Thursday, 28 May 2009


Ken Berwitz

This is precisely why the blogosphere is so important.  Because if this scandal - and it appears to be a major scandal - were left to the tender mercies of mainstream media, you would probably never hear about it.

The scandal is that, having largely taken over Chrysler Corporation, the Obama administration is closing dealerships whose owners have contributed to Republicans or Obama political opponents, while making sure to leave open the dealerships of Obama supporters.

In other words, our tax money is being used to nationalize a business and then turn it into a partisan political arm of the ruling administration.  It is as if Barack Obama took a crash course from hugo chavez.

Here are excerpts from a web site - - which shows how it is being done. 

It is way too long to post here, but the part I'm showing you should pretty clearly demonstrate what is going on.  I urge you to read the entire web site in order to see, first-hand, how our country is being taken over:

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Dealergate: Stats demonstrate that Chrysler Dealers likely shuttered on a partisan basis

This work builds upon the research done by numerous parties, most notably Joey Smith. It is a follow-up to my original post, entitled "Did anti-Obama campaign contributions dictate which Chrysler dealers were shuttered?" The odds that these closings occurred without partisan bias are roughly equivalent to the odds that Jean Claude Van-Damme will grab a Best Supporting Actor Oscar next year for a remake of Terms of Endearment.

How did the U.S. government's "car czar" decide which Chrysler dealers to close and which would remain open? No one appears to know, not even the President of Chrysler:

...Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the impression that Press did not support the plan...

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers," Bellavia said. "It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."

Follow the evidence trail, below, and judge for yourself.

Dealers on the closing list donated millions to Republicans, $200 for Obama

The initial pass at the list of shuttered dealers showed they had donated, in the aggregate, millions to Republican candidates and PACs and a total of $200 to Barack Obama.

In fact, I have thus far found only a single Obama donor ($200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

Another review of all 789 closing dealerships, by WND, found $450,000 donated to GOP presidential candidates; $7,970 to Sen. Hillary Clinton; $2,200 to John Edwards and $450 to Barack Obama.

Now, and this is important, Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included "sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area."

Dealer Jim Anderer told Fox News' Neil Cavuto he can't comprehend how his dealership can be among those killed: he stated that his sales volume ranking is in the top 2 percent of all dealers.

Furthermore, Anderer says explanations aren't forthcoming. "They won't tell us. They seem to be running for cover right now because they won't give us a solid explanation. They come up with all these reasons, but none of them seem to make sense... This is insanity. The government is stealing my business. And they're telling me there's nothing I can do about it... There was no process that you could put your finger on and say, 'Hey, we cut 25 percent of the lowest performing dealers.' They didn't do that. Nobody will give us a real clear explanation of the formula that they came up with."

The odds of a non-partisan process being employed can best be illustrated by RLJ.

The Mysterious Case of RLJ

In Smith's research, one company kept popping up on the list of dealerships remaining open. The company is RLJ-McLarty-Landers, which owns six Chrysler dealerships. All six dealerships are on "the safe list."

RLJ's owners "are Steve Landers (long-time car dealer, 4th-generation dealer), Thomas "Mack" McLarty (former Chief of Staff for President Clinton), and Robert Johnson (founder of Black Entertainment Television and co-owner of the NBA's Charlotte Bobcats)... McLarty campaigned for Obama in 2008, and Johnson has given countless amounts of money to Democrats over the years."

Please, please do not stop at this excerpt.  I strongly urge you to read the entire site.  See the maps, see the information, see the facts.

Mainstream media appear determined not to show you this reality.  By their silence, they are aiding and abetting the kind of corruption that people go to jail for.  Why?  Because they like the guy perpetrating the corruption

But you have to know, so that you can understand what it being done in your name and with your tax dollars.  .

Wake up.  For god sake, wake up.


Ken Berwitz

Wouldn't it be ironic if, instead of her racist/sexist comments and her membership in La Raza, Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court was derailed because she is too "pro-life"?

