Monday, 20 July 2009

THE WIT AND WISDOM OF RONALD REAGAN

Ken Berwitz

In life, many of his enemies on the left reviled Ronald Reagan as a right wing simpleton and worse. 

Well here, courtesy of our pal West Coast Russ, is a compilation of quotes from that "right wing simpleton".  Read them, then think about how much better off we would be if they were taken into consideration by the current administration. 

 

'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.'- Ronald Reagan

'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.' - Ronald Reagan

'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.'- Ronald Reagan

'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.' - Ronald Reagan

'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. '   Ronald Reagan

'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'- Ronald Reagan

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.' - Ronald Reagan

'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..'- Ronald Reagan

'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases : If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.' - Ronald Reagan

'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.' - Ronald Reagan

'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan


TEMPERED STEELE

Ken Berwitz

Did you see "Hardball" tonight?  If you were one of the few who actually watch Chris Matthews' show you were treated to quite a spectacle.

Matthews had RNC Chair Michael Steele on.  And it was amazing.  Steele, who has had a rocky tenure in his current position, was absolutely on fire.  He made mincemeat of Matthews, whose contribution was to sputter in exasperation, continually try talking over Steele, and invoke racial politics in a way that Steele shamed him for.

I have no transcript of this (though I suspect it will be available online at some point tonight or tomorrow).  But if you want to see Matthews get his comeuppance but good, the show is rebroadcast on MSNBC at midnight.  TiVo, DVR or otherwise record it if you can.  You won't regret it.


COMING SOON TO A HOSPITAL NEAR YOU...?

Ken Berwitz

Since the UK and Canada are being held up as some kind of paradigm to convince us that Obamacare will be just great, I thought you might like to see the following story from today's BBC News:

Man refused  liver transplant dies

A man from east London who began binge-drinking at 13 has died after being denied a life-saving liver transplant.

Gary Reinbach, 22, from Dagenham, was given only a few weeks to live after developing cirrhosis of the liver.

He was admitted to University College Hospital London (UCL) with alcohol damage for the first time 10 weeks ago.

But health chiefs ruled he should not be exempt from strict organ donation criteria which require an alcohol-free period of at least six months.

Mr Reinbach was too ill to be sent home after his admission to hospital.

Teenage drinking

A spokeswoman for UCL said: "We would like to extend our sympathies to the family at this difficult time."

Campaign group Alcohol Concern called for more research into the way alcohol can affect young people's health.

The group said it was worried that a rise in teenage drinking would lead to more people suffering alcohol-related illnesses at younger ages.

Speaking about Mr Reinbach's case, a spokeswoman said: "This doesn't surprise us at all, sadly.

"Statistics show that more people are getting liver disease in their 30s and, if more teenagers are drinking, people will become seriously ill at a younger age."

Got that?  Gary Reinbach was an alcholic who had weeks to live, but there was this bureaucrat somewhere in the bowels of the health care system who decided that in order to get the life-saving treatment, he had to be free of alcohol for 6 months.  So bye-bye Gary and..."we would like to extend our sympathies to the family at this difficult time".

How nice of them.

Do they also withhold cancer treatment from smokers until they've stopped for 6 months?  How about refusing heart bypass surgery to people until their cholesterol level is below 200 for six months?

We understand that people sometimes bring on their illnesses.  But does that mean it is acceptable not to give them health care services?  Did drinking, smoking, eating fatty foods, etc. suddenly become a capital crime, punishable by an unseen bureaucrat deciding that people who become gravely ill should just die?

If you're ok with this, I have a feeling you will love Obamacare. 

steve schneider a heart transplant for a 75 year old would make no sense as would performing extensive cancer surgery on a 90 year old, yet in our country this is done. the hard choice of health care will be not providing care for every ailment for every person. we spend millions of dollars keeping premature babies( with no or little chance of surviving alive) logically we should be providing only supportive care when with a high degree of medical certainty the outcome will be poor. but this is the usa and it will be difficult or impossible to make those hard but necessary choices. steve (07/20/09)

Zeke Steve - . . well, that 75 year old could easily have 12-15 years of an active and alert life left. . . . And you are going to write her/him off. And when bureaucrats get to make these decisions ... it will be illogical. (07/20/09)

steve schneider i'm actually ok with denying or delaying care in someone who has neglected his health and who likely will continue to neglect his health in the future. perhaps if our country did that our costs would not be so prohibitive. steve (07/20/09)

Zike Yuh, Steve .... but some people react worse than others to alcohol, tobacco, salt, grapefruit. .... And, at 22, a person still thinks they are invulnerable. A death sentence ? It's a stronger case for a SECOND liver transplant ... but here, we don't even know what warnings he had, what symptoms along the way ... What about heart transplants for 75 year olds ? (07/20/09)


JON VOIGHT UNLEASHED

Ken Berwitz

Jon Voight is a terific actor - an academy award winner (Midnight Cowboy).  He is also a man whose political views have changed rather markedly over the years. 

