Tuesday, 02 June 2009


Ken Berwitz

What do you call it when a "man" converts to Islam and then attacks and kills for religious and political reasons?

Well, if you're the Today show you sure as hell don't mention that he's a Muslim convert or anything about those political and religious reasons.  I know this because I watched the Today show's coverage of this attack and it mentioned neither.

Here is some information on the "man" Today declined to report honestly about.  It comes to us from CNN (which did report this accurately).  The bold print is mine:

Suspect arrested in Arkansas recruiting center shooting

 (CNN) -- An Arkansas man was arrested Monday in connection with a shooting at a Little Rock military recruiting center that killed one soldier and wounded another, authorities said.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad -- a 24-year-old Little Rock resident formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe -- faces a first-degree murder charge and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act, Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said. The terrorist counts stem from the shots fired at an occupied building.

While authorities continued to investigate a motive, Thomas said Muhammad is a Muslim convert and, based on preliminary interviews with him, investigators believe there were "political and religious motives" in the shooting.

Military officials initially believed the shooting was a random act, but Thomas said police believe the shooter acted alone "with the specific purpose of targeting military personnel."

The soldier who was killed was identified as Pvt. William Long, 24, of Conway, and the wounded soldier is Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, of Jacksonville, Thomas said.

Ezeagwula is in stable condition and expected to recover, the police chief said.

"I'm relieved there's a suspect in custody," said Capt. Matthew Feehan, commander of the center.

Feehan said seven other recruiters were in the building, but nobody else was injured.

Thomas said police recovered three guns from Muhammad's black Ford SUV: an SKS semi-automatic rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a pistol.

The victims were just out of basic training and had not been deployed, said Lt. Col. Thomas F. Artis, commander of the Oklahoma recruiting battalion that oversees the Little Rock recruiting center.

Melvin Bledsoe of Memphis, Tennesee , who was listed on the police report as Muhammad's father, declined to comment, referring questions to Little Rock Police.

The soldiers were part of a recruiting program called "hometown recruiting assistance," Artis said. Under the program, recruiters have the soldiers tell their stories to potential recruits. It's a volunteer position taken while soldiers are visiting or based back in their home region, Artis said.

The FBI has opened an investigation into the incident, said Steven Frazier, spokesman for the agency's Little Rock office. "Based on what we find, we will determine whether there is any federal jurisdiction to prosecute," he said.


For the past week, every time Today has reported on the controversy surrounding Sonia Sotomayor's nomination for the United States Supreme Court, it unfailingly has claimed that criticism comes from "Republicans" and/or "conservatives" and/or "Rush Limbaugh".  If you didn't know better (and anyone who relies on Today for news probably doesn't), you would swear that the only people against Ms. Sotomayor's nomination are right wingers - whom Today has a years-long investment in demonizing, let's remember.  The bias could not be more blatant.

But when a "man" converts to Islam and then conducts what apparently is a terrorist attack which may well be "for political and religious motives"?  Today will not mention it.  That's not acceptable as news.  Those same people who rely on Today for news have intentionally been kept ignorant about it.

Translation:  Today protects Sonia Sotomayor from serious scrutiny, and also protects someone who may well be a radical Islamic terrorist.

Think about that.


Ken Berwitz

Let's take time out from politics and enjoy this story. 

It won't go down in history.  It has no deep meaning.  But I guarantee that at least two young men will remember it for the rest of their lives:

"We Didn't Know He Was Clarence Thomas"High school students share a plane ride, invite him to graduation


Updated 3:33 PM EDT, Tue, Jun 2, 2009

Justice Thomas -- who otherwise never misses court -- skipped a SCOTUS session to speak at the graduation of his travel companions.

 High school seniors Terrence Stephens and Jason Ankrah, star football players at Quince Orchard High School in Gaithersburg, Md., were sitting on a plane returning from a recruitment session at the University of Nebraska when they struck up a conversation with the man sitting next to them.

Their seat-mate just happened to be a major Cornhuskers fan.

