Friday, 17 July 2009


Ken Berwitz

Sadly, leave it to the New York Times to deflect, distort and lie in order to further its partisan agenda.

But, happily, leave it to (among others) to notice as much and expose what the Times is doing.

Here is the latest example.  It concerns the 2010 census which - quietly, while you weren't looking (or at least that's what they hope) is now under the aegis of the Obama administration and the invovement of ACORN in the census:

NYT Misleads in Editorial on Census and ACORN

By Matthew Vadum (Bio | Archive)
July 17, 2009 - 04:14 ET

The New York Times was less than truthful in an editorial yesterday on ACORN's involvement in the 2010 census and implied that Republicans and Obama administration critics were paranoid.


After pontificating that Republicans' fears were overblown about Robert M. Groves, the statistical voodoo practitioner who was recently confirmed by the U.S. Senate as census director, the Old Gray Lady opined


Still, some Republican lawmakers in both the House and Senate are clinging to an even bigger red herring, that the Census Bureau is inviting manipulation of the 2010 count through its partnership with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.


The group, Acorn for short, is one of tens of thousands of census partners including state and local government agencies, community groups, business clubs, corporations, media outlets and churches that voluntarily promote the importance of being counted. First used in the 2000 census, such partnerships were credited with reducing the undercount of hard-to-count groups, like African-Americans, Hispanics and the poor.


In 2008, some Acorn workers were fired and prosecuted for submitting false voter registrations. And in 2009, the organization was charged in Nevada with violating that states voter registration law. Acorn is fighting those charges. The bad registrations, most of which Acorn says it flagged as problematic before turning them over to election officials, never resulted in any known fraudulent votes being cast. But Republicans who flogged the voter fraud angle in 2008 are now raising fears of census fraud. Thats overblown. Census partners promote the census; they do not fill out forms or collect personal information. [...]


New York Times editorial writers, it's worth noting, are also adept at throwing out red herrings.


An entirely justified concern that some Americans have is that ACORN is actively involved in the 2010 census planning process (including hiring decisions) and that the Obama administration lied about it. This was proven in the document dump ably engineered by Tegan Millspaw of Judicial Watch. Of course the NYT ignores this issue altogether.


We've come to expect this kind of behavior from the New York Times. 


In the days leading up to last Election Day it spiked a politically sensitive news story involving corruption allegations that might have made the Obama campaign look bad. The story concerned possibly illegal coordination between the Obama campaign and ACORN.


And as far as I know the Times hasn't even bothered to report on the fact that authorities in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, are investigating ACORN --the organization itself-- in connection with actual voter fraud (as opposed to voter registration fraud) after a man named Darnell Nash who was registered to vote multiple times by ACORN was indicted by a grand jury for casting a fraudulent vote in an election.


Then there's the newspaper's woefully inadequate coverage of its business partner Bruce Ratner's ACORN-assisted land grab related to the taxpayer-subsized proposed Atlantic Yards project right in the newspaper's own backyard in Brooklyn, but perhaps I digress.


It's common sense that ACORN shouldn't be anywhere near the census but the Old Gray Lady will never say that.


Plainly stated, ACORN is a corrupt, discredited orgnaization that has had suits against it in a dozen or more states, and has had to acknowledge impropriety (all unintentional, of course!) in some of them while others are currently still pending. 

Further, I cannot find one instance of ACORN ever trying to generate voter turnout in any area that has a realistic likelihood of voting Republican.  This means it is not a voting registration group, it is a Democrat advocacy group.

For these reasons, ACORN has no business being anywhere near a legitimate census.  But it has all the business in the world being near a corrupt discredited census.  Which is why this happened so quietly, in the hope that you wouldn't know about it.

And the New York Times?  What you just read is another of the ongoing examples of what it has become.  What a tragedy.


Ken Berwitz

Did the American Conservative Union (ACU) attempt to sell its support to Fedex in return for millions of dollars?  And when Fedex turned the offer down did the ACU then support Fedex's competitor, UPS, instead?  

Those are pretty strong charges.  And they are being made from a reasonably credible source - Mike Allen at

But are they true?  Let's see.

First, the headline and start of Allen's "exclusive" report:


Exclusive: Conservative group offers to sell endorsement for $2M
By: Mike Allen

July 17, 2009 05:07 AM EST

The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the groups endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then the groups president flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.

For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: Producing op-eds and articles written by ACUs Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACUs board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)

The conservative groups remarkable demand black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as pay for play was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO.