Today Mr. Voight finds himself in with a set of political views that vastly separate him from most other Hollywood personalities.  And, possibly out of pure moral strength and courage (or maybe because he is past the point of having to worry about his career being downgraded because of his views), Voight has no problem saying what he thinks in so many words.

I just read the transcript of the July 13 interview Jon Voight gave Sean Hannity.  It was more than a little interesting to me.  And, on the theory that it might also be pretty interesting to you as well, I am posting it below:

HANNITY: Actor Jon Voight came under attack for criticizing the President in a recent speech, but that's not stopping him from vocalizing his anger with the administration. Now, not only does Voight oppose Judge Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court, but he's also upset by the reckless spending, the stimulus package, the President's response or lack thereof in Iran, and the impending cap and tax bill and much, much more. And he joins me now. Jon Voight, and on top of everything, I've got to tell you, you are one guy that has been out there defending our troops and our military. You know, this is the antithesis. I thought Hollywood guys didn't do this stuff. How come you do?

JON VOIGHT, ACTOR: Well, obviously, Sean, you know, the things that we do, we shouldn't be in a situation where we can do enough for the troops. These guys step up for us, you know, they put themselves on the line. And, and I know their families. And you and I know that, you know, visiting these guys in the hospitals as we do, we find that they're the best of us. And it's a very great honor for us to serve them.

HANNITY: These are the best of the best. One of the things, you came out, and here you are, you're willing to openly criticize the Obama administration, but anybody that does this is attacked, demonized. In your profession, oftentimes it hurts their career. What has been the reaction to you speaking out?

VOIGHT: Well, let me say this, first of all, Sean. There was a, I made a speech at the House Senate dinner for the Republicans, and it was well-received, and then I had a lot of response. And, of course, as you say, you know you're going to be attacked if you step out and you criticize our President. And Teresa Albano, editor of People's Weekly World, which was formerly the Daily Worker, found a way to take a phrase that I had used and not put it in context, and then she made this statement. She said, "Jon Voight made a threat against the President of the United States."

And my response to this, which was to a reporter from the Washington Times, I said Teresa Albano has targeted me with vicious, harmful lies. She is igniting hate against me. I never did nor would I ever threaten the President of the United States. I did say President Obamas policies must fail because they're creating a socialist America. Now, why do I step out and say that, knowing I'm just going to get a whole bunch of other stuff coming back at me? It's important that we speak out, you know. If we see something amiss, that's our duty as citizens.

I'm against his silence on Iran. I'm against Obama's lie that he was going to protect Israel. And now, as President, he arrogantly tells them what they can do and what they can't do. Has he forgot that our only hope to defend us against Iran's nuclear buildup is Israel?

And I'm against his very cunning ability to push things, to rush things through without anybody having a chance to look at them. His stimulus package has failed. We're losing job after job. And, of course, now they're thinking, well, maybe another stimulus package. I agree with what Bill O'Reilly said, Sean, recently. He said that Obama's on his way to bankrupting America. I agree with him.

HANNITY: I've been saying it for months, that he, it's not he's on his way. He is bankrupting the country, you know. And you just got to look at the numbers, Jon, and the numbers speak for themselves. You cannot spend this much money, quadruple the debt in five months, quadruple the deficit. We're going to be paying a trillion in debt, and that's before cap and trade. That's before nationalized health care. That's, that's, one of the things that's most frightening to me is that, all these rosy projections that they've had, none of which have come true. Just the opposite is happening. So once they have to readjust these figures, they go up exponentially.

VOIGHT: And you know something, and you're getting it out there, and other people are getting it out there. Millions are expressing their dissatisfaction, but the mainstream press is not reporting it, Sean. Thank God for you guys at Fox and yourself for covering the tea parties because without you, we wouldn't think anything was going on. Absolutely no, no other network covered it. Nobody. Except maybe Janeane Garofalo covered it.

