:

Why is Pat Buchanan's website playing host to Holocaust deniers?

Tuesday, May 12th 2009, 4:00 AM

Yesterday at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Israel, Pope Benedict said victims of the Final Solution "lost their lives, but they will never lose their names." Earlier this year, the Pope told a group of American Jewish leaders that "any denial or minimization any denial or minimization" of the Holocaust "is intolerable and altogether unacceptable."

Patrick  Buchanan, a devout Catholic, might want to reacquaint himself with these declarations by the leader of his church, because the MSNBC political commentator and one-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is currently enabling Holocaust deniers.

Buchanan.org, his official Web site, hosts, on a "Buchanan Brigade Forum" for registered members of the site, a long discussion thread in which Holocaust revisionists compare notes with each other and heap venom and vitriol on Jews. It's titled "Discussion about 'The Holocaust' " (with The Holocaust in quotes, of course).

In 2009, when the international community is busy excoriating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for doubting whether 6 million Jews did in fact perish at the hands of the Third Reich, Buchanan's Web site is encouraging this very conversation.

As Deborah Lipstadt, the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies and director of the Institute for Jewish Studies at Emory University, explains, Holocaust denial is a pernicious strain of anti-Semitism.

"According to deniers, Jews use the Holocaust to win the world's sympathy and, in the course of so doing, win reparations from Germany and political support for Israel," she says. "Such a charge, based as it is the imagery of money and political manipulation, harkens back to traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes."

This is a perfect description of the Buchanan Brigades' forum, which is replete with references to the "Holohoax" and "Holocaustianity." Among the gems featured there are the following:

                                 "Most historians believe it was LOGISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO GAS 6 MILLION JEWS AND REDUCE THEIR BODIES TO ASHES."

                                 "I would like to see some rebuttal from Holocaust believers. Let's see some pictures of those gas chambers or those big cremation ovens. I'll tell you right now - THEY DON'T EXIST. The same blinded people that believe that the Germans intentionally killed Jews - also believe the myth of the Anne Frank Diary."

                                 "As anyone reads the various articles that have been posted here, they will have to realize that there simply were not gas chambers or mass crematoriums at any of the German internment camps."

                                 "Kosher and Halal ritual slaughter, belong in the middle east sands, where both barbaric practices were begun, after an instruction to the Hebrews and Islamics by their god voices, probably the same one. It's a pity they cannot cut each others throats."

                                 "We have known for some time that the Auschwitz myth is of an exclusively Jewish origin."

                                 "The Jewish Race has moved into Christian societies over most of Europe over the last millennium. They tend to eventually irritate their hosts and are then told to leave. Hitler used the hatred of the Jew as a rallying call for his movement. Rightly or wrongly - the Jew was blamed for a lot of the problems that Germany suffered. The Jews were given years of warnings that they were unwelcome in Germany. A lot of Jews fled Germany in the late 1930s. The United States was not very anxious to accept very many. This was when White Christians still had a little control of our Nation."

                                 "Regarding Corrie ten Boom, the heroic Dutch Christian woman who risked her life to help Jews during World War II: "I thought that she was Jewish but . . . I now see that she was simply a Jewish sympathizer, along with the rest of her family. . . . People need to realize that what the Ten Booms did was engage in an illegal activity helping hide people and support the 'resistance movement.' Here in America - a lot of Catholic churches hide and support illegal aliens. They feed and protect these people and then attempt to smuggle them to areas where they can co-mingle and blend in with other Americans. This is also an illegal activity, and the Catholics engaged in doing it need to be prosecuted and imprisoned."

These opinions are not inconsistent with Buchanan's own. In a March 17, 1990, syndicated column, Buchanan wrote that it would have been impossible for Jews to die in the gas chambers of the Treblinka death camp, and referred to a "so-called Holocaust survivor syndrome," which he described as involving "group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics."

Two years ago, Don Imus was unceremoniously dumped by MSNBC after making racially insensitive remarks about the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

Buchanan's sponsorship of a Holocaust denial forum is at least as offensive. Isn't it?

Rosensaft, the son of two survivors of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, is general counsel of the World Jewish Congress and adjunct professor of law at Cornell Law School.

