Wednesday, 05 August 2009


Ken Berwitz

In the past several days, Democratic politicians who held town meetings around the country were bombarded with outraged voters demanding that the Obama health care proposals be dramatically changed or dropped altogether.

Predictably, this did not sit well with the hardball artists Mr. Obama has around him.  They started attacking the people who were complaining about Obamacare, calling it an organized effort.

Personally, I have no doubt some of it was organized (and some of it was individual voters, though I don't know the relative percentages). 

So what?  Isn't that what Democratic groups have been doing for time immemorial?  When you see those protests, in which virtually every sign is professionally made and says the same thing, is that a bunch of random voters? 

Is the presence of organized groups at political meetings some kind of one-way street? It is ok for Democrats and no one else?  Isn't that what Barack Obama himself was?  A community organizer? 


In any event, having whined and moaned about organized groups being part of the health care dissatisfaction, a web site with the appropriate name has come across material which has just gone out from the Obama people, under the rubric of  "Organizing America".  Here it is:

--- On Wed, 8/5/09, Organizing for America <> wrote:

From: Organizing for America <>
Subject: Thanks! Can you bring a friend?
Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 3:49 PM

(Name Withheld) --

Thanks for answering the President's call and committing to attend a local event this month to build support for insurance reform. We'll be in touch very soon with more details for what you can do in your area.

Volunteering is more fun -- and more effective -- when you bring a friend.

Can you get one more person to match your commitment to come to a local event?

There's a quick sample note below that you can send to family and friends asking them to join you. Hearing from you is the most powerful way to get friends and family members to take action -- so we're really counting on you to help spread the word.

Thanks again for all that you do,


With Congress home on recess, August is a pivotal month in the fight for real health insurance reform. I just committed to go to at least one Organizing for America event this month to build support in our community, and show Congress where we stand. Can you commit to attending one event this month as well?
There's a lot of misinformation out there, and people are not surprisingly starting to get pretty nervous. There will be lots of different things we can do this month to fight back, and it's really important that we do what we can.
You can sign up here:

Did you catch that email address.  This is straight from the Obama people.  The same ones complaining that OTHERS organize attendance at political events.

If you like hypocrisy, folks, take a good look.  Because you are witnessing the mother lode.


Ken Berwitz

Let me start by saying I am thrilled that Euna Lee and Laura Ling, the two female reporters detained, "tried" and sentenced to 12 years' hard labor in North Korea, have been freed and are out of the country.  That will not change regardless of how I feel about the circumstances regarding their release.

Now, what about those circumstances?

I watched the Today show this morning, and was fascinated by the obvious dishonesty. 

-First we had an NBC report assuring us that their release was due to months and months of behind-the-scenes negotiations between the US and North Korean governments. 

-Then we had Andrea Mitchell, prior to her interview with Hillary Clinton, telling us that "Secretary Clinton and her staff were deeply involved in the negotiations..."

- And then, during the interview, we had Secretary of State Clinton telling us that "I want to be sure people don't confuse what Bill did which was a private humanitarian mission to bring these young women home with our policy, which continues to be one that gives choices to North Korea they can continue on the path they are on or perhaps they will now be willing to start talking to us...."  

In other words, according to the cabinet member Andrea Mitchell just told us was deeply involved in their release, no governmental involvement took place.  It was just a case of former President Clinton finessing kim il jong by flashing his pearly whites for a few hours.

You would have to be a spud to believe this.  A human potato.

As is 100% clear, you are overtly being lied to.  And when you are overtly lied to this way, you have to - have to - know there was more given to North Korea than a photo op.

So as thrilled as I am to see Ms. Lee and Ms. Ling out of that dehumanizing hellhole called North Korea, I will reserve judgment on the way it was done, until I find out what that way actually was.



Ken Berwitz

Mark Karlin runs the hard-left web site  

Orly Taitz is a California dentist and lawyer (or so I'm told) who claims Barack Obama is not a natural citizen of the United States, thus constitutionally ineligible to be President.

Mr. Karlin has written an editorial about Ms. Taitz, which I thought you might want to see.  I'm posting it below, and giving you some thoughts of my own afterwards:

Isn't It Ironic Orly Taitz, "Birther" Leader, is Foreign Born and Raised Making Lunatic Claim Obama Wasn't Born in U.S.?

