Sunday, 06 September 2009


Ken Berwitz

Just in case you think van jones was the only one, we have this from the New York Daily News, via

Obamas Urban Czar Got Kickbacks?

September 5th, 2009

[Note: this is a reprise of an article we posted back on March 1, 2009. For it seems relevant to repost, with the current interest in some quarters about the curriculum vit of Mr. Obamas numerous czars.]

Some pretty impressive investigative journalism from (of all places) the New York Daily News:

Bronx Boro President Adolfo Carrion on the roof of the Bronx Courthouse with the old and the new Yankee Stadium behind him.

Buildings sprang up as donations rained down on Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion

By Benjamin Lesser and Greg B. Smith    
Sunday, March 1st 2009

The man who is President Obamas newly minted urban czar pocketed thousands of dollars in campaign cash from city developers whose projects he approved or funded with taxpayers money, a Daily News probe found.

Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion often received contributions just before or after he sponsored money for projects or approved important zoning changes, records show.

Most donations were organized and well-timed.

In one case, a developer became a Carrion fund-raiser two months before the borough president signed off on his project, raising more than $6,000 in campaign cash.

In another, eight Boricua College officials came up with $8,000 on the same day for Carrion three weeks before the school filed plans to build a new tower. Carrion ultimately approved the project and sponsored millions in taxpayer funds for it.

Carrion resigned as borough president effective Sunday and begins his new job as director of the White House Office on Urban Policy Monday

Heres a look at some of his donors:


One of Carrions largest donors and fund-raisers is Jose Velazquez, owner of Tri-Line Contracting Inc. of Manhattan. Between his employees and developers and other donors, he has raised $83,700 for Carrion.

Tri-Line is working at two of the biggest developments Carrion has championed, including the new Yankee Stadium.

Carrion signed off on it in 2005 with the caveat that the Yanks hire a big percentage of local contractors and workers. One of the contractors was Tri-Line, which is building a conference center and museum in the stadium.

Velazquez said he raised money for Carrion because he supported him as a fellow Hispanic and felt that "this is the guy to lead this city."


Tri-Line is also building a Staples store in a new mall a block from the stadium called Gateway at Bronx Terminal Market. Velazquez said he got the job through competitive bidding.

Developer Related Companies subsidiary, BTM Development Partners, needed Carrion and the city Planning Commission to change zoning, modify height restrictions and approve permits for parking spaces.

As the project moved forward, the neighborhood railed about increased traffic and the impact the chain stores would have on local businesses. All the while Related executives wrote campaign checks to Carrion.

On March 10, 2005, five $1,000 donations from Related executives arrived. On June 20, 2005, the company notified the city it planned to build a  1 million-square-foot retail center with 2,610 parking spaces and a 250-room hotel.

On Oct. 19, 2005, Carrion approved the project, with his office monitoring local hiring. Since 2003, Carrion has received $39,100 from 24 Gateway-related donations

The Daily News cites four more very similar instances of what certainly appears to be pay to play kickbacks involving Mr. Carrion.

If true, this is pretty blatant corruption even for a Democrat.

But, for some odd reason, this got very little attention from our watchdog media.

And, at least according to his entry at Wikipedia, Mr. Carrion has not lost his post as Mr. Obamas Urban Czar.

Indeed, it is not even clear whether Mr. Carrion is still under investigation or not.

So there seems to have been no consequences whatsoever for Mr. Carrions past activities. In other times, this would be outrageous.

But not, alas, in the age of Obama.

I'll say it again:  I want every one of the Obama "czars" suspended immediately, until there is a vetting process, so that we can know who they are - what their qualifications are, what their histories are and whether they are fit to be put in charge of our government.

Don't you?


Ken Berwitz

van johnson, President Obama's "green czar", has resigned.

johnson, as you probably know by now (mostly thanks to the blogosphere, not our wonderful "neutral media) is, among other things,  the self-described radical activist and communist, who signed a petition accusing the United States of orchestrating 9/11.

Significantly, jones has not been removed.  He has resigned of his own volition.  If he had not resigned he would still be one of President Obama's "czars".

Here, excerpted from the Associated Press article (which does its best to whitewash jones' despicable history by avoiding any specifics), is how he came to leave the administration:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's adviser Van Jones has resigned amid controversy over past inflammatory statements, the White House said early Sunday.


Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly "green jobs" with the White House Council on Environmental Quality was linked to efforts suggesting a government role in the 2001 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.


The resignation comes as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate.

Jones issued an apology on Thursday for his past statements. When asked the next day whether Obama still had confidence in him, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said only that Jones "continues to work in the administration."

Is that good enough for you?  It sure as hell isn't good enough for me.

Here is what I said about the jones selection just two days ago:

As a "czar", van jones was not put before a house or senate committee to be vetted.  No congressperson of either party had the chance to scrutinize his record and ask him questions.  He was just plunked there by the Chicago political machine now running the United States.

And he is far from the only "czar" who would never have made it through any legitimate vetting process.

First things first:  This US hating slimeball has to immediately be removed from office.  Kicking and screaming if necessary.

Next, every other "czar" has to be suspended until there is a vetting process and the people of the United States can find out who and what they are.