The letter exposes the practice by some political interest groups of taking stands not for reasons of pure principle, as their members and supporters might assume, but also in part because a sponsor is paying big money.

In the three-page letter asking for money on June 30, the conservative group backed FedEx. After FedEx says it rejected the offer, Keene signed onto a two-page July 15 letter backing UPS. Keene did not return a message left on his cell phone.

Maury Lane, FedExs director of corporate communications, said: Clearly, the ACU shopped their beliefs and UPS bought.

That sure looks plain as day, doesn't it?  Hand us 2 - 3 million bucks and buy our support. 

But that's not what happened.  If you read the actual letter, you will find that the money is not a payoff at all, it is the cost of actively soliciting hundreds of thousands of people.  Here is the key passage:

We have estimated that you will need to target 10 states with an average of 5 Congressional Districts per state, similar to the size of Iowa. Some states may have slightly fewer Congressional Districts like Mississippi; others more, like Alabama or Louisiana.


For the activist contact portion of the plan we will contact over 150,000 people per state multiple times at a cost of $1.39 per name or $2,147,550 to implement the entire program.

Each person will be contacted a total of seven times totaling nearly 11 million contacts total in the ten targeted states.


If we incorporate the targeted, Senator-personalized radio effort into the plan, you can figure an additional $125,000 on average, per state.


In other words, this was not, as the headline clearly suggests, a handout that some greedy conservative would pocket.  It was the cost of implementing a major campaign - i.e. an estimated 11 million contacts over 10 targeted states, plus radio advertising into those states.  

And, to be sure, Mr. Allen does mention these services --- 13 paragraphs into the article.  What could be fairer than that?

Ok, but what about the switchover to UPS?  How does the ACU make out in that part of the deal?

Well, here's the start of  the ACUs letter to Frederick W. Smith, CEO of Fedex:

Dear Mr. Smith


Weve been on record as opposing federal bailouts of failing businesses because they waste taxpayer money, reward businesses that are poorly run, skew the marketplace, and are well outside the proper role of our constitutionally limited government. So when FedEx claimed that UPS was seeking a government bailout, we were prepared to jump all over another wasteful government program. But after looking into FedExs claims, we realized that FedEx was not telling the truth. UPS was not seeking any taxpayer funds -- only regulatory reform that would insure equal treatment of both companies under our nations labor laws.


FedExs campaign called Brown Bailout ( is designed to capitalize on public sentiment that is angry that hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted in the name of bailouts. But since UPS is not seeking even one dime of taxpayer money, the campaign is essentially a disinformation campaign and should be stopped.


If FedEx wants to oppose the regulatory reform being sought by UPS, that is fine. But FedEx should use honest arguments and refrain from disingenuous and dishonest labels.

Is this a legitimate explanation, or a rationale for switching gears in midstream for money?  I don't know the answer.  And neither does Mike Smith.  But it sure does seem a very thin reason to put up an "exclusive" that accuses the ACU of sellling its support to the highest bidder.

Is Mike Allen's charge that the ACU offered to sell its endorsement for $2 million dollars (or maybe over $3 million) credible?  Or is this nothing more than a hit piece?  You tell me.

free` From what i have read here it sounds like a dishonest hit piece. (07/17/09)


Ken Berwitz

A short time ago I put up a column by Betsy McCaughey which derided the Obama administration's health care proposals.  I did so with the knowledge that many - maybe most - Obama supporters might reject Ms. McCaughey's findings out of hand, on the grounds that she is a conservative Republican.

Ok, how about Susan Estrich?  The political operative who ran Michael Dukakis' 1988 presidential bid?  Will they listen to her? 

I don't know the answer to that.  But I'm going to give them the chance to do so, because here is what Ms. Estrich has written.  As with the McCaughey piece, I am not putting a thing in bold print, because every word is worthwhile:

Summer in Washington

The stimulus program must really be succeeding in Washington, D.C. Government is hiring; people are working. In fact, if news reports are to be believed, they're working night and day. So maybe there's some sleep deprivation thrown in for good measure. And don't forget the legendary heat and humidity that made service in the nation's Capitol hazardous before the advent of air conditioning.

What other explanation could there be for my friends in Congress and the administration thinking that what the country wants them to do right now is raise taxes and spend a trillion dollars to overhaul health care, much less to push it through in a month in a 1,000-page bill being rewritten every day?

In California, where I live, unemployment is in double digits and climbing, and the state has been issuing IOUs for weeks. I'm blessed, and I'm not complaining.