Read this from David G. Savage and Peter Nicholas, writing for the Los Angeles Times.  The bold print is mine:

Abortion rights groups concerned about Sotomayor's stance

Obama's Supreme Court nominee has little record on issues related to Roe vs. Wade.

By David G. Savage and Peter Nicholas
May 28, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has provoked concern from abortion rights advocates, who say they have seen no evidence that she supports upholding Roe vs. Wade.

Unlike most finalists for the high court opening, Sotomayor has never ruled on the issue. And in her only abortion-related decision, she did not come down the way activists would have liked.

 In 2002, Sotomayor rejected a challenge to President George W. Bush's so-called Mexico City policy, which required foreign groups receiving U.S. funds to pledge that they would not support or promote abortion.

Sotomayor spoke for a three-judge panel that upheld the policy as constitutional. The government "is free to favor the antiabortion position over the pro-choice position and can do so with public funds," she said.

"I simply don't know Judge Sotomayor's view on Roe vs. Wade. I will be very concerned if the question is not asked and answered during the Senate hearings," Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Wednesday. "So far, no one has been able to give us an assurance of her views."

While that key segment of Obama's constituency was expressing concern, a leading Senate Republican indicated Wednesday that a filibuster against the nominee was unlikely. "I don't sense a filibuster in the works," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told CNN.

Still, GOP staffers were starting to go through hundreds of Sotomayor's decisions, looking for issues that might score political points or even derail her nomination.

Northup said she would be surprised if Obama, who as a candidate spoke in favor of abortion rights, selected a justice who did not feel the same way. "But other presidents have been surprised before," she said, pointing to Justice David H. Souter.

Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace on the court, was nominated in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush. Although Souter had a limited judicial record, Republicans at the time said they were confident that he was a conservative and an opponent of Roe. In 1992, however, Souter upheld a woman's right to abortion in a 5-4 ruling -- an ideological split over the issue that remains on today's court.

The White House added to the concerns of abortion rights advocates, saying that the president did not discuss the issue with Sotomayor before her nomination.

"The president doesn't have a litmus test, and that question was not one that he posed to her," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. Asked whether Obama had not promised to appoint judges who support abortion rights, Gibbs replied: "I'd have to look. I don't remember exactly what he said on that topic."

Last year, Obama's campaign said he would make "preserving a woman's right to choose under Roe vs. Wade a priority as president." This year he has sought to bridge the divide on abortion, saying America should try to find ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage adoptions. At the University of Notre Dame a week and a half ago, Obama called for "fair-minded" debate on abortion and a search for "common ground." To that end, he has formed a task force, with advocates on both sides of the issue.

Sotomayor, who was raised a Catholic in New York, has listed herself as a member of Childbirth Connection, a group that helps young mothers prepare for caring for a baby.

Two years ago -- in a case of concern to women's groups -- she joined an appeals court ruling that upheld a school district's policy requiring teachers to notify a parent if they saw that a girl was pregnant. The court said that the teachers had no legal basis for objecting to the policy.

And since her nomination to the high court Tuesday, several abortion rights advocates have said they remained unsure and uneasy over her views.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said her group would "look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor's views on the right to privacy and the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision as the Senate's hearing process moves forward."

"What we know about her we like, but I don't know the answer on abortion rights," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

For their part, some antiabortion advocates say they are convinced that Sotomayor is an "extreme" supporter of abortion, although several admit they do not have specific evidence of her views.

If Obama was seeking to avoid an abortion battle during the confirmation process, Sotomayor would seem a logical choice because of her lack of record on the issue. Another finalist to replace Souter, Judge Diane P. Wood from Chicago, had a strong public record of supporting abortion rights. Wood dissented a decade ago when the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Wisconsin's and Illinois' bans on what opponents call "partial birth abortion."

Now, however, it is the abortion rights supporters who want Democrats to raise the issue during the confirmation process.

"Ironically, both sides in the abortion debate can agree on this," Northup said. "All Americans deserve to know where the next Supreme Court justice stands on Roe vs. Wade."

That last sentence I bold-printed is particularly interesting.  How do you avoid a battle on one of the most polarizing issues of the day by nominating someone who does not have a clearly defined position on it?  That means instead of one side being leery and on the offensive, both sides are.