When they started chatting, Stephens and Ankrah didn't have a clue they were holding court with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

"I was amazed this guy knew so much about us as football players and as people," said Stephens. "That was shocking. I felt honored to be known by someone of his caliber. He was just a regular old guy, sitting in coach, which really shocked me."

By the time the plane landed, the students had figured out who Thomas was, and they promptly told their principal they wanted to invite Thomas to give the keynote speech at their high school graduation. Of course, Principal Carole Working didn't exactly think Thomas would take them up on it. But he showed up at the high school on Monday.

"These young men had no idea who I was as I formed my first impression. I was just another stranger to them. They were wonderful ambassadors for your school and for their fellow students," said Thomas at the Quince Orchard graduation ceremony.

When Stephens and Ankrah arrived on-stage to receive their diplomas, they were both embraced by Justice Thomas.

Ankrah will be playing football for Nebraska next year, but Stephens will be attending Stanford. The justice said he doesn't have any hard feelings over that.

We talk about a lot of rough and tumble subjects in here.  So it's nice to be able to post as sweet a story as this one.

Ok, now back to politics..........


Ken Berwitz

keith olbermann is behaving more and more like Rumpelstiltskin. 

Remember the story of Rumpelstiltskin?  The ending is that he becomes so enraged that the queen found out his name that.....

in his anger he plunged his right foot so
deep into the earth that his whole leg went in, and then in
rage he pulled at his left leg so hard with both hands that
he tore himself in two.

See, olbermann's problem is that the man he seems to hate more than any other in the universe is Bill O'Reilly.  And Bill O'Reilly is on at the same time olbermann is.  And Bill O'Reilly consistently generates about three times olbermann's viewership.

This drives olbermann nuts.  And he has become increasingly pathological in his on-air hatred of O'Reilly and Fox News (which massively outperforms MSNBC not just in the O'Reilly/olbermann matchup, but throughout prime time and all day, as seen on the following chart which has the most recently posted data (from Friday):

Total Viewers: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 1188 | CNN: 477 | MSNBC: 352 | HLN: 307

Prime: FNC: 2242 | CNN: 630 | MSNBC: 736 | HLN: 523










































































Since olbermann has called O'Reilly pretty much every name in the book, sneered out pretty much every insult he can think of and is still eating O'Reilly's dust, he had to find a way to go even further.  The latest depth to which olbermann has sunk is to, believe it or not, demand that Fox News....well, I'll let Mark Finkelstein at www.finkelblog.com give you the particulars:

Olbermann Accuses Fox News Of Incitement To Murder, Proposes Quarantine

 If you cant beat em, quarantine em . . .


Unable to compete with Bill OReilly, who consistently thrashes him in the ratings, Keith Olbermann has come up with a better idea:  accuse his nemesis of incitement to murder and propose the quarantine of Fox News.

Olbermann used OReillys comments about George Tiller as his pretext to drive off television the man who drives him insane.


From the opening of this evenings Countdown.


KEITH OLBERMANN: When hate speech turns into murder. When phrases like Dr. Tiller the baby killer become network slogans. When there is a straight line between what was said on that network and what happened in that Kansas church.


Cut to clip of OReilly: in the State of Kansas, there is a doctor, George Tiller, who will execute babies for $5,000.


OLBERMANN: The time has come to quarantine Fox News.


In one of his typically breathless and over-the-top show closers, Olbermann explained what he meant by quarantine.  Olbermann accused Fox News of incitement to murder and terrorism, and proposed an indirect boycot.


OLBERMANN: If there is a solution, it is perhaps an indirect boycott. It is probably your experience, as it has been mine, that stores, restaurants, waiting rooms, often show Fox News on their televisions. Dont write a letter, dont make a threat. Just get up and explain.  If they will not change the channel, leave the place and state calmly why it is you are taking your business elsewhere.


If you know a viewer of that channel, show them this tape, or just the tape of the attacks on Dr. Tiller that set the stage for his assassination. Fox News Channel will never restrain itself from incitement to murder and terrorism, not until its profits start to decline, its growth stops. So not so much a boycott here, a quarantine. Because this has got to stop.


Note: Olbermann accused George Bush of fascism. Would Olbermann have accepted responsibility if some left-wing lunatic had taken his words to heart in the spirit of Nuremberg, which led to the execution of many fascist war criminals?