By Mark Karlin

The Big Corporate Media is giving the "Birthers" a second wind of publicity, when they should have been confined to the loony bin after their first wave of press coverage.

That is in large part due to two realities: 1) The Big Corporate Media that runs television covers the lunatic fringe right as though they have a legitimate role in news, while ignoring meaningful ideas from progressives that stray from the self-defined "center" (which is any idea that won't upset entrenched wealth and power) and ; 2) the media loves, as Chris Hedges calls it in his brilliant new book on the topic, "spectacle."

In a society that no longer can distinguish between entertainment, fact, celebritydoom, and politics, "spectacle" boosts ratings. 

One of the best articles written on the ubiquitous, disputatatious face of the birther movement, Orly Taitz, is in the Orange County Weekly News, where she practices dentistry (when not threatening legal action using a law degree that she received over the Internet).

The article offers a full picture of Taitz's peculiar and factually unfounded crusade, but the most telling quote may be from a blogger who critically keeps track of her largely theatrical activity (no court has upheld any of her legal challenges, or of her rivals for the birther mantle, including attorney Philip Berg -- her nemesis in the movement):

Patrick McKinnion of Yes to Democracy puts it a different way: Theres a certain amount of fascination with unbridled insanity, and thats what youre seeing with the birthers: a level of hatred that borders, if not absolutely pole-vaults, into insanity.

In a sidebar article in the Orange County Weekly News on Taitz (in which we learn that she claims to have a black belt in Taekwondo), McKinnion comments:

Good article. The sad part is that people like Dr. Orly are so blinded by their hatred that they're not seeing the things around them - or who they're associating with.

The day after I was interviewed for this piece, a gunman who turned out to be a Neo-Nazi shot two guards and killed one at the National Holocaust Museum. Turns out he was posting the same claims and demands that Dr. Orly posts. She's freely associating with people fully willing to hate her simply due to her faith, and that's pretty sad. (One birther in particular, Andy Martin, is a known anti-semite)

The major flaw with the entire birther cause is that there is not a single piece of credible evidence that supports any of their claims. No Pakistan travel ban. No way for a US minor citizen to give up their US citizenship. No credible proof of forgery (just the writings of faceless, nameless internet "experts". A full recording with Sarah Obama that she says clearly "born in Hawaii". Not a single piece of evidence to back up any of their claims. Instead they demand you take it all on faith - and proclaim any evidence to the contrary to be part of the "conspiracy".

And the people involved are just as questionable as the evidence. A dentist [Taitz] with a law degree from an on-line unaccredited law school.

But one of the biggest ironies in this tragic farce of a television media -- particularly cable -- that diverts attention from real issues with coverage of such a psychotic "movement," is that Orly Taitz is herself not born in the U.S.  She was raised in Moldavia, during the Soviet Era, was allowed to emigrate to Israel (where she met her husband), and in turn they moved to the U.S. at a time when the government was allowing former Soviet Jews a large quota to immigrate and proceed on a citizenship track.

We saw the MSNBC interview the other night when Shuster and another reporter questioned Taitz, who was in a studio in Tel Aviv, with an aggressive grilling the likes of which I hadn't recalled seeing on corporate media, except on Hannity or Bill O'Reilly when they have a "liberal" rabbit in their sites.

Taitz, who has a heavy accent, kept trying to bully her way out of directly answering questions.  (It reminded me of debating an NRA true believer.) 

The birther movement is full of malcontents -- anti-Semites, skinheads, political malcontents, white firsters, and a radical right wing Jew -- in the case of Taitz, I speculate (as a Jew who knows the landscape of Israeli politics) -- who fears for Israel (in the Netanyahu paranoid style) under Obama.  The birthers are a group of psychos who would be shooting each other if they didn't share a common hatred of Obama and the fear of America becoming a nation where whites are in the minority and our foreign policy is to join as partners in the international community.

Only in America would corporate big media spend such extensive amounts of time covering a foreign-born and raised nutcase challenging the nationality of the president of the United States.