I watched The Today Show this morning, to catch their daily love letter to Sotomayor.  The most interesting, and telling part of it was White House correspondent, Chuck Todd's comment that  "abortion rights" groups may be expressing concern over Sotomayor's abortion stance because they need the controversy to boom up donations during the nomination process.  His exact words:

"It looks like this could be potentially just a straw man by abortion rights groups who are concerned that they're not going to be able to have a Supreme Court nomination to raise money on"

(Todd then went on to recite Today's generic mantra that the bad guys - i.e. the ones who are against their beloved Sonia Sotomayor -  are Republicans and conservatives.  Yawn.)

I will be more than a little interested to hear the responses of "pro-choice" groups who Todd has so directly impugned.  It wouldn't surprise me if one or more such groups have reacted already.

What does this all mean to Ms. Sotomayor's prospects for becoming a Supreme Court justice?  Well, I blogged two days ago that I did not expect Republicans to have the guts and principle to stand against Ms. Sotomayor.  But if groups like NARAL, NOW, etc demand to know her position on abortion, this nomination could get real dicey real soon.

NARAL, NOW and Rush Limbaugh all on the same side on a Supreme Court nomination?  Politics really does make strange bedfellows, doesn't it?


Ken Berwitz

Judge Sonia Sotomayor belongs to La Raza.

Last year Michelle Malkin put together this compendium of facts about La Raza

Read them and tell me if Ms. Sotomayor should be made a Supreme Court justice (or be on any judicial bench at all):

Here are 15 things you should know about The Race:

15. The Race supports drivers licenses for illegal aliens.

14.The Race demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.

13. The Race vehemently opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state, and federal authorities.

12. The Race opposes a secure fence on the southern border.

11. The Race joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent the feds from entering immigration information into a key national crime database and to prevent local police officers from accessing the data.

10. The Race opposed the state of Oklahomas tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions, and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.

9. The Race joined other open-borders, anti-assimilationists and sued to prevent Proposition 227, Californias bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.

8. The Race bitterly protested common-sense voter ID provisions as an absolute disgrace.

7. The Race has consistently opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.

6. Former Race president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clintons Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks. He was referring to U.S. English, the nations oldest, largest citizens action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States. The Race also pioneered Orwellian open-borders Newspeak and advised the Mexican government on how to lobby for illegal alien amnesty while avoiding the terms illegal and amnesty.

5. The Race gives mainstream cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized the organization as a radical racist group . . . one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.

4. The Race is currently leading a smear campaign against staunch immigration-enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves in addition to pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes. The New York Times reported that current Race president Janet Murguia believes hate speech should not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights.

3. The Race sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: We dont want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We dont need a White water fountain . . . ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.

2. The Race has perfected the art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home-loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal mortgage counseling grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks, and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.

1. The Race thrives on ethnic supremacy and the elite sheeples unwillingness to call it what it is. As historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: [The] organizations very nomenclature The National Council of La Raza is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of race in Spanish, not the people and thats precisely why we dont hear of something like The National Council of the People, which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism.

I don't give a damn what Sonia Sotomayor's race, ancestry or gender is.  Someone who belongs to this group has NO BUSINESS ON THE SUPREME COURT.   La Raza is racist, advocates anarchy and advocates racial supremacy.  It is the equivalent of a White nominee belonging to the KKK.

It is a tragedy of the first order that she is not only being considered, but will probably sail through the confirmation process.

If Democrats vote to seat this racist they are a disgrace.

If Republicans vote to seat this racist they are a double disgrace, because in addition to the fact that she is a racist, she is also a nominee of the opposition party.  If they can't oppose her on moral or political grounds, they are useless.

If ever there was a time for decent people in either party to stand for something, this is it.  Will they?


Ken Berwitz

From the New York Times:

On Sept. 30, the day of her confirmation hearing, Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host, warned the Senate that Judge Sotomayor was an ultraliberal who was on a ''rocket ship'' to the Supreme Court. That day, Judge Sotomayor was questioned closely by Republicans.