In addition to his holocaust denial, Buchanan avidly disliked President Bush, was against the war in Iraq, and has a decades-long history of blaming Israel for whatever is wrong in the Middle East.

What a natural for MSNBC.


Ken Berwitz

I have subscribed to the New York Times for decades.  And for all that time, I have wondered why - despite occasional lip service to the contrary -  it almost always sides against Israel in any situation. 

Here is the latest example:  This morning's lead editorial.  First I'll put it up, then we can look at it together:

May 12, 2009


An Agenda for Mr. Netanyahu


President Obama has set clear and appropriate priorities ahead of the visit to Washington on May 18 by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Speaking to Jewish-American activists last week, Vice President Joseph Biden conceded, Youre not going to like my saying this, and then he laid out the administrations list.


If there is going to be a serious peace effort with Palestinians, Israel must work toward a two-state solution, Mr. Biden said. It must freeze further settlement construction in the West Bank and dismantle roadblocks between Palestinian cities and towns not needed for security. Israel must also grant Palestinians more responsibility for security to the extent that they combat extremists and dampen incitement against Israel, he added.


This should not come as news to Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Obama and his aides have been telegraphing their intentions for weeks. But the Israeli leaders responses have been unconvincing and insufficient. Growing tensions were obvious when his White House meeting slid later into May after Mr. Obama hosted Arab leaders.


In his video speech to the same activist group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Mr. Netanyahu said he wants peace with the Palestinians. He even committed to negotiations without any delay and without any preconditions. But it rings hollow. He has resisted and his foreign minister and unity government partner, Avigdor Lieberman, has openly derided the two-state solution that is the only sensible basis for a lasting settlement that could anchor a regional peace. On Monday, the 15-member United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a statement endorsing the two-state solution.


Other differences also threaten next weeks meeting. One is the presidents decision to reach out to Iran, which has made Israel uneasy. Mr. Netanyahu perhaps trying to ensure talks with the Palestinians never get anywhere hinted that he might condition peace efforts on Mr. Obamas success in ending Tehrans nuclear program.


Stopping Irans nuclear program is crucial. Mr. Obamas approach a serious diplomatic overture followed by tougher sanctions if talks fail is risky but worth it. Yes, the clock is ticking as Tehrans capability improves. But Mr. Netanyahu should not artificially constrain Mr. Obamas initiative. And Mr. Obama must discourage any move by Mr. Netanyahu to lead Israel, or push the United States, into unnecessary military action.


It cannot be either-or. We have seen how former President George W. Bushs delay in engaging seriously on Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts sabotaged United States interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran by giving Al Qaeda and other extremists a rallying point for anti-Americanism. There are huge obstacles to peacemaking, including the rivalry between the ruling Fatah and militant Hamas Palestinian factions. Fortunately, there is also a new, potentially useful dynamic: Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are as worried about Iran as Israel is. That is a shared concern that should be exploited to bind these old adversaries in common cause to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace and to restrain Iran.


As new leaders of two deeply entwined countries, President Obama and Mr. Netanyahu have an interest in getting their relationship off to a good start. Mr. Netanyahu, a smooth talker, will have to do better than vague promises, however. Just think what might happen if he declared an end to settlement construction and an early return to substantive final status negotiations.


Mr. Obama could then challenge Arab leaders who supported a 2002 peace initiative to respond, perhaps by initiating openly acknowledged diplomatic contacts and trade ties with Israel. Pessimism is the norm in the Middle East, but those kinds of moves could be game-changers.

Ok.  Let's start with the Obama administration's demands (that's right, demands - when you are told you "must" do something it is a demand):

-Work towards a two-state solution.  What the hell does Barack Obama and Joe Biden think Israel has been doing for 40 years?  It isn't Israel that is committed to the vaporizing of Gaza and Judea/Samaria (the west bank), it is Palestinian Arabs committed to vaporizing Israel.  And for 40 years it has been Palestinian Arabs, not Jews, turning down every peace offer and every solution put in front of them.

I see a demand that Israel try to get this done.  But I don't see any concomitant demand that Palestinian Arabs make any particular effort or offer anything tangible toward a two-state solution -- even though they are the ones who have rejected every form of it all these years.  Why is there no "demand" of Palestinian Arabs?  You tell me.