Note, Part Deux: Olbermann offered to do his part by pledging to retire the name, the photograph and the caricature of OReilly.   Leaving himself wiggle room worthy of PBOs promise to close Guantanamo, Olbermann fudged: the words may still be quoted in the future as developments dictate.

The fact that olbermann is an utter disgrace, a man who acts like (and appears to be encouraged by his network to act like) an unhinged lunatic, is largely unreported by our wonderful "neutral" media.  If you ever see anything about it, you are more than likely to find it covered as a "feud" between the two, rather than olbermann going into a rumpelstiltskinesque apoplexy on virtually every show, while O'Reilly never responds in kind;  never even mentions olbermann's name.

That speaks pretty clearly to what olbermann is.  And just as clearly to what our media are.  Wouldn't you say?

olberstiltskin.  That says it all.


Ken Berwitz

Thank you Lawrence Kudlow for stating the plain, obvious truth that most of our wonderful "neutral" media, still in the thrall of Obamesmerization, will not mention.  Please pay special attention to the segment I have put in bold print:

KUDLOW: 'Green' cars will go flat

Consumers won't drive 'Government Motors'


Get ready, folks. America has bought a car company. As of Monday, we, the taxpayers, own a majority stake in General Motors Corp. Whether the company will be formally renamed Government Motors remains to be seen. But that's what it will be.

GM filed for bankruptcy Monday. Instead of putting the failed car enterprise into bankruptcy six months ago - where Carl Icahn or Wilbur Ross could have bought it - the Bush administration chose Bailout Nation. Under Team Obama, that bailout has morphed into full-scale government ownership. Twenty billion dollars of Troubled Asset Relief Program money is already invested in GM, with another $50 billion on the way. And that number could easily double unless GM car sales miraculously climb back to 14 million this year. That's highly unlikely, with sales presently hovering around 9 million a year.

In other words, taxpayers won't get their money back. Yes, we the people will be left holding the bag for the mistakes of GM's management and labor leaders over the past four decades.

And with CAFE mileage standards ratcheting up - all while GM is going down - Team Obama's green vision for the economy will soon be crystal clear. With President Obama in the driver's seat, we will get little green two-door cars that most folks won't want to buy.

Even worse, United Auto Workers chief Ron Gettelfinger has made it plain that his powerful union won't let these cars be manufactured in low-cost nonunion plants overseas. The result? Mr. Obama's little green cars will be unprofitable, as well.

It's the bigger picture that has me most concerned. What does Government Motors say about the direction of the United States? Historically, we don't own car companies - or banks or insurance firms. But we do now. Tick them off on your fingers: GM, Citi, American International Group Inc. Oh, and let's not forget Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those big, quasi-government taxpayer-owned housing agencies. California is broke and likely headed to bankruptcy. Will we the taxpayers own that, too?

Altogether, we're talking about hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid. This is the stuff the Italians used to do, and the British before Margaret Thatcher, and the Soviets a long time ago. But it's very new and different for America.

Is this onslaught of government ownership an attack on free-market capitalism? Yes, it is. Call it Bailout Nation or Ownership Nation, it's an unprecedented degree of government command, control and planning, all in the name of a tough economic downturn.

I don't pretend to know all the answers to GM's problems. Neither do I know all the miscues of the banks and insurance companies. But I do know this: The present level of government control over the economy does not bode well for this great country.

When I sat down with former Vice President Dick Cheney for a CNBC interview this week, I asked him about all this. He wasn't happy. Of course, many of these policies began during the Bush-Cheney administration, and Mr. Cheney didn't deny it. But when I asked whether he had anticipated the current degree of government control, he gave me another honest answer, as is his custom: No.

Regarding the banks, Mr. Cheney said the bailout work was done at the Treasury Department (under Henry M. Paulson Jr.) and that no critical studies were performed by the White House. Mr. Cheney himself opposed the GM bailout, preferring Chapter 11 bankruptcy. He did sign on to the TARP bailout of banks as a stopgap, but he didn't anticipate its eventual size, scope and sweep. Then, squarely acknowledging the mistake, he compared Bailout Nation to Richard Nixon's wage-and-price-control program, which touched every enterprise in America. He called it "a terrible mistake; a huge mistake." By implication, Mr. Cheney suggested that the original Bush bailout program was itself a big mistake.