Interesting passage.  It puts Limbaugh on record as predicting Sonia Sotomayor would be nominated for the Supreme Court.  And by citing the fact that Republicans questioned her closely on the same day as Limbaugh's prediction, it also makes the case that Rush Limbaugh is somehow in charge of the Republican Party.

Hmmmmm.  Since the mantra that Limbaugh runs the Republican party has been used big-time for the past few months, that reference to September 30 must have been just last year, right?

Uh, no.

The New York Times article with Limbaugh's prediction was published June 14, 1998.  And the September 30 reference was 1997  -- almost 12 years ago.  When most people had never heard of Sonia Sotomayor.

Y'know, Rush Limbaugh just might have something on the ball. 


Ken Berwitz

The scoop on Susan Boyle, the Scottish homebody who became an overnight sensation on "Britain's Got Talent", was that at 47 years of age she had never had been kissed.

Maybe that was because of what comes out of those lips.

From The Sun of London:

SuBo goes loco

RANTING Susan Boyle completely lost her cool with TWO four-letter outbursts in a day, The Sun can reveal.


She stunned Britain's Got Talent fans, contestants and their families before going into meltdown later in front of hundreds of hotel guests.

There were fears last night that the pressure was getting to the show favourite.

Cops intervened at 5pm yesterday after Susan, 48, went berserk in the lobby of the Wembley Plaza Hotel in North London when two strangers set out to "wind her up".

The Scottish singer was heard to roar: "How f***ing dare you! You can't f***ing talk to me like that."

One of two cops stationed at the hotel went up and asked: "Is there a problem?"

Susan, dubbed SuBo, roared: "Of course there's a f***ing problem."

Tears flowing, she turned on her heel and marched out the exit followed by her family, production staff and the cops.

Hotel guests legged it to the windows to get a better view of the rumpus. Police spoke to Susan and her family for several minutes in the car park.

One officer told her: "You are in the public eye, you must learn to expect this sort of thing."

A pal of Susan's told the star: "You can't act like this."

TV producers ushered her back upstairs after police finished speaking to her.


One onlooker added: "It took her a long time to calm down from whatever upset her. She was breathing heavily and in a terrible rage.

"The pressure is obviously getting to Susan. Perhaps all the fame is too much for her."

A BGT spokesman said the strangers had been "trying to wind her up". He added: "The police were not called. They were already present."

The entire episode lasted 15 minutes.

Incredibly, Susan flew into another rage on Tuesday night after judge Piers Morgan lavished praise on rival singer Shaheen Jafargholi.

Shaheen, 12, wowed the judges with And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going from the musical Dreamgirls.

Piers, who gave spinster Susan her first kiss, said: "I think that, pound for pound, that was the best singing performance we've seen so far."

Smiling Simon Cowell added: "You are a real contender in the competition."

Hairy Angel Susan - watching on the hotel bar's TV with Shaheen's pals, family and show fans - stood and screamed "f*** off" before flicking a "V" at the screen and storming out.

More than 100 people saw her tantrum.

One onlooker said: "Susan was sitting there quite happily with her drink at first.

"She got a bit annoyed when a busload of tourists asked for autographs and told them to wait until Shaheen had finished. She was smiling as Shaheen sang but afterwards, when Piers started praising him, Susan went nuts.

"She got up, did one of those strange wiggling dances that she does, and then stuck two fingers up at the TV. Then she marched off. We didn't see her again.

"Everyone staying at the hotel gets on really well - it's like one big happy BGT family - so everyone was shocked by her outburst."

Shaheen was voted into the final by Piers, 44, and Amanda Holden. She's admitted to fancying "baby-faced" Piers.

The onlooker added: "She was clearly upset that her favourite judge had sided with one of her main rivals.

"It's beginning to look like its all getting a bit much for her."

Locals in Susan's hometown of Blackburn, West Lothian, claim Susan has frequent angry outbursts.

They've called her Rambo after the troubled fictional film hardcase "for years".

