Sunday, 26 July 2009


Ken Berwitz

Noel Sheppard of details how even usually reliable Obama-supporting venues like the Washington Post cannot play ball with him on the proposed health care legislation:

WaPo Shocker: President Is Hiding Costs of Obamacare

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
July 26, 2009 - 14:45 ET


What was a terrible week for Barack Obama likely worsened Sunday when the Washington Post editorial board accused the President of withholding from the public the true costs of the healthcare reform he so eagerly seeks.

Makes one wonder if the White House will view the Post's criticisms much as former President Lyndon Johnson did Walter Cronkite's 1968 declaration that the Vietnam War was a stalement.


With as much as Obama has on the line with this agenda item, these words from the Post have to hurt (h/t Jake Tapper):


PRESIDENT OBAMA sometimes presents health-care reform as a pain-free proposition, as simple as choosing the red pill over the blue -- one that's no more effective but costs twice as much...This all-gain-no-pain stance may be politically advisable; people are increasingly edgy about how reform will affect their own health care. A new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that that the percentage of those who believe they will be worse off if reform passes (21 percent) has doubled since February.


But Mr. Obama's soothing bedside manner masks the reality that getting health costs under control will require making difficult choices about what procedures and medications to cover. It will require saying no, or having the patient pay more, at times when the extra expense is not justified by the marginal improvement in care. Mr. Obama is right that sticking with the status quo is a bad alternative, but he isn't leveling about the consequences of change.


Checking that link right now to make sure this really was a Washington Post editorial? I quite understand...but it gets better:


Take Mr. Obama's red pill-blue pill example. What if the pricey blue pill is actually better than the cheaper red one? What if it's better but just a little bit? What happens when a yellow pill comes along, costing twice as much as the blue? What happens if there's a new procedure that cures the ailment, but at an even bigger cost? [...]     

The fundamental driver of health-care inflation is technological innovation. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that new technology accounts for about half the increase in health-care costs over the past several decades.


This is, for the most part, a good thing. Adjusted for inflation, health-care spending per person is six times what it was 40 years ago. But no one today would settle for 1960s-style medicine. Treating patients with heart disease was inexpensive then, because there wasn't a great way to detect problems before a heart attack and not much to do afterward. Today, angiograms can diagnose blockages. Bypasses and angioplasty can fix them. Drugs such as beta blockers can prevent repeat heart attacks. So spending for coronary care has soared, along with survival rates. Some medical innovations can save money, but the general arc has been better treatment -- at higher costs.


Exactly, and this is what folks on the left and most of their media minions don't get.


Of course healthcare costs have dramatically increased in the last 40 years as have health insurance premiums. But what do you get for the extra expense now?


There's a reason why the fastest growing segment of our population is over the age of 80: medical advances are making us all live longer.


But that comes with a price, a cost most are willing to accept, for nothing is more valuable than health and well-being. The Post addressed this seemingly obvious concept:


As CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified in February, "Given the central role of medical technology in cost growth, reducing or slowing spending over the long term would probably require decreasing the pace of adopting new treatments and procedures or limiting the breadth of their application."


In other words, you can't always get what you want -- at least not if you want costs to be lower. This would require an enormous change from current practice, particularly in Medicare, which under existing rules covers all treatments with net medical benefits, regardless of cost. Private insurers, certainly, have much more leeway in making coverage determinations, but the backlash from the managed-care experience of the 1990s and pressure to follow Medicare policies restricts insurers' willingness to limit coverage.


The current system is untenable and getting worse, with employers dropping insurance and premiums rising for those who still have it. Reform is essential. But Mr. Obama does the public a disservice by acting as if it will not require anything from them in return.



The Democratic Party controls the Presidency and has enormous majorities in both houses of congress.  Therefore Obamacare of one kind or another will almost certainly pass the congress and be enacted into law in some form. 

But it is becoming clearer and clearer that it won't be in the form presently being proosed, or anything close.  And it won't be done before anyone has time to read the legislation and think about it - the way the disastrous "stimulus package" sailed through.