As for President Nixon's wage-and-price-control policy, the former vice president reminded me, "We finally got out of it, but it took a long time to do it, and it [did] a lot of damage."

Mr. Cheney was very critical of Mr. Obama's big-government spending and borrowing policies, too, telling me there are just two ways out: inflating the money supply or imposing big tax increases. He doesn't like either. Yes, Mr. Cheney thinks Mr. Obama has taken Bailout Nation and government stimulus way beyond anything the Bushies ever contemplated. Nevertheless, the damage is done.

Mr. Cheney recalled Mr. Bush saying, "We have to suspend free-market capitalism in order to save free-market capitalism." So the big question is: How long before we resurrect free-market capitalism, and how much damage will current policies do in the meantime?

I won't lose my faith in this country's long-term future. But the issue of how much damage we sustain before returning to the policies of free-market economic growth is very much on my mind.

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC's "Kudlow & Company" and is a nationally syndicated columnist.

This is being done by Barack Obama and his lopsided Democratic majority in congress.  Not George Bush or Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or "Republicans" or "Conservatives".  Barack Obama and the Democratic congress.

Why is it so hard for our media to break free of its Obamesmerization? 

Part of the reason is bias.  For decades mainstream media have been far to the left of the country as a whole.  But there is more.

Another reason - and, arguably, the most powerful of them all - is that media now have a personal stake in supporting Obama.  Why?  Because after fawning and drooling and unconditionally loving him through his election campaign and the four-plus months of his administration, to now criticize and second guess him is to criticize and second-guess themselves as well. 

Simply put, if media report that he is effing up the country, it inherently is also reporting that they were wrong about him.  If he looks bad they look bad.  That's personal.

So most media (not all, as indicated by Robert J. Samuelson's analysis in Newsweek, which I blogged about yesterday), will continue to go along with this disastrous leftward lurch. 

But not to worry.  When the chickens come home to roost, as they will very soon (Dick Morris gives it until September or October), they have their fallback position:  It's George Bush's fault, not Saint Barack's.


Ken Berwitz

Suppose Georgetown University found out that one of its Associate Deans was overtly racist.  How long do you figure it would take for that person to be removed from his/her post?

The answer appears to be that it all depends on which race the Associate Dean is racist about.

Please read this "think" piece (think is probably a wild overstatement) by Christopher J. Metzler, an Associate Dean at GU.  See if you can find anything in it that isn't racist:

Sonia Sotomayor: The White Man's Burden

Christopher J. Metzler | Posted July 1, 2009 8:48 AM

President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be a Justice on the United States Supreme Court has brought to the surface the lingering resentment that so many White men in America have harbored since the end of slavery. Moreover, it has denuded the souls of white folks who have now become part of a race. It has also revived White men as victims and given voice to the intellectually dishonest rhetoric of "reverse" racism while also race-baiting the White House, albeit one headed by a Black man.

Of course, we understand that race is a social construction. That is, there is no biological basis for race. Rather, in the context of the United States, race has been formulated and given meaning by society and the courts who wished to connote difference and the privileges and insults thereto appertaining. That formulation for so much of our history defined Whites as superior and numerical racial minorities as inferior thus justifying different treatment.

First, it is not an understatement to say that many White men in America have opted out of the conversation on race. In fact, in most conversations about race, racial minorities are the ones who are presumed to be affected by racism because of America's toxic relationship with race. White men in particular enjoy the visible and invisible privilege of being both White and male and thus, until now, have seen no reason to be considered part of a "race."  

The White men of whom I write have decided that they will pick the carbuncle of race in an attempt to protect their white privilege at all costs. Hoisting the White man's burden are Rush, Tancredo, Hannity, Dobbs and Gingrich; the "unelected" leaders of the party. The elected leaders (especially those with significant Latino voters) and the languid "head of the party" (Michael Steele) will collude with them by saying nothing.