A neighbour told The Sun: "The reason is because if Susan doesn't get what she wants, she goes wild."

Another added: "It's not unusual to see her freak out over the smallest thing.

I guess we're lucky she didn't change the lyrics of that song to "I dreamed a f***ing dream".


Ken Berwitz

I pulled this from  It starts by showing a series of photographs depicting Sonia Sotomayo's growing-up years.  Then it shows the Wikipedia entries for Ms. Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas. 

Its simple question at the bottom of the blog speaks volumes:

From the entry for Sonia Sotomayor in Wikipedia:

Early life and education

Sotomayor was born in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. Her father, Juan Sotomayor, a tool-and-die worker with a third-grade education who did not speak English, was from the Santurce area of San Juan. Her mother, Celina Sotomayor, a nurse, was from the neighborhood of Santa Rosa in Lajas, a still mostly rural area on Puerto Ricos southwest coast. They left Puerto Rico, met, and married during World War II after Celina served in the Womens Army Corps. Sonias younger brother is Juan Sotomayor, who is now a doctor in Syracuse, New York.

Sonia was raised a Catholic and grew up among other Puerto Ricans who settled in the East Bronx. During the 1960s the family moved to the Bronxdale Houses housing project in Soundview, which has at times been considered part of both the East Bronx and South Bronx. At the end of the decade, they moved to Co-op City in the Northeast Bronx. Sonia was diagnosed with Type I diabetes at age eight. Sonias father died at age 42, in part from heart complications, when she was nine years old. After this was when Sonia first became fluent in English. She was inspired to go into a legal career and become a judge by watching the Perry Mason television series.

Sotomayors mother put great stress on the value of education, and bought the Encyclopdia Britannica for her children, an unusual sight in the housing projects. Sotomayor has credited her mother as being her "life inspiration". Sotomayor commuted to the parochial Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx, where she was on the forensics team and was elected to the student government. She graduated as valedictorian in 1972.

When she entered Princeton University, there were few women students and fewer Latinos. She later described the experience as like a visitor landing in an alien country. She was too intimidated to ask questions for her first year there, but put in long hours in the library and gained skill and confidence. She became a non-radical student activist, being co-chair of the Accin Puertorriquea organization, which looked for more opportunities for Puerto Rican students. The organization filed a formal letter of complaint with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, saying the school discriminated in its hiring and admission practices, and she wrote opinion pieces for The Daily Princetonian along the same theme. She also volunteered with Latino patients in a Trenton psychiatric hospital. A history major, she wrote her senior thesis on Luis Muoz Marn, the first democratically elected Governor of Puerto Rico, and the islands struggles for economic and political self-determination. She won the Pyne Prize, the top award for undergraduates, which reflected both strong grades and extracurricular activities. She was also elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She earned her A.B. from Princeton, graduating summa cum laude in 1976

From the Clarence Thomas entry at Wikipedia:

Early life and education

Clarence Thomas was born in Pin Point, Georgia, a small, impoverished African American community. His family are descendents of American Slaves in the American South. His father left his family when he was two years old. After a house fire left them homeless, Thomas and his younger brother Myers were taken to Savannah, Georgia, where their mother worked as a domestic employee. Thomas sister Emma stayed behind with relatives in Pin Point.

When Thomas was 7, the family moved in with his maternal grandfather, Myers Anderson, and Andersons wife, Christine, in Savannah. Anderson had little formal education, but had built a fuel oil business that also sold ice. Thomas calls his grandfather "the greatest man I have ever known." When Thomas was 10, Anderson started taking the family to help at a farm every day from sunrise to sunset. His grandfather believed in hard work and self-reliance; he would counsel Thomas to "never let the sun catch you in bed."