Here is what President Bush had to say about Palestinian Arabs' side of the bargain, on June 24, 2002:

"Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing, terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure."

Would that have been so hard for the Times to incorporate into its "demands"?

-Israel must freeze settlement construction in the West Bank?  Why?  Why is this land not available to Jews?  Is this the sovereign land of some country whose laws Israel is breaching?  No it is not:  this is NON-SOVEREIGN LAND.  And the reason it is non-sovereign is because Palestinian Arabs have refused all offers of statehood on it. Unless and until there is an agreement on borders, the west bank is not "Palestinian territory", it is just land.  And Israeli Jews have as much of a right to build on it as Palestinian Arabs do. 

If Palestinian Arabs wanted control of the west bank, they should have settled this at some point in the last 40 years by accepting one or another of the numerous offers they were made.   Then they would have a stated and they could demand that there be no Jews within it -- i.e. they could make the rules and declare the west bank Jew-free, just like the nazis tried to do (and largely succeeded) in Europe.  Evidently, they would have the New York Times' full support in this endeavor;

-My favorite is that Israel should cede more "authority" to Palestinian Arabs to the extent that they "combat extremists and dampen incitement against Israel". 

What world is this administration living in?  Certainly not the real world.  When do Palestinian Arabs ever attempt to dampen incitement against Israel?  When they execute anyone who sells land to a Jew?  When their textbooks show Israel as "Palestine", and do not acknowledge that any part of the country even exists?  When they teach their children that Jews are the spawn of pigs and monkeys, and they are glorified if they become shahid (martyrs) and die killing Jews? 

Ironically, I have to say I am against Palestinian Arabs combating extremists.  That is because, when given the chance to vote, Palestinian Arabs elected members of the terrorist group hamas to majority status.  Since the mainstream voted in favor of a group committed to obliterating Israel and tossing out or killing the Jews there, preferably killing them, the people who want peaceful coexistence are the "extremists".  And I am rooting for them.  Avidly.

Given that this editorial is a veritable gold mine of head-up-your-ass fantasy, there is a lot left for us to talk about.  But, in the interest of not making this post ridiculously long, I'll do just one more: 

Stopping Irans nuclear program is crucial. Mr. Obamas approach a serious diplomatic overture followed by tougher sanctions if talks fail is risky but worth it. Yes, the clock is ticking as Tehrans capability improves. But Mr. Netanyahu should not artificially constrain Mr. Obamas initiative. And Mr. Obama must discourage any move by Mr. Netanyahu to lead Israel, or push the United States, into unnecessary military action.


It cannot be either-or. We have seen how former President George W. Bushs delay in engaging seriously on Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts sabotaged United States interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran by giving Al Qaeda and other extremists a rallying point for anti-Americanism.

Risky but worth it?  To WHO?  If the the "risk" doesn't pan out, it isn't the USA that is vaporized, it's the people of Israel.  Then what will Barack Obama and Joe Biden do?  Blame it on Bush - like they blame every other misstep they make?  Do you doubt for a second that, if they did, the Times would back them up on their BS?

The proof?  This editorial, while not finding any fault with Saint Barack and Acolyte Joe, does manage to blame President Bush's insistence that Palestinian Arabs actually have to bring something to the table besides an open hand, for sabotaging US interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran.

How did President Bush's position, that both sides have to give and take in a negotiation, result in all this?    Well, the Times tells us, that is it gave "Al Qaeda (they capitalized it, not me) and other extremists (not terrorists, extremists - the same wording they use for political conservatives) a rallying point for anti-Americanism".

In other words,  the Times believes we should toss Israel under the bus to placate the people who want our culture decimated and shari'a law to rule the world.  Otherwise we will be giving them a rallying point for anti-Americanism.

To the editorial staff at the Times:  Since you have told us that President Bush's insistence on something other than capitulation to terrorists is "giving Al Qaeda and extremists a rallying-point for anti-Americanism", can you give us a few instances of when these "people" were ever not rallying for anti-Americanism?  I'll wait.

Why is the New York Times is so anti-Israel, and and so deferential to Palestinian Arabs?  Especially given the ancestry of its ownership?

Well, does the term "self-hating Jew" mean anything to you?