As the Republican Party excogitates into a provincial confederacy of antediluvian white men, it has concluded that the only way out of quietest is to play the race card. The strategy is simple: play into the anger of White men who believe that racial minorities are becoming the "new White." If they are successful, they theorize, victory shall be theirs in 2010 thus restoring the racial balance that has been upset by the election of a Black President and the nomination of a Latina to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Second, for so long in American history, Blacks have been told to stop playing the victim and to pull ourselves up by our proverbial bootstraps. The unpropitious magniloquence used by Republicans in their attack on Judge Sotomayor through blogs, talk radio, television and other media implores that America rally around White men lest they are trapped in a cycle of pathological victimology. Leading one to ask, if White men worked hard, were the most qualified and followed the law, wouldn't justice be blind? Are they finally admitting that for all their talk about "justice being blind" that judges can and do in fact see? So, why could they not pull themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps in front of a Latina justice?

There have been 110 Supreme Court Justices, and of those only four have been other than White men.

Is number 5 too many or is 96 percent White male justices too few?

Third, the Republican rhetoric explains how White privilege works. The White men opposing the nomination have been using the term "reverse racism" as a part of the wrangle. Since they set the societal norm, white privilege teaches, they get to define the terms. But, how can racism be reverse? It either is racism or it is not. Realizing that racism has been used to describe the actions of Whites against racial minorities, the White men have added the term "reverse" to suggest to White people that the power dynamic is now changing and while racism can be tolerated against racial minorities, it cannot be tolerated against Whites. The problem with this discussion is that there is not one scintilla of evidence that Judge Sotomayor is a racist or that she wants to enshrine discrimination against Whites into the law.

Thus, in true "post-racial" fashion, they will reduce the 4000+ legal opinions of Judge Sotomayor to a warm bucket of spit. That is, the Ricci case. In that case, a majority of Whites and no Blacks passed a test administered by the City of New Haven for promotion to the next rank. Fearing that it would face a race discrimination suit for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, since no Blacks passed the test, the City threw out the test and no one was promoted. As an appellate judge, Sotomayor agreed with the trial court that the White firefighters did not have a case based on the current state of the law. The case is before the United States Supreme Court and could be reversed.

During her confirmation hearings, the elected Republican senators will try to appear objective as they question Judge Sotomayor on "strict construction and judicial neutrality." The reality is that Republicans who claim to be strict constructionists but use the Ricci case to claim that Sotomayor is a judicial activist because of her ruling; are intellectually and jurisprudentially insensate at best or constitutionally pharisaical at worst. Her ruling in Ricci was not that governments must allow affirmative action. She simply upheld the power of the elected government to throw out the test. Strict constructionists do not use the power of the appellate process to substitute their views for that of elected officials. If in fact, this cacophony of dissenting voices were being genuine, they would simply state the obvious: they have run out of options and are left only with using the race card to gin up support among angry white men who fear that Brown is becoming the "new White."

Finally, this White House has shown a stunning reluctance to avoid engaging in any meaningful way on the topic of race. Does the President really believe that if he discussed the reality of race in the context of this nomination that the critics of Judge Sotomayor would simply wilt? In a 2001 lecture Judge Sotomayor said that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Taking the race bait, the President blinked, and said, "I'm sure she would have restated it."

During his confirmation hearing, now Justice Alito said, "he cared for the little guy." Alito said that his family's experience as immigrants influenced his outlook on immigration cases. He also said that when he gets a case about discrimination, he has to think about people in his own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or religion and he does take that into account.

President Bush did not apologize for Judge Alito. President Obama did apologize for Judge Sotomayor.

Ahh, the perils of a "post-racial" Presidency.

Dr. Christopher J. Metzler is associate dean at Georgetown University and the author of The Construction and Rearticulation of Race in a Post-Racial America.

That racist enough for you? 

The only element that rivals the degree of racism in this vile screed is the number of times Metzler tries to impress us by using pretentious words like "excogitates" and "unpropitious magniloquence". 