Thomas was the only black person at his high school in Savannah, where he was an honors student. Raised Roman Catholic (he later attended an Episcopal church with his wife, but returned to the Catholic Church in the late 1990s), Thomas considered entering the priesthood at the age of 16, becoming the first black student to attend St. John Vianneys Minor Seminary (Savannah) on the Isle of Hope. He also attended Conception Seminary College, a Roman Catholic seminary in Missouri, briefly. No one in Thomass family had attended college, and Thomas has said that during his first year in seminary he was one of only "three or four" blacks attending the school. Thomas told interviewers that he left the seminary after overhearing a student say, in response to the shooting of Martin Luther King, Jr., "Good, I hope the son of a bitch died." He did not think the church did enough to combat racism.

At a nuns suggestion, Thomas attended the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, where as a sophomore transfer student he had to adjust to a New England atmosphere very different from what he was used to in Savannah. At Holy Cross, Thomas helped found the Black Student Union and once walked out after an incident in which black students were punished while white students were not for committing the same violation. Some of the priests negotiated with the protesting black students to return to school, and Thomas graduated in 1971 with an A.B. cum laude in English literature

Did Mr. Thomas have his life story recounted by a fawning media?

Were pictures of his early life passed out by the White House and reprinted in numerous news publications by a sycophantic media?

Somehow we dont remember it that way.





Ken Berwitz

Over a week ago, it was reported that 76 US senators and 195 house members signed a letter to President Obama strongly urging him to recognize the level of risk Israel is under as he formulates his policy on Iran.

The senate sponsors of this letter were Chris Dodd, Arlen Spector, Johnny Isakson and John Thune.  That's four

Why, after all this time, have no media outlets I can find reported who the other 72 senators are - and, more to the point, which 24 senators would not sign that letter?  Why have no media outlets reported who the majority of house members not signing this letter are?

Why is this information being withheld?  Is it because the non-signers are disproportionately Democratic and media, as an entity, don't want us to know because it could affect some people's view of the party?  Is it some other reason?  What reason?

When does this stop being a secret?


Ken Berwitz

Things are too heavy today.  We need a joke.  I saw this one (in somewhat different form) in the June issue of Esquire - a magazine I didn't know was still being published until I happened to see a copy yesterday.

Ok, here it is.

Two guys are fishing in the woods and suddenly they see a bear charging at them.

As they start running, one guy says to the other "Boy am I lucky I have my running shoes on". 

The other guy says "do you really think we can outrun the bear?"

The first guy says "I don't have to outrun the bear.  I have to outrun you".


Ken Berwitz

Politicians lie.  Media sometimes do and sometimes do not nail them for it.

Right wing politicians lie and are invariably nailed.  Left wing politicians lie and more often than not get away with it.  There's your difference.

Bruce Walker of has written a terrific little piece - with one major flaw - about the left wing liars who more often than not get away with it.  See for yourself:

May 28, 2009

The Liars Club

By Bruce WalkerThe unfolding spectacle of Speaker Pelosi attending a briefing, in which the CIA of informed her of enhanced interrogation techniques, and then lying about it, is part of the grave danger to our democracy.  The Left is shrinking honesty into an empty, ignored, and mocked virtue.  Pelosi is not just lying about being at a vital briefing; she has decided that the best defense is a good offense:  accuse the CIA of misleading Congress and, particularly, her.  This is much worse than simply holding the wrong policy on issues. 

Mike Mansfield often held very wrong positions on issues, but he never lied to America or to his colleagues.  The Left, when it had men like Mike Mansfield, Eugene McCarthy, and Hubert Humphrey valued honesty.   When the Left stood for something more important that the personal gain of power, wealth, or fame, Leftists were willing to tell the truth even when it hurt them politically.


Freedom of speech has is most important when the speech is unwelcome.   People require no legal protection for saying what is popular. They require protection for saying what angers people.  But the Left cares nothing at all about freedom and it cares even less about truth.


Nancy Pelosi is lying and she is compounding that offense by lying about lying.  The man who might have led the Democrats, "Pretty Boy" John Edwards looked at reporters and the American people and flatly, boldly lied to us. Bill Clinton did almost exactly the same thing when he flatly and indignantly denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky.  The affair itself was sordid, childish, selfish, and sleazy, but the affair was a peccadillo.  The grand crime was lying. 