It is, as Christopher Hedges writes in his new book, "Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle,"  an age when corporate media values spectacle over the truth and a discussion


Here are some of my personal observations:

-The first thing Mark Karlin tells us, right in the title of his piece, is that Orly Taitz is foreign born.  So what?  Why is this even mentioned?  Is it supposed to be a reason to dismiss her position out of hand?  Does being foreign-born prevent someone from having a reasoned opinion?  Is Karlin a xenophobe?  Based on his title I'd have to say that it is a possibility;

-In his title and the first two paragraphs, Mr. Karlin uses the terms "lunatic" and loony" three times.  But nowhere in his piece does he offer evidence to back up this very nasty personal assault.  Yes, he provides a lot of sneering and insulting and condeming and attacking.  But the only basis I can find  for his use of those terms is that, in his view, Ms. Taitz does not provide credible evidence regarding President Obama's citizenship status.  If true, that would obviously delegitimize her claims.  But it doesn't make them loony per se.  And it doesn't make her a lunatic.  It makes her someone who says things without a sufficient reason - like Mark Karlin calling her a lunatic, for instance.

-Mr. Karlin quotes a blogger who says that people who question Barack Obama's eligibility are insane.  No reason is given - apparently if they question Mr. Obama's eligibility, they just are.

-He then references an article in the Orange County Weekly News (whatever that is) and concludes Ms. Taitz is "blinded by hatred".  As with the "insane" attack, no basis for this claim is provided.  Apparently if she questions Mr. Obama's eligibility, she just is.

-Karlin then points out that two known anti-Semites share Ms. Taitz's views about Barack Obama.  Personally, I agree with his characterization of both men.  But what does that have to do with Orly Taitz?  She has no control over who agrees with her on a given issue.  Illustratively, the Communist Party USA supported Barack Obama for the Presidency.  Does that mean Barack Obama is a communist? Does it mean Mark Karlin is a communist?

-There's more, including Karlin's gratuitous toss-in that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a paranoid, but if you don't get the idea by now it won't matter.

Look, I do not know if the claims regarding President Obama's eligibility are legitimate or not.  But I do know - and have said repeatedly - that when a man can spend five minutes and a tiny processing fee to provide his original birth certificate, but instead spends upwards of a million dollars on legal efforts to hide it, logic tells me there are things on that birth certificate he doesn't want us to see. 

And ditto regarding the reason he hides his college and pre-college transcripts, enrollment data, etc - documents that might reference his nationality and/or citizenship status.

These (along with several other) factors by no means prove Mr. Obama is ineligible.  But they give a reasonable person cause for doubt. 

What does that say about Mark Karlin?


Ken Berwitz

I had hoped the Michael Jackson circus sideshow finally ended.  But no such luck.

Here is the latest from Lachlan Cartwright, writing for the New York Post:

LOS ANGELES -- Michael Jackson's family has ordered yet another autopsy to be performed on the singer's drug-ravaged body in the hopes of coming up with evidence of "foul play" -- and a potential murder rap, sources told The Post yesterday.

Family matriarch Katherine Jackson is leading the charge, insistent that her son was intentionally slain -- and she wants somebody to pay for it, the sources said.

The LA County coroner has yet to rule formally on what killed Jackson on June 25.

But the family has been briefed by the coroner's investigators, who essentially agree with what the Jacksons' previous private autopsy discovered: that the King of Pop was a habitual user loaded with prescription drugs when he died. Without evidence of anything else, this would make murder charges highly unlikely, sources said.

Earth to the Jackson family:  Michael Jackson was a drug addict who found a corrupt doctor and paid him enough so that the corrupt doctor would prescribe the drugs he wanted.  He enough of them for a long enough time so that they killed him. 

So while it is true that he was murdered, his murderer was Michael Jackson.

Now please go away.  We're begging.


Ken Berwitz

This excerpt is drawn from L. Brent Bozell's latest column:

Darlene Haynes was only 23 years old when another woman brutally slashed her open and removed her eight-month-old baby girl from her womb. Her decomposing body was found on July 27, wrapped in a blanket and dumped in a closet inside her apartment in Worcester, Massachusetts. The body was so mutilated that when they found it, the police said they couldn't immediately determine its gender.


The suspected murderer, 35-year-old Julie Corey, lived in the same apartment building and was found soon after the crime in Plymouth, New Hampshire, claiming the baby was her own.


This heart-rending story is also notorious for how the "pro-choice" media sputter and struggle to deny the humanity of a baby, even as the child is slashed away and stolen by a psychopath. I would highly doubt Corey said to bewildered onlookers, "Look at my new fetus."