Then President Obama needs to stop preening and posturing and lecturing us long enough to explain how in God's name he could ever have appointed such a "man". 

We need to know what Mr. Obama thought he was getting in van jones.  Since jones' background was clearly out there to see, we need to know if Mr. Obama was so uncaring about who he appointed that he didn't bother to check, or whether he did check and thought jones was just fine and dandy..

The politicians,who still care about this country remaining a democracy, Republicans and Democrats alike, should be demanding these things in the strongest possible terms.  

Think about this:  how many of the 32 Obama-selected "czars" can you name?  I bet most people can't name more than one or two and many can't name even one, let alone their backgrounds and political stands.  What we do know is that they have been handed positions of immense power without any oversight - and are loyal to Barack Obama.  And we know that the bar was low enough to allow van jones to be one of them.

That sounds like Venezuela, not the United States.


****Yes, it is possible, maybe even probable that jones was forced out behind the scenes.  But a) we don't know whether he was, it is only a guess and b) in any event it was 100% necessary that the people saw President Obama removing him, not that the decision to leave was his rather than the President's.


UPDATE:  CNN is reporting that administration sources say President Obama had nothing to do with van jones' resignation:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The resignation of Obama administration figure Van Jones, following controversies over a petition he had signed and his comments about Republicans, did not come at the request of the president, the White House senior adviser said Sunday.


Van Jones attends the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, Nevada, in August.


"Absolutely not -- this was Van Jones' own decision," David Axelrod told NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked if the president had ordered the resignation.

So you can forget my disclaimer about Mr. Obama possibly pressuring jones out of his job.  We now know that, for Mr. Obama's part, this slimebucket was perfectly welcome to stay.


What a despicable commentary on Barack Obama and his administration.

Joe Has anyone asked, how many jobs Jones actually created, beyond his 3-4 "foundations"? (09/07/09)


Ken Berwitz

From Jeff Poor, at

Olbermann to Daily Kos Audience: 'Send Me Everything You Can Find About Glenn Beck'


By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)
September 6, 2009 - 15:06 ET


Guess who's not pleased about Van Jones middle-of-the-night-on-a-holiday-weekend resignation? Perhaps you never would have seen this one coming, but no other MSNBC "Countdown" host and provocateur Keith Olbermann himself.

Bitter and seeing red? Perhaps. In a post on the Daily Kos dated Sept. 6, Olbermann urged the half-crazed liberal Kos readers to go digging for dirt on Fox News host Glenn Beck, Beck's radio producer Stu Burguiere and Fox News president Roger Ailes. (h/t Morgen of Verum Serum)


"I don't know why I've got this phrasing in my head, but: Find everything you can about Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and Roger Ailes," Olbermann wrote. "No, even now, I refuse to go all caps. No, sending me links to the last two Countdowns with my own de-constructions of his biblical vision quality Communist/Fascist/Socialist/Zimbalist art at Rockefeller Center (where, curiously, he works, Comrade) doesn't count. Nor does sending me links to specious inappropriate point-underscoring prove-you're-innocent made-up rumors."


Olbermann said he plans to put forth his formal plans to go after Beck on his Sept. 8 show.


"Tuesday we will expand this to the television audience and have a dedicated email address to accept leads, tips, contacts, on Beck, his radio producer Burguiere, and the chief of his tv enablers, Ailes (even though Ailes' power was desperately undercut when he failed to pull off his phony truce' push)," Olbermann wrote.


It's not clear what Olbermann's goal is here, but it does appear he's some how trying to employ the thirteenth rule from the tactics chapter from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" - "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Olbermann dedicated segments last week during two shows going after Beck's analysis of the art in NBC headquarters Rockefeller Center, in New York City.

keith olbermann, with an editorial staff of something like a dozen or more people at MSNBC, is looking to for damaging material on a far more successful competitor????????? 

He is begging the regulars at that hard-left web site to dig up dirt on Glenn Beck?????? 

This is what qualifies as news research for olbermann??????

I have stated several times on this blog that I don't care for Glenn Beck.  But if anyone can make him into a sympathetic figure, it would be olbermann.  And he seems to be doing his level best to accomplish just that. 



Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of Agence France Presse, is jimmy carter's latest strategy to vaporize Israel one way or another:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - - Former US president Jimmy Carter said Sunday Palestinian leaders were "seriously considering" a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, following a visit to the Middle East.

 "A majority of the Palestinian leaders with whom we met are seriously considering acceptance of one state, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea," Carter wrote in an op-ed piece in The Washington Post.

"By renouncing the dream of an independent Palestine, they would become fellow citizens with their Jewish neighbors and then demand equal rights within a democracy," he explained. "In this non-violent civil rights struggle, their examples would be Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela."

Carter noted that in doing so, Palestinian leaders were taking into consideration current demographic trends.

He said non-Jews were already a slight majority of total citizens in this area, "and within a few years Arabs will constitute a clear majority."

Carter added that a two-state solution for the conflict was "clearly preferable" and had been embraced at the grass root level but that a one-state solution was "a more likely alternative to the present debacle."