But not a day goes by that someone doesn't call me, desperate for help in finding a job. And it's never been harder to help. For all intents and purposes, unless you have some very special skill to sell, there are simply no jobs. You want to wait tables or make coffee drinks? Good luck. Get in line.

The idea that somehow you're going to tax the "rich" enough to pay for quality health care for every American who doesn't have it, can't afford it or stands to lose it, not to mention for all of the undocumented aliens who receive it for free now and presumably will continue to in Obama health land, is almost laughable. It's one of those things candidates say in campaigns, ignoring the fact that it doesn't add up. But in a bill that might pass? Add a 5 percent surtax on every small business in the country that makes $250,000 or more? This is going to create jobs? What am I missing?

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office came out with a report this week concluding that the bill being written by House Democrats would increase the deficit and weaken the already weak economy.



No one is explaining to people how the big changes in the bill will affect people who have insurance now, which happens to be the overwhelming majority of all Americans (and an even higher percentage of all voters).

Will our premiums and deductibles go up or down? Will our doctors and hospitals be better or worse off? It is simply not credible to tell me that if I like my insurance now, nothing will change. If you turn the health care delivery system on its head and start regulating, mandating and controlling the terms, don't tell me it won't change things.

Changing the tax treatment of insurance benefits changes who gets them and who pays for them. "Controlling costs" means what? Does my doctor have to see more patients? Get more approvals before ordering tests? Order less expensive tests? I don't know a single person who is willing to sacrifice, or even risk, their health care right now to an uncertain plan that they don't begin to understand except folks in D.C.

I went to my doctor this morning and suspect I had an experience that's being repeated in doctor's offices across the country. My doctor told me how worried she is about the plan. Actually, it was much stronger than "worried."

She wasn't a big fan of HillaryCare, but from her reading, it was a carefully drafted and thought-out program compared to what's being discussed now. She's convinced that if the administration succeeds, the ripple effect will cost Democrats the House in 2010 and her patients' their access to high quality, affordable care.

I reassured her that the Democrats would never be that foolish. I hope. Maybe it's time for Congress to get out of Washington. They'll get an earful when they do.

Who would have thought that Betsy McCaughey and Susan Estrich would have such compatible views? 

See, President Obama really is bringing us together.....


Ken Berwitz

Did you read Maureen Dowd's New York Times column the other day?  It was one of the most stunningly hate-filled, prejudiced screeds I have ever seen in a supposedly mainstream publication.

Well, the redoubtable Steve Gilbert of has brought the "quality" of Ms. Dowd's work home in a very creative, and very disturbing way.  Here it is:

Mo Dowd Hates Republican White Men

July 16th, 2009

d We seldom post mindless editorials, especial from the perpetually petulant pea-brained plagiarist Maureen Dowd.


But we thought the red hot hatred for white Republican males expressed in this rant was exceptional, even

for the New York Times:


White Mans Last Stand


July 15, 2009



You cant judge a judge by her cover.


Despite the best efforts of Republicans to root out any sign that Sonia Sotomayor has emotions that color her views on the law, the Bronx Bomber kept a robotic mask in place.


A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not know that a gaggle of white Republican men afraid of extinction are out to trip her up.


After all, these guys have never needed to speak inspirational words to others like them, as Sotomayor has done. Theyve had codes, handshakes and clubs to do that


And it goes on from there. You get the drift.


After all, these guys have never needed to speak inspirational words to others like them, as Sotomayor has done. Theyve had codes, handshakes and clubs to do that.


Never mind that Ms. Sotomayor delivered one of her wise Latina speeches at the Princeton Club.


Of course, given her romantic experiences with white men, perhaps Ms. Dowds vehemence against them and desire for their extinction is understandable.


Still, when was the last time we have seen such a vicious hatred for a group of law-abiding people ever expressed as commonly as it is today? And in such allegedly respectable media outlets such as the New York Times?


As a thought experiment, lets replace white men and Republican with dirty Jews. And lets replace Latina and Democrat with Aryan. (Adding in a few that are strongly implied.)


Then lets see a little more of Ms. Dowds spittle-flecked screed:




July 15, 2009



You cant judge a judge by her cover.


Despite the best efforts of DIRTY JEWS to root out any sign that [ARYAN] Sonia Sotomayor has emotions that color her views on the law, the Bronx Bomber kept a robotic mask in place.


A wise ARYAN woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not know that a gaggle of DIRTY JEWS afraid of extinction are out to trip her up.