Bad news for Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of those who demand that we commit ourselves first, and know what we're commiting to later. 

Good news for us.


Ken Berwitz

In case there was any doubt in your mind about what Obamacare is all about......

From Sher Zieve writing for (bold print is mine).

Dems Ensure Illegal Aliens Included in ObamaCare and Other Atrocities

By Sher Zieve  Friday, July 24, 2009


The Heller Amendmentwhich would have removed from ObamaCare those who have entered and are living in the USA illegallyhas been defeated 26-15 (along straight Party lines) by the Democrat controlled House Ways and Means Committee.  So, along with all of their other break-the-bank-and-everything-else programs, our Usurper and Dictator in Chief Obama and his Democrat minions are demanding that we US citizens pay for illegals.  Note:  Another interesting datum included in the Socio-fascist ObamaCare package is that US citizens wanting to keep their current health insurance will be fined approximately $2,500/year.  But, Obamas illegals will NOT be penalized a penny.


Other atrocities associated with ObamaCare are rationing of medical services and a push towards no-more-health-care-for-you euthanasia (deceptively referred to as Advance Care Planning) for those Obama considers elderly.  End of life counselingevery five years until they finally die due to lack of provided health servicesfor said elderly (ostensibly once one is in his or her 60s) will also be mandatory.  Note:  One wonders if said euthanasia will also soon extend to his growing political enemies list.  And to ensure against discrimination, the beginnings of life are also covered under ObamaLifeSnuffOut.  We will be forced to pay for abortions under ObamaCare.


By design, ObamaCare is also racist.  Two of the myriad agencies the patients must maneuver through are the Office of Civil Rights and Office of Minority Health. Presumably, if one is not an ObamaMinority, one will not receive as suitable health care as do Obamas select.  Note:  These days Obama continues to light the fires of racism wherever he seems to go.  As witnessed with his ill-advised (dare I say stupid?) comments regarding the Cambridge Police Department, perhaps Obama just cant help himself.  And this is the man acting as POTUSthe one who still refuses to produce a true and viable birth certificate?  Scary stuff.


There is so much anti-Health legislation contained in ObamaCares 1018 pages (see link below) that it would be impossible to list them all here.  But, some of them that Robert Wenzel and Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) discovered include:


Government (by ObamaThugs) auditing of the books and fining of businesses who opt to continue private health care


The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your healthcare Benefits for you. You have no choice!


Government will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Health card will be issued


Government rationing of healthcare


No company can sue the government on price fixing. No judicial review against Govt monopoly


An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the Government public plan

Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor will be affected.  Note:  One wonders if only Obamas non-minority seniors, low income and poor folks will be penalized


There are thousands more appalling examples of tyrannical control of We-the-People contained in the ObamaCare plan.  Coupled with the ObamaCon Cap n Tax, Obamas control of US citizens, their finances and all of their actions will be complete.  The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has already said that the unsustainable costs of this latest Obama-Folly do not match Obamas and Pelosis promises.  In other words, Obama and Pelosi continue to lieand lieand lie. 


In a few short months (it actually only feels like a lifetime) Obama has almostagain by designbankrupted the country.  ObamaCare and his Cap n Con n Tax should complete his job of destroying the country and the American people.  ObamaCarealonewill drive the tax rate to at least 50% and upward paid to the governmentthat means Obama and his adherents.  And please do not forget that Obama, his family and friends, all three branches of government and government employees are NOT subject to ObamaCare.  These are the political elite who are not subject to oppressions of the more common folk. Congress, alone, will maintain their premium choice of twelve (thats 12 folks) private health care plans.

This is why Mr. Obama is getting all kinds of flak from the so-called "blue dog Democrats - people who, unlike him, risk losing their congressional seats next year.

It is also one of the key reasons - maybe the single biggest reason - his poll numbers have fallen through a trap door over the past two months.