Zeke No No No, Ken ..... It is much clearer if you merely change the names ...... Instead of ISRAEL, think Czechoslovakia ...... instead of Barack Obama, think Neville Chamberlain .... Just another case of "sell a small free nation down the river to appease fascists." (05/12/09)


Ken Berwitz

A quick economic question for the Obama administration:

Now, months after the economic "stimulus package" was passed, the euro is up to $1.36 against the dollar and oil has risen to $59 a barrel.

Is that Bush's fault too?


Ken Berwitz

Would you copulate with this man?

From Agence France-Presse:

Indian dad avoids washing for 35 years: report.

AFP - Tuesday, May 12

NEW DELHI (AFP) - - An Indian man who fathered seven daughters has not washed for 35 years in an apparent attempt to ensure his next child is a boy, newspapers reportedKailash "Kalau" Singh replaces bathing and brushing his teeth with a "fire bath" every evening when he stands on one leg beside a bonfire, smokes marijuana and says prayers to Lord Shiva, according to the Hindustan Times.

"It's just like using water to take a bath," Kalau was reported as saying. "A fire bath helps kill germs and infection in the body."

Kalau, 63, from a village outside the holy city of Varanasi, outraged his family by refusing to take a ritual dip in the river Ganges even after his brother died five years ago.

"I still don't remember how it all began," he said in Saturday's edition of the paper. "I just know it started about 35 years ago."

Kalau's hygiene regime has taken its toll on his professional life.

The grocery store that he used to own closed when customers stopped shopping there due to his "unhealthy personality" and he now tills fields near Varanasi airport.

Kalau, who wears two pullovers all through the Indian summer, said his pledge not to wash was a commitment to the "national interest."

"I'll end this vow only when all problems confronting the nation end," he said.

But his neighbours in the village of Chatav said there was another reason for Kalau's washing boycott.

"A seer once told Kalau that if he does not take a bath, he would be blessed with a male child," a man called Madhusudan told the paper.

Most Indians prefer sons, who are typically regarded as breadwinners, while girls are seen as a burden because of the matrimonial dowry demanded by a groom's family and the fact that their earnings go to their husband's family.

What a great way of trying to have a male child.  Don't bath or brush your teeth for 35 years.  That'll do the trick.  I'm sure he fights the women off with a stick (preferably a deodorant stick);

And what a great concept for running a FOOD STORE. I'll just bet it was a health food store.

And what a loving view of females.  Baby-bearing burdens.

All things considered, I think I'll stay in New Jersey -- where men are men, women are equal, and showers and toothbrushes are used at least occasionally over each 35 year period.


Ken Berwitz

If you at all care about this country, or the incredible, unprecedented, wildly profligate spending of money we don't have that will not stimulate a damn thing, the following article, by Carol D. Leonnig of the Washington Post, will make you sick to your stomach.  And should.  Please pay special attention to the paragraph I've put in bold print, which demonstrates just how completely fraudulent this disgusting, gluttonous use of taxpayer money we do not have really is:

FAA Approves Plan to Give Stimulus Funds to Airport Named After Murtha


By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:58 PM


The Federal Aviation Administration, after reviewing concerns about a project at a regional airport named after Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), has decided to go forward with plans to use $800,000 in stimulus funds to repave the airport's alternate runway.


Late this afternoon, a spokesperson for the Department of Transportation confirmed that the department had completed its review and would be releasing the funds for the Johnstown, Pa., airport project.


DOT spokesperson Jill Zuckman said the review was undertaken after a "senior policy" official at DOT decided he wanted to reconsider the project, but she declined to identify who that was or detail the reason for the reconsideration. She said the runway's concrete hasn't been replaced in many years and is in need of repaving.


"The bottom line is it deserved the money based on the merits," Zuckman said. "It's not an earmark."


The FAA had notified the John P. Murtha-Johnstown airport authority that the project was under review, and authority board members said press reports about other federal funding steered to the quiet regional airport was leading the FAA to reconsider the repaving project.


The Washington Post reported last month on more than $150 million in federal funds that Murtha directed to the airport, which has six arriving and departing flights per day. Among the improvements, Murtha directed the Pentagon to give the airport a new, $8 million, state-of-the-art radar tower that has not been used since it was built in 2004, and $30 million for a new runway and tarmac so the airport could handle large military planes and become an emergency military base in case of crisis.