After all, these DIRTY JEWS have never needed to speak inspirational words to others like them, as Sotomayor has done. Theyve had codes, handshakes and clubs to do that.


So when DIRTY JEW Senator Jon Kyl, without so much as a howdy-do, went at Sotomayor, and soon was asking her if she agreed with Barack Obamas contention, when he voted against John Roberts, that a judges heart is important, the would-be justice was as adroit as her idol Nancy Drew.


[ARYAN] President Obama wants Sotomayor, naturally, to bring a fresh perspective to the court. It was a disgrace that W. appointed two DIRTY JEWS to a court stocked with DIRTY JEWS. And Sotomayor made it clear that she provides some spicy seasoning to a bench when she said in a speech: I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging, but I accept there will be some based on gender and my ARYAN heritage.


ARYAN Senator Chuck Schumer gamely tried to make the judge seem even more coldhearted. Recalling the sad plight of poor families from the Bronx who sued T.W.A. after a jet crashed off Long Island in 1996, he quoted the Bronx jurists dispassionate dissent: The appropriate remedial scheme for deaths occurring off the United States coast is clearly a legislative policy choice, which should not be made by the courts.


Schumer also cited the case of an ARYAN woman who filed suit after being denied a home-equity loan, even after the loan application was conditionally approved based on her credit report


DIRTY JEW Lindsey Graham read Sotomayor some anonymous comments made by lawyers about her, complaining that she was temperamental, nasty, a bit of a bully. Then he patronizingly lectured her about how this was the moment for self-reflection. Maybe Graham thinks Nino Scalia has those traits covered.


But the barbed adjectives didnt match the muted performance on display before the Judiciary Committee. Like the [ARYAN] president who picked her, Sotomayor has been a model of professorial rationality. Besides, its delicious watching DIRTY JEWS go after ARYANS for being too emotional and irrational given the [ARYAN] G.O.P. shame spiral.


[DIRTY JEWS] W. and Dick Cheney made all their bad decisions about Iraq, W.M.D.s, domestic surveillance, torture, rendition and secret hit squads from the gut, based on false intuitions, fear, paranoia and revenge.


[DIRTY JEW] Sarah Palin is the definition of irrational, a volatile and scattered country-music queen without the music. Her DIRTY JEW fans defend her lack of application and intellect, happy to settle for her emotional electricity.


Senator Graham said Sotomayor would be confirmed unless she had a meltdown a word applied mostly to women and toddlers until Mark Sanford proudly took ownership of it when he was judged about the wisdom of his ARYAN woman.


And then theres the Supreme Court, of course, which gave up its claim to rational neutrality when the justices appointed by DIRTY JEW presidents including Bush Sr. ignored what was fair to make a sentimental choice and throw the 2000 election to W


Sounds kind of familiar, doesnt it?

And just like in the works of Messrs Julius Streicher and Joseph Goebbels, an endless litany of lies is employed to falsely vilify a group of people. In this case, people who were actually elected by American citizens to represent them.

But we cant have that.


The nation must be ruled by our natural superiors, our new master race.


Such as Ms. Dowd and her colleagues at the New York Times.

Thanks, Steve.  I don't know how this could be brought home any more clearly.


Ken Berwitz

Joe Biden is to gaffes what a swamp is to mosquitos.

Here is his latest, excerpted from an article in todays Washington Post.  The bold print is mine: 

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) landed a fresh blow in a tit-for-tat battle with Vice President Biden today after the latter accused the senior Republican lawmaker of smearing the administration's $787 billion stimulus package.

Cantor called an afternoon news conference to pre-empt remarks Biden is expected to make today in Richmond in support of the recovery bill, excerpts of which were obtained in advance by The Washington Post.

"To those who say that our economic decisions 'have not produced jobs, have not produced and simply have not worked' I say, take a look around," Biden will say while visiting Cantor's home district.

"I say, 'Don't let your opposition to the Recovery Act blind you to its results. Come see what I see everywhere I go: workers rehired, factories reopened, cops on the street, teachers in the classroom, progress toward getting our economy back on the move.'"

Without naming Cantor directly, the rhetorical assault is aimed squarely at the Richmond lawmaker, who has helped lead the Republican Party to its most effective message since Obama became president: that Obama's stimulus bill has not produced jobs.

So who is more accurate?  You're kidding, right?

The stimulus package was enacted in mid-February, with promises that it would improve things within a matter of weeks or months (depending on which Democrat was talking).  Here are the job figures since.