Life is real easy for people like Metzler.  The answers are: White people are the problem, non Whites are blameless, Republicans are devils and no one is an individual, we are all components of whichever group he likes to define by stereotype.  Now, what's the question?

A White person spewing racist vomit like this wouldn't last the day at Georgetown.  But how likely do you think the school will be to remove, or admonish, or do anything but celebrate, Metzler?  That is racism too.

A couple of weeks ago I noted that most people know what being anti-Black is, but a lot of people don't have the slightest idea of what being racist is.  Based on this piece, Metzler is exactly the kind of person I was thinking of.  His commentary is thoroughly racist, but he doesn't have a clue because he seems to think that stereotyping Whites somehow doesn't count.  Well, it does.

And then we have the absolutely phony juxtaposition of comments by Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.  Alito said he was sensitive to discrimination because he saw it used against members of his family.  Sotomayor said that her race and gender were likely to make her superior to a different race and gender.  These two statements could not be more opposite of one another.  Either Metzler is incapable of figuring this out, or he is intentionally trying to mislead us.  Which alternative is the good one?

One other thing:  From a personal perspective, I have no problem with a woman or a Latino person of any gender being a supreme court justice.  I have a problem with THIS person being a supreme court justice.  I judge people as individuals.  I don't classify them by their skin tone or plumbing.  Maybe Metzler ought to try it my way - apparently it will be quite a catharsis for him.

JB NEW YORK Dr. Metzler is far from being a racist, anytime you speak the truth it upsets a lot of people. Why are you calling for his head on a platter? This is America, one has freedom of speech- remember your first amendment right. By trying to attack or highlighting his expansive use of vocabulary only shows he is not the average minority. Not sure of his background but in his writing he appears to be educated. I am assuming he went to an Ivy league college and has worked hard for everything he has earned. Live and let live! (06/15/09)

Red Seven Sonia Sotomayor wasn't saying that she was genetically superior to white men; that's a myth that's gained a lot of traction by quoting one sentence (from a much longer speech) over and over again. She stated that her life experience formed her worldview. As a white man, I'm sure that a "wise Latina" (not any Latina, but a wise one) would be able to make better decisions about cases involving racial discrimination than I would, based on life experience that I don't have - she does; she's lived it her whole life. I've been spared that, and for that I'm lucky - but every benefit has its price, I guess. As for Metzler, he's not speaking in absolutes - as a white male reader, I didn't feel at all attacked by what I read. But that's probably because I in no way feel threatened by the thought of a Hispanic woman who is proud of her heritage and her gender ascending to the highest court in the land. On the contrary, I think it's great. (06/11/09)

L.K.F. I love to hear white folks whining and complaining about how "racist" everyone is to them now. FINALLY, you are getting a taste of what it is like to be a non-white, non-male, non-hetrosexual person in this country!!!! Dr. Metzler isn't Racist!! YOU just can't stand to see and eloquent, intelligent black man tell you like it IS! What, just because he is at a predominately white, historically racist institution he is supposed to suppress his theories on race in this country? Uh NO! Furthermore to show your lack of valid arguments in your favor you belittle this discussion by attacking what? The man's vocabulary. HELLO!?!?! We are talking about a man who has studied law at the FINEST institution in this country and aboard, he has worked for people in the HIGHEST level of government (you'd know that if you actually did some research) of course he has a sophisticated vocabulary, don't get angry because you can't read his work without a dictionary at your side! CATCH UP! BRAVO to Chris and others like him for telling the truth, and not being a afraid to confront the myth of this so called "post-racial america". (06/12/09)

P. in VA Why attack the messenger? Dr. Metzler's legal and cultural analysis is measured and scholarly. Try as we might, we cannot deny the irrefutable fact that America was built on racist doctrines and practices--namely the Constitution and slave holding. And I hate to break it to you, but racism is alive and well in this, "the land of the free and the brave"... I know that it is hard for some to accept that there are learned Black men (and women) on the faculty of world class institutions like Georgetown University who are willing to speak truth to power, but such is life. Thank you, Dr. Metzler, for your very courageous and much needed commentary. Keep up the good work. And stay strong. Please!! (06/11/09)