I mean, can you imagine, can you imagine, Sean, 37,000 people came out in the, in protest in a town in Texas to protest against this irresponsible spending that's going to leave their grandchildren in great debt and burden. And she said about that, she said, "Oh, well, these people are just, they're rednecks, you know, they're just people who are, who are-"

HANNITY: Racist.

VOIGHT: -prejudiced against a black President." I mean, you know, a remark like that, and she would have to, my take is this: She would have to be suffering from severe guilt thinking perhaps she's a descendant of white slave owners.

HANNITY: That's what you're thinking that she is? All right. But on a more serious note.

VOIGHT: No, let me, let me do it-

HANNITY: Go ahead.

VOIGHT: Okay, you know, I, I had heard something on the other line and it distracted me, Sean. I'm sorry.

HANNITY: Well, look, let me go back to this question, though. You see, look, I take it as a given. Jon, I'm on the air four hours a day. I believe as you do he's bankrupting this country, socialism doesn't work, we're robbing from our kids and our grandkids, he's unilaterally disarming this country, nationalized health care will be a disgrace. All these things that we talk about, the Supreme Court under Sonia Sotomayor is as radical as it will be in terms of her being a justice. I speak out. I'm willing to accept the role and be the punching bag for the left. That just goes with the territory. I dish it out, I take it. You are not used to, you're not used to being in that role. Has it impacted your work, your profession?

VOIGHT: Well, look, you know, when I think of this, first of all, I'm a fellow who is, you know, I've been around, and I've taken care of myself, and I'm not, I'm not worried about losing jobs, but I am worried about millions of people, some with, you know, people with small families losing jobs. It's a big deal to me. So, you know, I want to speak up. But, you know, slowly but surely we can see that Obama's policies are failing.

But the people who brought him in, the people who brought him into office will defend him, you know, no matter what, because they refuse to, to feel that they made a mistake. Now, who brought him into office? The press brought him in. The press was a big factor, and so was, they got a lot of help from ACORN, this corrupt organization that is now under indictment in many states throughout the country for voter fraud and registration fraud, and also, by the way, responsible for the stealing of the election of Norm Coleman in Minnesota. But the press, the press brought him in, and now they want to make sure that nobody topples the throne, it seems. So they don't report anything that will interfere with his policies.

But when the news is biased, it can, you know, it can control the people in a dangerous way. We see what's going on in Venezuela, and we're shocked. We're shocked to see Hugo Chavez closing down the, the opposition media. We're shocked when we see what's happening to the truth in Iran.

But this same thing is happening in our country right now. The Obama regime is controlling the press. They protect him, they cover for him, and they don't want the truth to come out that there is this dissatisfaction, that people are waking up, and it's being expressed in these tea parties.

HANNITY: Well, you know, it's funny. I watched you this weekend in Pearl Harbor, where you played, where you played FDR And one of the moments that really struck me in the movie, and you're a phenomenal actor, and we're good friends. But the moment when you said, "Don't tell me we can't, and you stood up," and obviously FDR, and you showed that courage. It seems to me that in many ways in your real life you stand up, and you're counted, and you don't see a lot of people in your profession do it. And I know you're probably going to, you know, take some heat again for this, but I admire you for it. And I want to thank you, because I think it's a wake-up call to those that seem to be living in that hypnotic Obama trance, if you will.

VOIGHT: Can I, can I just say one little thing about the Sotomayor candidacy?

HANNITY: Yes, sir.

VOIGHT: There are two people who I know you know, Sean, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, who are two guys, two of our leading economists and philosophers. They're both very successful African-Americans. They have always had a great pride in our country. And they have a different take on affirmative action than, than Sotomayor who, who is very proud to say she's of that school. They say that they are very glad that they weren't, quote, "victims," victims of affirmative action, that all their successes and who they are today came from the school of hard work, of study, and of competition. And I think that that those are the, that is the kind of character we should look for when we're seeking people for high office, not the other.

HANNITY: Jon Voight, thank you for being with us. Appreciate your time tonight.

VOIGHT: Thanks very much, Sean.


REUTERS EXPLAINS THE HONDURAN 'COUP'

Ken Berwitz

As I'm sure you know, manuel zelaya was ousted as President of Honduras last month.  And, today, Reuters has a story on his status as he tries to regain power.

I will spare you the entire zelaya-friendly Reuters story, which you can read, if you care to, by clicking here.  Instead, I will restrict this blog to the segment which purports to tell readers how the transfer of power came to be:

UNUSUAL COUP

Zelaya was expelled from the textile and coffee exporting country in his pajamas in the middle of the night. He had upset his political rivals by trying to lift presidential term limits and the army toppled him after the Supreme ordered his arrest.