Other news outlets, including CNN and ABC News, subsequently visited the airport and reported on the sleepy terminal and its gleaming federal buildings paid for by federal taxpayers.


Airport Manager Scott Voelker said he wrote to FAA officials urging the Obama administration to proceed with plans to underwrite the repaving work. The Post had reported that the airport has been losing passengers each year but was among the first four in the country that the FAA announced would receive stimulus funds.


"They say they're dotting their i's and crossing their t's," Voelker said. "But Mr. Murtha had nothing to do with the stimulus money."


Voelker said the runway is "critical" to Johnstown aircraft because the mountaintop airport is battered by strong winds and needs an alternate landing option for crosswinds.

Voelker said aircraft use the second runway for 40 percent of their landings and takeoffs due to the heavy crosswinds.


A total of 6 arriving and departing flights per day.  Roll that around in your mind.

Why does this airport exist at all, other than because of the incredible level of corruption perpetrated by john murtha?  Why does it have an 8 million dollar radar tower - that has never been used in the five years since it was built?

We have a year and a half before we can do anything about this.  Will the voters be hoodwinked into another round of in-your-face corruption like this? 

Scarily enough, it could happen.  And if it does?  Then we deserve the screwing we're getting.  Every bit of it.


Ken Berwitz

Frank Gaffney Jr. has put together a summary of the actions being perpetrated upon us by Janet Napolitano, President Obama's homeland security sock puppet.

They range from just plain stupid to dangerous to what appears to be an intentional effort to make us less safe as a country and give encouragement to the enemies who want to destroy us.

Here is Mr. Gaffney's summary.  See if you agree:

Department of Insecurity

by Frank Gaffney

Monday, May 11, 2009


Give Janet Napolitano her due. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has taken to heart Barack Obamas campaign pledges of change and hope. Unfortunately, the changes she has effected seem generally to be to dismantle sensible Bush-era internal security policies and practices, replacing them with politically correct nostrums and generally inadequate programs.

The cumulative effect of such change can only be to give hope to our terrorist foes. If this keeps up, Ms. Napolitanos post should be renamed the Homeland Insecurity Department. Consider the following illustrative examples:

Secretary Napolitano has been at the cutting edge of the Obama administrations efforts to define away the conflict in which we are engaged. Her most notable contribution has been to replace the term terrorism with man-caused disasters. She claims it reflects her desire to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur. Sadly, such gambits predictably have the effect of further confusing the public about the gravity let alone the source of the dangers that her department was established to counter.

Speaking of dangers, a report recently released by Ms. Napolitanos staff warned of the threat posed by veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and other right-wing extremists. This defamation is all the more egregious for its coming on the heels of a no-less-benighted Bush administration lexicological exercise one that concealed the role of what authoritative Islam calls Shariah in spawning terrorism.

Then, there is the problem posed for homeland security by untold numbers of individuals illegally in the United States. A few months ago, Secretary Napolitano suspended workplace raids aimed at apprehending employees not legally here. Her department then freed and gave work permits to twenty-seven of those previously arrested on her watch. While she authorized resumption of the raids last week, their principal target reportedly will be American employers, rather than the illegals they hire. It is not clear whether the net effect of the Napolitano program will be to discourage or incentivize aliens to try to penetrate our borders.

Heres another straw in that wind: The Obama administration has submitted a budget to Congress that would deny state and local governments currently incarcerating illegal immigrants the federal help they have heretofore received to defray the associated costs. If allowed to stand, the inevitable result would be to release into the general population thousands of possibly dangerous aliens, compounding our homeland insecurity problem.

There is another group of dangerous aliens Mr. Obama seems determined to unleash on the American people: Ms. Napolitanos organization may have to cope in the near future with seventeen Chinese Uigars trained in terrorism in Afghanistan. They have been held in recent years at Guantanamo Bay and reportedly are slated for release in Alexandria, Virginia. In addition, although legislators of both parties are increasingly voicing objections, the Presidents decision to close Gitmo without a plan for its detainees seems likely, all other things being equal, to result in many of them coming to penitentiaries here at who knows what risk to the American people?