And yet journalists insult this motherless baby as merely a "fetus," this their dismissive blob-of-tissue word suggesting an unborn baby is subhuman until birth, no matter how many months along in the pregnancy, and no matter how physically able it is to survive outside the womb.


The word "fetus" isnt even synonymous with human, since dictionaries define it as describing any "developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate."


A blog called Verum Serum collected some headlines from media sites on the Internet as the story broke on July 30. The early headlines used "fetus," even though the baby had already been born in a violent way. Fox News started with "Pregnant Massachusetts Woman Killed, Fetus Taken." ABC News reported "Mom-to-Be Darlene Haynes Killed, Cops Search for Her Fetus." CNNs story was "Woman killed, fetus cut from body."


The same thing occurred in newspapers. The Boston Globes headline was "Authorities in Worcester seek killer in case of fetus cut from womb." The Boston Herald echoed: "Officials search hospitals for victims fetus."


Its one thing to insist that a "fetus" is an unborn baby. But once the "fetus" has been removed and survives what is the excuse for journalists to search for a "fetus" on the lam? This baby that first saw the light of day in such a foul and violent fashion deserved better than to be described merely a "fetus," with all the compassion you would offer a stolen lab rat.

Are media so afraid of pro-choice groups that they cannot refer to a live child as a live child, for fear of what those groups would say about them?

Why are they so fearful of simply calling the child a child?  Who gave these groups so much power that they could scare mainstream media into this kind of ludicrous self-censorship? (Later on in Bozell's column it is pointed out that - probably due to massive viewer reactions - the word "child" was used rather than "fetus".  But the fact remains that their first instinct was not to do so).

Who do we blame for this ridiculous situation?

Oh, wait.  Mainstream media did that.  Mainstream media were the ones who conferred the high ground to pro-choice people while treating pro-life people as kooks and religious fanatics.  They're to blame.  They did it to themselves.

Never mind.  


Ken Berwitz

Here is a piece written for Investors Business Daily by Republican house member Lamar Smith, about our wonderful "neutral" media's continuing love-fest with President Obama.

See what you think of it:

Six Months In, Media Still Do PR For Obama

By REP. LAMAR SMITH | Posted Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Mark Twain once said, "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." The latter might be true for those who rely on the national media for the facts.

After six months in office, the national media are still telling us how popular President Obama is. That's the national media's spin. The facts tell a different story. 

A USA Today-Gallup poll found that nine of the last 11 presidents were more popular than President Obama after six months in office. A Rasmussen poll found the president's approval rating below 50%, with more people strongly disapproving than strongly approving of the president. 

While the national media eagerly touted the president's approval rating when it was higher, most news outlets have ignored the president's recent slide.

The reason the president's approval numbers are sagging is that more and more Americans disagree with him on the issues.

According to the USA Today-Gallup poll, more people disapprove than approve of the way the president is handling the economy, taxes, health care and the federal budget deficit. And Americans have come to this conclusion despite the fact that the national media mostly have given the president a free pass on the issues. For example:

The national media seldom mention that the president's budget would double the national debt in five years and triple it in 10.

The media neglect to tell the American people that the president's cap-and-trade energy plan will cost families hundreds of dollars every year.

The media rarely hold the Obama administration accountable for job losses, even as unemployment hit 9.5% the highest rate in 26 years.

Most recently, the national media have failed to fairly present both sides of the health care debate. 

During a prime-time press conference last week, President Obama claimed his health care plan was "deficit neutral." The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office strongly disagrees, finding that the legislation would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. But not one reporter questioned the president about the CBO's findings. 

Also, the national media frequently report that there are 46 million people in America who don't have health insurance. The administration uses this figure to justify the president's health care plan. 

But the media rarely report that there are really only 10 million to 12 million uninsured, after you deduct those who are eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, who can afford health insurance and who are without health insurance for only a few months.

Some news outlets are blatantly one-sided in their coverage of health care. ABC News recently devoted an entire day of news programming to President Obama's health care agenda and refused to air ads critical of the administration's health care plan. 

ABC invited the president's longtime physician, David Scheiner, to participate in their prime-time town hall meeting at the White House. As it turns out, Dr. Scheiner disagrees with the president's health care plan. He said, "I'm not sure (President Obama) really understands what we face in primary care."