But the hard-left wing of his party still pushes to vote this ugly, discriminatory, unfair bill through before the summer recess.  And, blue-dog Democrats notwithstanding, they very well may have enough votes to do so.

We deserve this, folks.  We elected what amounts to one-party government and that is what we got.

The 2010 elections cannot come soon enough.


Ken Berwitz

Having been part of a major racial firestorm for the better (worse?) part of a week, Henry Louis Gates is now calling for (begging for) us to "move on". 

I can't speak for Mr. Gates' motives in suddenly trying to make this all go away, but I can't help thinking it might have something to do with the fact that, with all this attention on him,  people are taking a look at the man himself. 

And, in doing so, facts about his so-called charity, The Inkwell Foundation, are starting to come out.

What's that? You don't know what I'm talking about?  Ok, here are key excerpts from a terrific, detailed piece on this "charity" from .  Prepare to be appalled:

A Gatesgate At Henry Gates' "Bogus" Charity?

Henry Louis Gates, Jr controls a tax-exempt, non-profit charity, Inkwell Foundation, Inc, that managed to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct support in one year, yet only gave out $27,500 in grants, the bulk of which went to Gates' employees and Harvard colleagues. Also, as recently as September 2008, the Boston Globe reported that Gates' charity was not in compliance with the law for failing to register the proper paperwork, despite the charity existing since 2005. The charge at the time was that it was "bogus," as you'll see below. In fact, the state Attorney General's office told the Globe the charity was likely either inactive, or dissolved. Yet, documents below show the charity is healthy, wealthy and active.

Is it possible that Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was acting strange when law enforcement showed up at his door because he didn't want the story below to come out? It may take a tax lawyer to answer that question, but based on this research, it can't be ruled out. We know the press has questioned Gates about the charity in the past and gotten no response.

Scroll all the way to the bottom at this link for the actual documents, including the real estate information. Gates uses Harvard (12 Quincy St.) as his home address on the charity paperwork, as opposed to the same one as his charity, which is where he actually lives and was at when the recent police incident took place. It would seem to be incorrect. A wiki has this Inkwell below as it's center item and reports that a Globe reporter has accused it of being a "bogus" charity. That story also below.

Corporate Filing

Business Information
Filing Number: 000908494
Name Type: LEGAL
principal corporate address: 17 WARE ST
Reference Number: 000908494
Status: ACTIVE
Place Incorporated: MASSACHUSETTS
Date Incorporated: 10/27/2005
For Profit: YES
Additional Information: Annual Report Required: YES

Officers - As Of - 07/14/2009
Name   Standardized Address Original Address
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138-3804 12 QUINCY ST.

In September of 2008, the Boston Globe did an item (see second short item in story linked here - also in full below) claiming Professor Gates' charity was not in compliance with the law at that time, in essence suggesting it was phony.

In 2005, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., known to all as "Skip," set up the nonprofit Inkwell Foundation, named after a famous beach/gathering place for African-Americans on Martha's Vineyard. Skip talked about the foundation in a recent interview with Martha's Vineyard magazine and touted it when he launched his for-profit business,, last year. "The precedent-setting site is the only company in the field of genetic genealogy that will provide African Americans with family tree research in addition to DNA testing," its initial press release declared, adding that "a percentage of all profits will be donated to the Inkwell Foundation, dedicated to reforming the teaching of science and history in inner city schools using genetic and genealogical ancestry tracing."

Public records indicate that the charity, domiciled in Gates's Cambridge home, has been dormant since its inception. Jill Butterworth, a spokeswoman for the state Attorney General's Office, says Inkwell has never filed the required, annual form PC, for public charities. "They are currently not in compliance," Butterworth said. "It's possible they are inactive or have dissolved. We are checking into it." Gates declined to comment.

According to this 20 page pdf (h/t Joseph Culligan of Web of Deception) - which seems to be the public and open for inspection 2007 tax return for Inkwell Foundation, Inc. Given the 2007 return date and 2008 Globe story date, the return seems to be from during the same time period for which the charity wasn't properly registered. 