If Ms. Napolitano has her way, the Uigars will be able to get Virginia drivers licenses like thirteen of the twenty-one September 11th terrorists as she says she intends to repeal the Real ID Act. That statute, which requires (among other things) that the 50 states meet a high standard for issuing drivers licenses, was belatedly adopted on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. The Commissioners emphasized that fraudulently obtained identity documents are weapons in the hands of our enemies.

The Secretarys helpmate in repealing the Real ID Act is Hawaii Democratic Senator Daniel Akaka. He is expected shortly to introduce a substitute dubbed the Pass ID Act. That title is certainly appropriate insofar as the draft bill would seemingly allow virtually anyone including Gitmo detainees, illegal aliens, employees of international organizations and a class called other non-immigrant aliens who are authorized to remain in the United States for an indefinite period to be eligible for temporary drivers licenses or other IDs.

Outright repeal of the Real ID Act, however, would also eliminate several other provisions of law that closed loopholes exploited in the past by various terrorists like the Blind Sheik, who was responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and by several of the 9/11 attackers. These include important restrictions on who can be granted asylum. Consequently, Congress seems unlikely to go along with a wholesale gutting of the Act.

Still, Secretary Napolitano seems to want political cover for eviscerating the statutes eminently sensible and much-needed requirements with respect to drivers licenses. Even though more than 30 states are moving to satisfy those requirements and even though she has the authority to give the remaining states additional time to do so, the former Governor of Arizona apparently is okay with once again giving terrorists a pass to gain access to our airplanes, government facilities, banks, etc.

Like much of the rest of the Obama administrations agenda with respect to our security, that related to safeguarding our homeland appears increasingly to be a wrecking operation. Janet Napolitanos Homeland Security Department requires urgent adult supervision. Let us pray that it receives such oversight and course corrections from the Congress notably its rejection of any repeal of the Real ID Act before someone exploits the vulnerabilities she is needlessly recreating.

But not to worry.  If we are attacked again, Mr. Obama, through Ms. Napolitano, can - and will - most assuredly blame it on President Bush. 

Yeah, that's the ticket....


Ken Berwitz

Why do we fight?  Here, from the Associated Press, is a pretty good reason:

89 Afghan girls sick in alleged school poisoning


By AMIR SHAH and HEIDI VOGT 9 hours ago


MUHMUD RAQI, Afghanistan (AP) Officials and doctors say 89 Afghan schoolgirls have been hospitalized in the third case of alleged gas poisoning in eastern Afghanistan in less than three weeks.


Dr. Aziz Agha says scores of students have been admitted with symptoms such as headaches, vomiting and shivering. Afgha is treating the girls in Kapisa province.


Interior Ministry Spokesman Zemeri Bashary says the girls were sent to the hospital after they arrived at school Tuesday to a strange smell in the yard. He says 89 schoolgirls were among the 94 patients. Three teachers and two guards are also sick.


The incident follows two cases of alleged gas poisoning the most recent on Monday at girls' schools in neighboring Parwan province.

What is not mentioned (for reasons known only to the Associated Press) is that the taliban does not believe girls should go to school.  Therefore, they either destroy the schools - sometimes killing the instructor - or they poison the girls who are trying to gain an education.  Some of them don't just get sick, they die.

Take a good look.  Because this is what the shari'a law fanatics want.  This is the way of life in much of Afghanistan, outside the couple of major cities which exist there.  This is the way of life in more and more of Pakistan.  This is the kind of "law" that may be invoked at shari'a courts in London.  That's right, London.  And, if they win, it will be the way YOU live.

 If we fight against radical islam we may win and we may lose.  If we do not fight, we will most assuredly lose because, either way, they will continue fighting. 

And if they win, our culture and our civilization is over, to be replaced by what?  A society in which girls are poisoned, even killed, for the crime of trying to become educated?  

God help the people who want to live this way.  I know I'm not one of them.  Are you?

We play political games with this lunacy at our own peril. 


Ken Berwitz

Is the Obama administration angling to "fix" the next US census, thus stack the deck in favor of Democrats?

Before answering, please read this highly informative and thought-provoking commentary by former congressperson Ernest Istook.  It may change your mind:

Could 2010 Census Include Make-Believe People?

by  Ernest Istook



Left-leaning groups want to include millions of pretend people in the real-life 2010 Census. It almost happened in 2000. This time, they might get their way.