The U.S. State Department put a positive spin on the failed crisis talks by extolling the "progress" made, but Insulza of the OAS was more sanguine on Monday.

"It is almost impossible to call for calm when the dictatorship seeks to test everyone's patience and stay in power," he said.

The interim government, which has been denied around $200 million in multilateral aid and $16.5 million in U.S. military aid and is at risk of regional trade sanctions, insists it can and will stand up to the international pressure.

Analysts say Honduras' interim government is biding its time so that Zelaya's reinstatement becomes a moot point. His term was due to end in January, and elections were scheduled for November.

The Honduran coup is an unusual case. Unlike those that battered Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s, Zelaya's ouster was approved by the Supreme Court and Congress as well as Catholic Church leaders in the country. There is also no military strongman in the picture this time.

There you go.  If you rely on Reuters, your understanding of what happened is that the President was ousted by the military for trying to lift term limits. 

Funny;  there's no mention of the fact that it is absolutely, unequivocally ILLEGAL for the President to lift term limits.  Under Honduran law zelaya could not order them lifted and could not initiate any action to lift them.  Only the Honduran congress can do this. 

You would think this might have a bit of bearing on the story, wouldn't you?  But Reuters, in its infinite wisdom, decided to leave that untidy little part out and leave its readers with the impression that zelaya's ouster was unrelated to that fact that he was overtly ignoring the laws of his country.

Of course Reuters did try to cover itself - five paragraphs later - by noting that "the ouster was "approved by the supreme court and congress...". 

But that is a lie.  zelaya's ouster wasn't approved by the supreme court, it was ordered by the supreme court.  And the reason there is no "military strongman" in the picture is that the military did not take over - it did nothing other than what it was instructed to do by the highest legal authority in the country.  That's another little tidbit Reuters decided not to bother with.

Nice going, guys.  zelaya, and his mentor, hugo chavez, must be very appreciative.

One other thing:  I left in the part about the US trying to put a positive spin on the negotiations, but (OAS chief Jose Miguel) Insulza was "more sanguine" about it, saying that it was impossible to stay calm and that Honduras was under military dictatorship.

Er, the word "sanguine" means cheerfully optimistic.  What Insulza said was the polar opposite of sanguine.

But I guess that's ok.  After all, Reuters' usage of the word "sanguine" is just about as accurate as the rest of the story.


CHAVEZING THE UNITED STATES (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

Once again I am in the disheartening position of having to compliment Jake Tapper of ABC News for doing nothing other than reporting a news story. 

The reason  - both for the compliment itself and why it is so disheartening - is that, in its continuing climate of unconditional obeisance to Barack Obama, most mainstream media have not reported it at all.

The story concerns Gerald Walpin.  Readers of this blog have seen my previous commentary about Mr. Walpin, who apparently was fired as Inspector General because he did his job so well that a corrupt Obama supporter had to admit wrongdoing and give back a lot of money.  We can't have that, can we?

Mr. Tapper has the details for us.  Here they are (the bold print is sometimes Tapper's, sometimes mine):

Inspector General Fired by President Obama Files Lawsuit to Be Reinstated*

July 19, 2009 12:01 PM

Gerald Walpin, the former Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service whom President Obama took the unusual step of firing last month, filed a lawsuit against the CNCS on Friday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

The suit seeks to force "to reinstate Mr. Walpin as the Inspector General and to declare unlawful and ineffective the efforts to date to terminate him from his office." In addition, the suit seeks that Walpin be awarded "costs and legal fees associated with this action" as well as any "further relief as may be appropriate in this matter."

White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest told ABC News that the Obama administration "complied fully with the Inspector General Reform Act. The bipartisan leadership of the Senate committee that oversees IG's agrees. We strongly believe these claims are without merit and will be rejected by the courts."

Earnest was referring to a June 19 letter from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., ranking GOPer Susan Collins, R-Me., and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., saying that based on information the White House provided "we believe you have met the letter and spirit of the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 with respect to congressional notifications of removal or transfer."

Walpin is expected to issue an official statement about the lawsuit on Monday.

The suit alleges that on or about June 10, Walpin "was unlawfully removed and transferred from his position as Inspector General precisely because he had performed his duties in an effective manner, supporting his career staff in their objective findings of wrongdoing, based on their audits and investigations, the truth of which those who sought to remove him did not want published."