Recall what the Left said about his lying then?  Stuff like this:  "Lying is sometimes good," "It is healthy to lie," and "Well, virtually all of us lie."  John Edwards was the Vice Presidential Nominee for the Democrats in 2004 and one of the leading contenders for the nomination in 2008.  Bill Clinton was elected president twice.  Honored members of the Liars Club.


Does anyone believe that Barack Obama's Chief of Staff knew nothing about Blago's auctioning the Illinois Senate seat?  Emmanuel and Obama initially said that neither had any conservations with the ex-Governor about who support fill Obama's seat.  Did that make any sense?  Why would he have not talked with Blago? But as soon as the seat-selling scandal broke, Obama and his top aide denied any contact.  Then, it transpired, that Emmanuel did, indeed, visit with Blago.  Later it turns out that Emmanuel had multiple" conservatives with Blago.  The president and his Chief of Staff, before even taking office, were lying.


The moral disease seems rampant in the Left.  Joe Biden, repeatedly, has said that a drunk driver killed his wife and child.  There was virtually no evidence of alcohol by the other driver in the crash and, in fact, there was evidence that the crash was caused by he wife, not the poor wretch condemned to be the straw man for one of Biden's favorite lies.


John Kerry claims to recall spending Christmas on a gunboat in Cambodia in 1968 under President Nixon:  perhaps in an alternative, Bizarro universe; even those men who served with Kerry on swift boats and who supported him said, well, no, we were never in Cambodia, and Richard Nixon, of course, was not president in December 1968.


Al Gore, well, where to begin?  He began to confront the tobacco companies forcefully after his sister died from lung cancer. (That same month, he got a $1,000 speaking fee from U.S. Tobacco; he voted against raising taxes on tobacco three times after that and even supported discounted tobacco; he campaigned in 1988, four years after his sister's death, bragging about his work in planting and cultivating tobacco.)  He authored the Earned Income Credit (although the bill became law in 1975, two years before he was entered Congress.)


This list goes on and it is depressingly familiar.  Leftist Democrats simply lie about everything that they think will help them politically and that they think they can get away with.  The Liars Party (also, to an amazing degree, the Lawyers Party) does not care about any of the policies which it professes to advocate (Why, for example, would Gore be deeply involved in the tobacco industry if he thought it was bad?  Why would Edwards have a profoundly hurtful affair behind the back of his dying wife unless all his blathering about the rights of women was just vote-getting flattery?  Or why would Clinton and his wife defend him from all the women who accused him of acting like precisely the sort of most who they argue the federal government should do more about?  If Pelosi cared about water boarding as "torture," then she should have sought all she could and done all she could in 2002 -- even she acknowledges she was either truly ignorant or too profoundly indifferent to research or to act.)


Members of the Liars Club do not even merit the dubious honor of being called Leftist ideologues.  They are simply utterly selfish and profoundly amoral liars who view the moral conscience and fidelity to truth of conservatives as more dangerous to them as any notions of market theory, natural rights, or rule of law. 

The rhetoric of the Liars Club means nothing -- nothing at all.  Barney Frank, when he lied about the Republicans passing a bill to reform the banking industry before Frank became a committee chair in 2007 -- which Barney Frank voted against! -- did not care about the truth.  He cares about power.  In a democracy in which the mainstream media actively conceals the lies of the Left, then the Liars Club are vindicated:  dishonesty is the best policy.

The one major problem I have with Walker's commentary is his belief that conservatives, as a group, show "moral conscience and fidelity to the truth".  That is ludicrous.  Conservatives lie too.

But, as noted above, there is a difference.  It is media.  Mainstream media are quick to provide cover for lying on the left and rarely ever do the same for the right.

Case in point:  How fast did Nancy Pelosi's lies disappear from the news?  Two, maybe three days and out. 

This is the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE and, after changing her story several times, finally settled on the claim that she didn't lie about the CIA briefing, the CIA is lying instead.  None of the other dozens of congresspeople who attended those briefings are making this claim.  Just Nancy Pelosi.  

The only way Pelosi can possibly get away with this is media complicity.  And, as per usual, they are dutifully complying.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!