Gates was unable to complete the form, requesting an extension. This does not mean he hasn't since filed the missing form PC paperwork cited above. But evidently it wasn't filed when the charity began - and for at least three years, thus including the year of the tax filing, it would seem.

In records, it claims to own $14,625 worth of artwork and historical objects - see page 4 of pdf linked above.

But there's still more I discovered down below. Excerpt from page 21:


On page one line 1e, the document declares the charity received $205,400 in direct support, but declares only $27,600 in total expenditures for program services. Twenty-seven-five-hundred dollars went out in contracts to 23 individuals. See page 3 for that total. The charity claims to hold assets of $177,943 from direct contributions it seemingly hadn't spent at time of filing - see page 4. That's a shame, given its charge.


I urge you to click on the link I've provided and read riehl's entire piece.

Maybe, just maybe, this is why Henry Louis Gates wants to be out of the spotlight.  Maybe, just maybe, he doesn't like where it is about to shine.

Heck, this could become so widespread across the blogosphere, that even our wonderful "neutral" media (other than a couple of in-passing articles by the Boston Globe) will be forced, kicking and screaming, to talk about it.

I end by preemptively apologizing for being a racist.  Not that anything I've said here qualifies in that regard, but since I have been called a racist for daring to question Barack Obama's eligibility to be President, I don't doubt I will be called a racist for looking at Henry Louis Gates' Inkwell Foundation. 

What a world........


Ken Berwitz

Here is a Reuters report on the situation in Honduras, from the perspective of hugo chavez.  See what you think of it:

Venezuela's Chavez blasts U.S., allies on Honduras

Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:53pm EDT


Chavez says U.S. stalling return of deposed Honduran

* He says U.S. wants de facto government to win election

CARACAS, July 25 (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday the United States wanted Honduras' de facto government to consolidate power and win upcoming elections but that he would recognize only the government deposed in a coup last month.

Chavez, a socialist anti-U.S. firebrand, said the United States and its regional allies were stalling the return of deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, his ally.

"What they are trying to do is freeze the battle until the election in November, when the coup (leaders) will wash their hands," Chavez told the national assembly in the capital, Caracas.

"Any government that comes out of that coup, that comes out of elections even, we will never recognize it as the government of Honduras," Chavez said.

The United States, the United Nations and Latin American presidents have roundly condemned Zelaya's forced removal from power on June 28 and demand he be reinstated.

But Chavez said a mediation process by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias had been a trap and that the de facto government should not have been given recognition by inviting it to the negotiating table.

"What the government of the United States and its allies want is simply for the coup (leaders) to consolidate themselves and be recognized, if not by law, then de facto," Chavez told legislators.

Zelaya, a timber magnate known for his trademark cowboy hat, had angered the traditionally conservative ruling elite and business interests in Honduras by allying himself with Chavez.

The interim government of Roberto Micheletti insists Zelaya was acting illegally by trying to extend term limits and his removal was in accordance with Honduran law. It accuses Chavez of instigating violence in Honduras.

Chavez applauded Zelaya for taking a symbolic step inside Honduran territory on Friday and ridiculed U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for saying the move was reckless. (Reporting by Raymond Colitt; Editing by Eric Beech)

How interesting.  What did we find out here?

-hugo chavez is whining that the United States is some kind of a villain here.  Poor baby. 

-Zelaya was ousted in a coup, instead of being removed legally, by order of Honduras' supreme court (which is exactly what did happen);

-The point of contention is that "the interim government insists" Zelaya was acting illegally by trying to extend term limits.  That's it?  What about the fact that Zelaya intentionally used the military to force an illegal referendum on the people and become a dictator in perpetuity - which is why the supreme court ruled that, according to the country's laws, he had to be removed from office?  How did they miss that?

This, folks, is how Reuters "covers" the Honduran story.  Do you feel more informed?

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!!