When ABC found that out, they suddenly disinvited Dr. Scheiner. It appears ABC stacked the audience to shield the president from criticism.

This type of one-sided coverage is contrary to the journalistic code of ethics, which states that a journalist's duty is to seek truth and provide a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

Fortunately, many Americans have seen through the media's one-sided coverage of the health care debate.

Even as President Obama and Democrats in Congress try to rush an expensive government takeover of health care through Congress, Americans say they don't agree with the president's plan. 

According to an ABC News-Washington Post poll, only 44% of Americans approve of the way President Obama is handling health care. At least four other national polls have found that fewer than half of Americans approve of the president on health care.

To their credit, some media outlets have covered the president's fading poll numbers and held the administration accountable. 

When the ABC News-Washington Post poll found that for the first time fewer than half of all Americans supported Obama's health care plan, the Washington Post put the poll results on its front page. After the president's press conference on health care, the Associated Press ran a fact-check article exposing some of his incorrect claims.

But these examples are far too scarce. In general, the national media have failed to report all the facts on the major issues facing Americans. Americans' approval of President Obama and his policies is waning, and the national media should take notice and report the news accurately.

Smith, a Republican representing Texas' 21st District, is chairman of the Congressional Media Fairness Caucus.



Ken Berwitz

President Obama intends to give a Presidential Medal of Freedom to mary robinson, the former President of Ireland, who then became the UN's "High Commissioner of Human Rights".

In that capacity robinson was nice enough to give us the Jew-hating festival held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001.  The one that virtually every country which believed in human rights boycotted (including the USA).

The next year, robinson made this statement about human rights in Islamic countries (and, no, I'm not making it up - she really said this):

No one can deny that at its core Islam is entirely consonant with the principles of fundamental human rights, including human dignity, tolerance, solidarity and quality. Numerous passages from the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad will testify to this. No one can deny, from a historic perspective, the revolutionary force that is Islam, which bestowed rights upon women and children long before similar recognition was afforded in other civilisations. Custom and tradition have tended to limit these rights, but as more Islamic States ratify the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, ways forward for women are being found and women are leading the debate. And no one can deny the acceptance of the universality of human rights by Islamic States.

What planet does this imbecile live on?  Fundamental human rights?  Where?  In Saudi Arabia?  Sudan?  Yemen?  Nigeria?  Somalia?  etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Reminding you again:  President Obama has decided to give mary robinson the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Don't ever forget that.

WHAT IF......

Ken Berwitz

Please read this beginning of a piece by Alex Isenstadt, from

Illinoiss 7th Congressional District has long been represented by a Caucasian-American, but theres now widespread worry in Chicagos white community that that could soon change. 

With Republican Rep. Danny Davis signaling hes ready to step down from the House after seven terms to run for president of the Cook County Board next year, theres a real possibility that a non-Caucasian-American candidate could win the seat. 

I think there is always that concern, said Richard Boykin, a former Davis chief of staff who is mentioned as a possible contender. Its a fear that a lot of people have. 

Theres great concern, said Tommie Simmons, a white community activist in Chicago

So, what do you think about that?  How does it make you feel? 

Do you doubt for a moment that these comments from Republicans are all over the news today?  Both local and national?  Do you doubt that the Black organizations and individuals who are respected by our media, are up in arms over these comments? 

What do you suppose they are saying?  Is there any doubt that Boykin and Simmons are being attacked with both barrels, complete with demands that they step down from their posts?

And is there any doubt that this is being offered up as proof of Republican and Caucasian racism?


Ok, so much for fantasyland.

Now I'll show you the actual start to that article:

Illinoiss 7th Congressional District has long been represented by an African-American, but theres now widespread worry in Chicagos black community that that could soon change. 

With Democratic Rep. Danny Davis signaling hes ready to step down from the House after seven terms to run for president of the Cook County Board next year, theres a real possibility that a non-African-American candidate could win the seat. 

I think there is always that concern, said Richard Boykin, a former Davis chief of staff who is mentioned as a possible contender. Its a fear that a lot of people have. 

Theres great concern, said Tommie Simmons, a black community activist in Chicago

So, what do you think about that?  How does it make you feel? 

Do you doubt for a moment that these comments from Democrats are all over the news today?  Both local and national?  Do you doubt that the Caucasian organizations and individuals who are respected by our media, are up in arms over these comments? 