DMS-Milwaukee Please learn to understand and define the word racism before you make the assumption. Discussions like this are so necessary in America today, What's wrong are you so afraid of the truth that you turn to insults to mask your hate! You go Chris.....keep it coming! (06/12/09)

R D S These statements by Dr. Metzler are far from racist. They are statements of opinion posed to make us think. The real questions should be why is Judge Sotomayer being questioned on one ruling to not overturn a state legislative decision (that spoke of race) instead of the MANY opinions/rulings in her long career as a Judge. Dr. Metzler's statements provoke us to think - that is what all American need to do when these issues arise. We need to challenge our biases. In fact Dr. Metzler's "critics" should question their bias. What you read as racism - Other's read as thought provoking literary work. P.S. Just so you can note I am typically a conservative leaning reader that believes in strict construction. (06/12/09)

JoSePh You're so angry!!!! Dr. Metzler is not Racist.. He's an unafraid, true to god academic scholar with great insight and exceptional analytical skills.. I read both his post and your arguments and seriously don't see what the issue is....just stop calling for someone to be fired when you're an idiot yourself who should be fired....and by the way.. I'm not black.. not that it makes a difference to you... (06/12/09)


Ken Berwitz

President Obama is about to tour the middle east and make a "major address to the Muslim world".  He will make that speech in Cairo, and will also be in Saudi Arabia. 

But he won't be going to Israel.

Here is Ralph Peters' take on what Mr. Obama is really doing.  See if it resonates (the bold print is mine):


Last updated: 4:24 am
June 2, 2009
Posted: 3:02 am
June 2, 2009


ONE question remains about President Obama's upcoming schlock-concerts in the Middle East: "How deeply will he grovel?"

With top tour dates in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the political message is clear: President George W. Bush is gone, democracy's an annoyance, human rights apply only to Gitmo inmates and America owes the Middle East confessions, concessions and apologies.

The key contents of the president's ballyhooed speech to "the Muslim world" are discouragingly predictable: Along with blather about working cooperatively for a better, shared future, he'll stress that "Islam's a religion of peace" and that America isn't Islam's enemy.

But what if Islam -- as enforced by the Saudis and their surrogates -- isn't a religion of peace? What if their Islam needs America as an enemy? And what if a crucial core of radicalized Muslims don't want what we have to offer and pray for our destruction?

What if the Saudi version of Islam is the problem?

While all major religions have engaged in horrendous oppression at various points, the Wahhabi counterrevolution that's poisoned Sunni Islam has done its best to kill any hint of tolerance.

The Saudis have funded a once-great faith's grotesque degeneration. And let's not mention terrorism.

Instead of encouraging Middle Easterners to take responsibility for their own failures, to stop discriminating against those of other faiths (including Shia Muslims) and to firmly reject violence in the name of religion, our president will employ his commanding voice to deliver a message of American contrition.

For all the American left's blather about human rights and freedom, the Obama administration has turned its back on democracy, women's rights and the most basic social and political liberties in the Arab world.

But presenting a rhetorical welfare check to the collapsed civilization of the Middle East won't advance our interests -- or those of the average Arab.

I can't alter his speech, but I ask our first multi-racial president to bear in mind two things during the brief flight between Cairo and Riyadh: The Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt were the earliest, greatest and most tenacious enslavers of black Africans. And the Saudis are the leading sponsors of religious hatred in the world today.

Who owes whom an apology?

That's a great question.  Who owes whom an apology?

Then we have Dick Morris's analysis of the trip which, I think, nails Israel's Obama problem beautifully:

...he's going to the middle east, he's visiting Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and not our only ally in the region, Israel.  And his failure to visit Israel is sending a message to Netanyahu, "You better stop those settlements".  Now he hasn't told the Iranians what's going to happen if they build the bomb.  But if Israel builds one more house for one more family, ah, then the roof is going to cave in"......If one bomb hits Israel, six million more Jews die.  Does that number sound familiar? 

According to the exit polls, 78% of Jews voted for Barack Obama in the last election.  Presumably, most of them support Israel.

I hope they're happy with what they got.  Speaking as one of the other 22%, I can assure you I'm not.

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!!