The administration claims it has no plans to use statistical sampling to augment the actual headcount next year by adding millions of fictitious people.

Statistical sampling creates profiles of make-believe people, assigning them an address, a gender, race, age, income, and other characteristics. And it counts them, just as though they were counted by a census worker.

Obamas choice as new Census Director is University of Michigan Professor Robert Groves, who faces a Senate confirmation hearing May 12. Groves is a champion of statistical sampling.

As reported by the Associated Press, When he was the bureau's associate director, Groves recommended that the 1990 census be statistically adjusted to make up for an undercount of roughly 5 million people, many of them minorities in dense urban areas who tend to vote for Democrats.

Conservatives worry that, having learned from the failure of Bill Clintons high-profile push for census sampling, the administration has adopted a stealth approach.

The stakes are huge. Census figures determine each states seats in Congress, the district boundaries for political office, plus how the states divvy up $300 billion in federal aid. Statistical sampling might shift up to 30 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. That shifts votes in the Electoral College, too, affecting presidential outcomes as well.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member of the committee overseeing the Census, called Groves selection "incredibly troubling [because it] contradicts the administration's assurances that the census process would not be used to advance an ulterior political agenda."

Undercounts are hotly political. The Left argues that minorities and illegal immigrants are usually undercounted. They seek statistical adjustments to add made-up people, using assumptions and formulas that can be both factually wrong and politically manipulated. You might not get counted, yet your tax dollars could be spent to count millions of fictitious people.

Is statistical sampling constitutional?

The Supreme Court dodged the question in 1999. Its ruling enabled the then-Republican Congress to block President Bill Clintons sampling plan for the 2000 Census. But the narrow ruling left room for a future Congress and President to change the result.

By 5-4, the Court declared that current statutes do not permit sampling to decide how many seats each state would have in Congress. Left unaddressed were the Census Bureaus ability to adjust numbers that determine seats for legislatures and local governments, the drawing of congressional district boundaries (performed at the state level), and allocation of federal money.

Most importantly, the Court avoided ruling on what Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution requires: "[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

Does the last phrase leave wiggle room for sampling if the law is changed? The justices didnt decide, although Justice Antonin Scalia tried. To give Congress the power . . . to select among various estimation techniques having credible (or even incredible) expert support, is to give the party controlling Congress the power to distort representation in its own favor, he wrote. Only genuine enumeration, according to Scalia, guarantees the minimal possibility of partisan manipulation.

Any future ruling will come from a Supreme Court that includes an Obama appointee -- and starts with built-in agreement from Justices Stevens, Ginsberg and Breyer that sampling is okay.

Regardless of what courts may say, some think the country is safe from sampling because they believe theres not enough time for President Obama and his team to implement it. Is there? Clintons Census Bureau in June 2000 posted plans in the Federal Register claiming that in nine months they could hire sufficient staff and acquire the necessary equipment to complete Census 2000 and produce statistically corrected redistricting numbers by the April 1, 2001, statutory deadline. The Obama team currently has almost 23 months from now to meet the April 1, 2011, deadline.

Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) believes the danger is real. As ranking member on the subcommittee that oversees the Census, McHenry describes a scenario whereby sampling is offered as an emergency remedy for problems after the Census is taken next April.

The Government Accountability Office recently told Congress that problems threaten the accuracy of the Census. Plans to use handheld computers have already been scaled-down, requiring a reversion to pencil and paper.

The Democrats who chair the key House committee and subcommittee -- Reps. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) and William Clay (D-Mo.), say they are deeply concerned that the Census Bureau will not be able to complete its constitutionally mandated responsibility. Their Senate counterpart, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) calls it an impending state of emergency.

Another worrisome sign: In March, the Census Bureau named ACORN, the liberal group accused of registering thousands of non-existent people to vote in 2008, as one of its national partners to help count heads.

With its impact on dozens of Congressional seats, the Electoral College, and the allocation of billions in taxpayer dollars, the possibility of sampling demands attention. The potential for political tampering and manipulation is too huge to ignore, whether those in power have pure intentions or Machiavellian intent.

As Joseph Stalin said, Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. And so could those who count the voters.

Does this worry you?  Are you concerned that the census count is about to be cooked?

I hope so.  I sure am.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, 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!!