What do you suppose the Caucasian organizations are saying?  Is there any doubt that Boykin and Simmons are being attacked with both barrels, complete with demands that they step down from their posts?

And is there any doubt that this is being offered up as proof of Democratic and Black racism?


Does it trouble you that the answer to every question in the first, phony version would be affirmative - along with a list of Black organizations and individuals (NAACP, congressional Black Caucus, al sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc) respected by our media as the voice of Black people?  I hope so.

But does it also trouble you that the answer to every question in the second, actual version would be negative - along with a realization that there is no such thing as Caucasian organizations and individuals respected by our media as the voice of White people?  I hope so just as much.

Racism is racism.  It is every bit as despicable when it emanates from Blacks as when it emanates from Whites. 

And media which accept Black racism, while being outraged by White racism, are a disgrace.


Ken Berwitz

Please read Jeffrey Lord's article about Obamacare and the public reaction to it, from today's New York Post.  Mr. Lord brings home the problem with this ill-begotten legislation in a particularly dramatic way:



POLITICS rarely gets more personal than this.

On Sunday, furious Philadelphians shouted down Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius at a health-care town-hall meeting.


The anger wasn't simply over the threat of ObamaCare. Both Specter and his colleague, Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr., have had to struggle with well-publicized health-care issues -- crises resolved by lifesaving treatments that simply wouldn't be available to average Americans under an Obama "public option."

In 1993, Specter, 63, was hurriedly operated on to remove a 2-inch growth, a benign meningioma (a slow-growing brain tumor) from inside his skull.

In 2005, he was diagnosed with an advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma. He lost his hair thanks to chemotherapy, then appeared to recover -- only to have the Hodgkin's reappear in 2008, albeit in a less advanced form. He underwent another round of chemo and is today running for re-election. (Though the anger over ObamaCare only makes his prospects more dicey.)

At the same time Specter's brain-tumor battle was announced in 1993, then-Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey, the father of today's senator, underwent surgery for Appalachian familiar amyloidosis, described as a genetic condition resulting in the destruction of bodily organs by proteins.

Headlines proclaimed the state on the verge of losing both its governor and senior senator. The state's lieutenant governor took the reins as Gov. Casey underwent a dramatic heart-liver transplant -- whose success allowed him to live another seven years.

The controversial core of ObamaCare is a so-called "public option" that critics insist would eventually wipe out the ability of average Americans to get the kind of care Specter and the senior Casey received. This already is being set up, with the establishment in the Obama stimulus bill (passed with votes from both Sens. Casey and Specter) of the ominous-sounding "Federal Coordinating Council for Effectiveness Research."

Modeled after European equivalents such as the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the council is supposed to assign a monetary value to your life. This is done through a "QALY" -- a "Quality-Adjusted Life-Year." In Britain, The Wall Street Journal reports, NICE refuses to pay more than $22,000 "to extend a life by six months."

In other words, had Obama's plan been in effect in 1993, given the QALY of the 63-year-old Arlen Specter and the 61-year-old Bob Casey Sr., and had they been private citizens on the Obama public-insurance plan, both might, literally, have been allowed to die.

In the world of government-rationed care, the board of bureaucrats would surely decide that scarce resources were better spent on, say, a 25-year-old woman with the same problems. She'd live longer, potentially have children and contribute to society. By 1993, both Specter and the senior Casey had been there and done that.

This was even more strikingly so 2005 and in 2008 as Specter, at 75 and 78, battled Hodgkin's.

Pennsylvanians are well aware that the Specter and Casey families have benefited directly from high-profile medical treatment that the Obama plan would deny to average folks. So the question for Sens. Specter and Casey is: Would they be willing to enroll themselves and their families in the public plan the president is pushing?

That last question, the one I put in bold print, is the key here.

Several days ago I put up a petition that demanded a very simple action by members of congress who will vote for Obamacare:  That they forgo their far more extensive congressional health care and take exactly what they are forcing on us instead.

Do you have any doubt what their answer will be?

They are hypocrites.  They are do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do frauds. 

But we deserve it, don't we?  The country elected a hard-left President and gave him lopsided majorities in both houses of congress.  And when you do that, you get this.  So if we get stuck with the failed health care of the UK and Canada (which Obama's people  are desperately trying to sell as superior to ours), we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.

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!!