The suit takes particular issue with the White House assertion that at one board meeting Walpin "was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve."

The suit, filed by attorneys from Greenburg Traurig LLP, asserts that Walpin suffered and continues to suffer "very real reputational, vocation and economic injuries from the obvious loss of his post and the associated income and health insurance, to having his mental faculties questioned with not-so-subtle, and completely unfounded, suggestions of senility."

The lawsuit says that "(w)hile not the object of the instant pleading, it is plain that without the relief sought by this complaint the conduct at issue raises serious questions of age discrimination, retaliation against whistleblowers and defamation."

Walpin's lawsuit says the action taken by President Obama not only harmed Walpin personally but also the integrity of the Inspector General system.

**

As we've covered, on June 11 President Obama fired Walpin, who had been criticized for his handling of an investigation into the use of AmeriCorps funds by a community group called St. HOPE Academy, founded by Kevin Johnson, former point guard of the Phoenix Suns, who was elected Mayor of Sacramento last November and is an ally of the presidents.

In April of this year, St. HOPE Academy agreed to pay a $423,836.50 settlement -- $72,836.50 of which would be paid personally by Mayor Johnson.

But Walpin didn't approve of the settlement, or the way it was handled, and said he was "proud"  that he and the Inspector General's office "refused to go along with the U.S. Attorneys office and the Corporation in bowing to the media and political pressure that resulted in this hasty settlement, contrary to the interests of the United States Government."

In a June 11 letter from President Obama to congressional leaders, the president said he no longer had the fullest confidence in Walpin as Inspector General.

A subsequent letter from White House counsel Greg Craig noted that Walpins termination is fully supported by the Chair of the Corporation (a Democrat) and the Vice-Chair (a Republican)" and said that Lawrence Brown, the Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administration, has referred Mr. Walpins conduct for review by the Integrity Committee of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.

In that April 29 letter from Brown to Kenneth Kaiser, chair of the Integrity Committee for the Counsel of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, the Acting US Attorney wrote "to express my Office's concerns about the conduct" of Walpin in the handling of the Johnson case, complaining that "Walpin viewed his role as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier."

Walpin pleaded for his job when White House attorney Norm Eisen called him to notify him of the decision.

Some in Congress took issue with the way Walpin was fired, which appeared to them to not comply with the rules laid out in the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, which was co-sponsored by then-Sen. Obama.

The author of that bill, key Obama ally Sen. McCaskill initially said that the "White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the  [CNCS]. The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give reason for the removal. 'Loss of confidence' is not a sufficient reason." The law requires that 30 days' notice be given to Congress before an Inspector General is fired.

McCaskill later backed off her opposition, though Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, demanded more answers.

Walpin's lawsuit asserts that "no investigation was made into the facts alleged as the basis for Mr. Walpin's termination" and the White House made no attempt to interview him or any of his colleagues in his office. Moreover, the suit asserts, the Integrity Committee of the Counsel of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency was" not provided an opportunity to review the matter before the precipitous termination," contrary to the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008.

The suit also identifies as defendants CNCS acting chief executive officer Nicola Goren, chief human capital officer Raymond Limon, and general counsel Frank Trinity.

- jpt

* This post was updated with the White House response.

Picture a country in which the President's supporters are off-limits to charges of corruption, and very especially corruption that is undeniably true and has to be redressed.  The investigators are free to investigate -- but they better know that if they actually do their job in a way that embarrasses the President, they are going to pay for it and fast.

Which country did I just describe?  Venezuela or the United States?

Sadly (more sadly than I can articulate) it is getting harder and harder to tell.


JOE KLEIN: OVER THE DEEP END

Ken Berwitz

I used to have a lot of respect for Joe Klein.  That, however, was before he went over the leftward deep end.

In terms of literary quality, Klein still can write well - certainly better than I can.  But now that his thought process is mired somewhere between moveon.org and code pink, what he writes has become appalling.

Here is his latest nut-jobistic view of things, courtesy of Ken Shepherd at www.newsbusters.org:

Impediment to Progess' in Mideast Peace

 

By Ken Shepherd July 20, 2009 - 18:20 ET

 

So what's the biggest obstacle to Mideast peace? Hamas terrorists who refuse to accept Israel has a right to exist? Perhaps the Iranian government that finances anti-Israel terror operations? Neither, according to Time's Joe Klein (shown at right in file photo), who insists in a July 20 Swampland blog post the fault lies with Israel:

 

Benjamin Netanyahu's phony flexibility on a two-state solution was always transparent--and it's now becoming apparent that Israel is the prime impediment to progress in the Middle East. Over the weekend, the State Department asked Israel's Ambassador Michael Oren to convey U.S. displeasure over continued Israeli settlement expansion in Jerusalem, which Netanyahu rejected out of hand.