What a great idea.  Instead of two states, one Palestinian Arab and one Jewish, make a single state with Palestinian Arabs the majority.  Poof, end of Israel.

And don't we all know how amenable Palestinian Arabs from Gaza and Judea/Samaria (the west bank) are to peaceful coexistence with Jews.

Bottom line:  carter is, and always has been, an anti-Semitic bastard.  This is just the latest example......with more to come in the future.  Count on it.



Ken Berwitz

Just one more thing about van jones and the media coverage that he was shielded from.  These are excerpts from Scott Johnson's excellent piece at

What Van Jones signifies

September 5, 2009 Posted by Scott at 6:46 AM

Not that we're inclined to do so, but it would be a mistake to write off Van Jones as a one-off nutjob in the Obama administration. He signifies. The Obama team sought him out and signed him up for his job as green jobs commissar precisely because he is who he is.

Listen, for example, to Obama alter ego Valerie Jarrett pay tribute to Jones before a friendly audience earlier this year: "Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he's not that old, for as long as he's been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House."

Who do they have in the White House? A self-proclaimed Communist. A vulgar Marxist twice over. A supporter of cold-blooded cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal. A 9/11 Truther . A racist hater, whose hatred extends to the United States. And insofar as his current job is concerned, we have a man who sees the "green jobs" con as a tool for overthrowing capitalism. We have, in short, the complete left-wing nightmare package.

Jones also signifies the meaning of the Obama administration's delegation of authority to a profusion of "czars." As Michelle Malkin observes with perfect concision: "Obama czardom is the deliberate end-run around transparency." No messy Senate confirmations required.

Jones also signifies the cooperation of the mainstream media in Obama's machinations. The nonfeasance of the mainstream media in the performance of their job has been virtually complete. They have left it to the likes of the indomitable Gateway Pundit to reveal what a man we have in Jones, and therewith the project in which the Obama administration is engaged. The mainstream media have Obama's back. Yesterday Byron York ran a Nexis search on Van Jones and posted the resutls:

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

That, folks, is our wonderful "neutral" media in action. 

Read it and weep for what once was professional journalism. 


Ken Berwitz

Are you aware that two major networks are refusing to air an ad that criticizes the Obama administration's health care proposals? 

If you don't know the facts about this censorship (and that's exactly what it is) you might assume that the ad must be really off the deep end.  After all, networks put up political ads all the time, don't they? 

Well that is not the way it is.  Read this editorial from today's Washington Times and see for yourself:.

EDITORIAL: Networks censor health care debate

ABC and NBC take one for Team Obama


The major TV networks don't even let revenue get in the way of their biased coverage in favor of President Obama's agenda.

ABC and NBC in particular seem afraid of a simple 30-second advertisement. Both networks have refused to run an ad proposed for national telecast by the League of American Voters, a nonprofit group with 15,000 members. The supposedly offensive ad makes the simple claim that the proposed government-run health care program would ration medical care.

ABC won't run the ad because it says it is "partisan." NBC won't run it because that network says it questions the ad's facts. So what does the script of this horribly troublesome ad say? Here it is:

"How can Obama's plan cover 50 million new patients without any new doctors? It can't. It will hurt our seniors, end Medicare as we know it, ration coverage and care, limit life-saving medicines, impose long delays on cancer treatment and other vital surgery. It's happening in England and in Canada. Don't let it happen here. Tell Congress to protect American health care."

Actually, we have some serious gripes about the ad too, primarily because the League of American Voters accepts and propagates questionable statistics coming from the Obama administration. The true number of uninsured in this country is dramatically less than half of the 50 million claimed. The ad also accepts the administration's presumption that being uninsured means going without health care. As we have pointed out previously, a survey by ABC/USA Today/Kaiser Foundation found that 70 percent of the uninsured who expressed an opinion were satisfied with their health care.

Despite falling back on dodgy numbers, the sentiment and logic expressed in the ad hit the mark. Increasing demand for health care increases prices and costs. If more people are offered health care, and more total money is not allocated for services, the increase in cost that results from covering additional new patients can be offset only by cutting services for somebody else. That sounds like rationing to us.

It's hardly surprising that NBC does not share these concerns. The liberals who control that network's programming just don't believe the Democrats' plans will result in rationing.

The case against ABC is more egregious. This is the same network that gave the Obama administration uncritical free airtime during June's ABC-White House health care special to promote Mr. Obama's plan while rejecting Republican offers to buy ads to counter the partisan propaganda. ABC now claims the League of American Voters' ad is partisan. But simply opposing a government takeover of health care doesn't make the group or its views partisan; Americans of all stripes are against the power grab. An August Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that such a government takeover is opposed by 21 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of independents and 81 percent of Republicans.

ABC and NBC are losing credibility and viewers. One major cause of the networks' demise is their willingness to put objectivity aside to carry water for Mr. Obama and his big-government policies.

That hits the nail on the head. 

Where do we go to get our media back?  The media that had at least somewhat of a semblance of balance and evenhandedness? 

How can they ever regain the trust of viewers?  Once that is lost, it usually is lost forever.

Too bad for them.  And too bad for us.

free` it can take years to get a client and just seconds to lose one. (09/06/09)

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!!