March        -652,000

April          -519,000

May           -322,000

June          -467,000

Therefore, from a point about two weeks after the stimulus package was put into effect through June, we have lost almost 2,000,000 jobs.  And from what I've heard on the talk shows, from people in both parties, July is going in exactly the same direction.

But Joe Biden doesn't see almost 2,000,000 jobs lost.  He sees...."workers rehired, factories reopened...", etc. etc. etc. yada yada yada barf barf.  

This, of course, is the same Joe Biden who told us, last month, that we had "saved 150,000 jobs", based on "an economic model that nobody disputes".

Not for nothing do I call him Jackass Joe.


Ken Berwitz

Betsy McCaughey is a former Lieutenant Governor of New York.  But, much more importantly, she is also a genuine health care expert.  It was Ms. McCaughey who blew the whistle on "Hillarycare" in 1993, by laying out the facts so convincingly that, even with a congress dominated by Democrats (just like today), it died the ignominious death it deserved.

Well, the new version of Hillarycare is back.  Now it is called Obamacare. 

And so is Ms. McCaughey.

Here is her article in today's New York Post (of course it's the Post.  did you expect the Times to give her a forum?).  Read it and see what we're really getting if this passes.  And I won't be putting anything in bold print, because I very much want you to read every word:



July 17, 2009
Posted: 1:00 am
July 17, 2009

PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.

The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.

There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.

Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.

Did you know any of this?  Have you been apprised of what is in the proposed legislation?

Is this what you want?  Do you think health care would be improved if it were enacted into law?

Now you know the real deal.   The real Obamacare. 

How do you like it?


Ken Berwitz

Walter Cronkite died today at his home in New York, at the age of 92, after an extended illness. 

He was arguably the single most iconic newscaster in broadcast history, and certainly the most "trusted" according to poll after poll. 

Mr. Cronkite's remarkable broadcasting career started in 1935 when he was just 19 years old - and already had spent time as a news reporter.  It continued through his stint as a war correspondent during WWII, then as a United Press correspondent who covered the Nuremberg trials and became its Moscow bureau chief. 

Eventually Cronkite moved to CBS.  In 1962, he took the job he was best known for, replacing Douglas Edwards as the CBS News' anchor. 

After retiring from that position in 1981, Mr. Cronkite was involved in various news projects, along with his many hobbies (sailing prime among them).  These, of course, became more sporadic as he grew older.

My most vivid remembrance of Walter Cronkite was his reporting of John F. Kennedy's assassination on November 22, 1963.  I assume I'm far from alone in this regard.

People like Walter Cronkite don't come around every day.  Or month or year or decade.  They come around once every generation.

May he rest in peace.



Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of Charles Johnson at, is the result of Barack Obama's half-year long sucking up to Iran (very much including his noncommital stance when protestors marched in the streets after ahmadinejad's fraudulent re-election "victory"):

Ahmadinejad: Iran Will 'Bring Down' the West

World | Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:04:08 pm PDT

Irans thug-in-chief said today that his new government is going to bring down Western arrogance.

Hows that Unclenching Initiative working out, President Obama?

Ahmadinejad: Iran Will 'Bring Down' the West

World | Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:04:08 pm PDT

Irans thug-in-chief said today that his new government is going to bring down Western arrogance.

Hows that Unclenching Initiative working out, President Obama?

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Irans re-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday his next government would bring down the global arrogance, signaling a tougher approach toward the West after Junes disputed election.

The Iranian nation elected somebody they (Irans enemies) did not want. The Iranian nations choice was their nightmare, the hardline president told a big crowd at the countrys most prominent religious shrine in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

Ahmadinejads fierce attack on Tehrans enemies is likely to further disappoint the United States and its allies, which are trying to engage the Islamic Republic in direct talks over its nuclear program. ...

As soon as the new government is established, with power and authority, ten times more than before, it will enter the global scene and will bring down the global arrogance, he said.

They should wait as a new wave of revolutionary thinking ... from the Iranian nation is on the way and we will not allow the arrogant (powers) to even have one night of good sleep, Ahmadinejad said, according to state broadcaster IRIB.

Bottom line:  Iran not only hasn't unclenched its fist, it has become even more hardline.  And it has done this in spite of President Obama essentially flipping the bird to the protesters (thus signalling to other democracy-seekers that they have no friend in the White House).

Suck up to ahmadinejad a little more, Mr. President.  Why not?  Look at how far it has gotten us.  And don't forget your undying support of the ousted would-be dictator in Honduras.  That's sure to gain us respect as well.

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!!