 

Although Netanyahu and his coalition government won their February election -- some three months after Obama won his and just weeks after his inauguration-- fair and square, Klein makes clear he has no use for the will of the Israeli people and the decisions of their duly-elected government if and when they peeve the Obama administration:

 

It's time for Netanyahu--who recently called David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel "self-hating Jews"--to recognize that the Bush neoconservative-evangelical alliance is gone. It's time for him to adjust to the new diplomatic reality.

 

To Klein, the slogan, "elections have consequences," doesn't apply to Israel, which has a freer and fairer election process and a freer and more open society than say the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

 

Also of note in Klein's blog post is his insistence that Palestinians have a non-debatable claim on Jerusalem as the capital of a future sovereign state of Palestine:

 

The notion that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel seems to me right and fair. But it is also the capital of Palestine. The Likudnik notion that Israel has the exclusive rights to a united Jerusalem seems as foolish as the Palestinian notion that those who were displaced in 1948 still have a right to return to their old properties in Israel.

 

Of course that's a ludicrous comparison. A future Palestine can just as easily administer itself from Ramallah -- where the present Palestinian Authority now retains its administrative capital -- and any final peace accord could require Israel to allow Palestinians access to Islamic holy sites within Jerusalem proper. What's more, given the history of civilian-targeted suicide bombings, aren't there legitimate security concerns to be posed by re-dividing the capital city?

 

There most certainly may be, but they are too "foolish" to merit the consideration of infinitely wise Mideast peace expert Joe Klein.

Joe Klein reminds me of a former major league pitcher named La Marr Hoyt.  After 4 years in the major leagues (not counting his first year, which consisted of just two appearances and no decisions), Hoyt had a superb record of 61 wins and just 31 losses.  He led the league in wins for two of those years and won a Cy Young award (given to the best pitcher of the year). 

But Hoyt had a bit of a problem.  Drugs. 

Over the next three years he was 37-37, including an 8-11 record in the third season.  The only thing he led the league in was drug arrests (three, including a 45 day jail stretch).  And that was the end of him - washed up at just 31 years of age.

Joe Klein, for a good number of years, was a truly excellent, insightful writer.  But his "drug" has turned out to an unyielding adherence to the hard left which, in recent years, has completely overtaken him.  You don't have to read Joe Klein any more to know what he thinks.  Just pick an issue, think about what a mind-numbed hard leftist would write, and you've got it.

And, in keeping with his current political turf, Klein is now reduced to blaming Israel's ongoing attempts to survive as being an impediment to peace. 

What peace, Joe?  The peace that exists between the factions among Palestinian Arabs, when they aren't busy killing Jews? 

La Marr and Joe.  When they go, baby, they go fast.


BARBARA BOXER'S RACIAL PANDERING

Ken Berwitz

Thank you Harry Alford.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Here, from www.freedomslighthouse.com, is the video of Mr. Alford's 100% justifiable anger at the obvious racial pandering from Barbara Boxer, California's sub-flyweight senator.  To see the video just click here):

Here is explosive video of the CEO of the Black Chamber of Commerce in a fiery exchange with California Sen. Barbara Boxer. Black Chamber of Commerce, President and CEO Harry Alford accused Senator Boxer (D-CA) of playing race politics during an EPW Committee hearing on green jobs. He accused her of using "condescending" racial remarks because she tried to counter his testimony by using quotes from several "black" organizations and individuals such as the NAACP. Alford was upset because he wanted his testimony to stand on the merits of the evidence and not be countered by Boxer thinking his testimony could be dismissed by just quoting other "black" organizations with a different view.

Good for Alford! For once, someone actually called a Democrat on what they love to do. Boxer was using racial politics here as so many Democrats have done for years. This time - it backfired big time!

Boxer's offensive, racist (that's right - racist) pandering was disgusting.  What it told Mr. Alford - and any other person regardless of color, who cared to know - is that she doesn't see him as a man, she sees him as a Black man.  She pigeonholes him by his race.

It's bad enough that some people have made a living off of this kind of pig slop (al sharpton immediately comes to mind, but he's not the only one nor are they all Black).  Do we really need a US Senator doing it as well?  Even if it is one as useless as Barbara Boxer?


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!!