Monday, 14 September 2009


Ken Berwitz

On Saturday there was a "Tea Party" event - a march on Washington that, based on reading a good number of accounts, generated attendance of at least high-teens (60,000 - 70,000) and at most upwards of a million people or more.  The truth probably lies somewhere in between those two extremes, so let's just put it in six-figure (100,000+) territory, probably somewhere in the low hundreds of thousands.  And this was accomplished with virtually no pre-march coverage by our wonderful "neutral media.

That is news.  Big news.

But on this morning's Today show, the first weekday Today show after the Tea Party march, there was no mention of the march for at least the first half hour of the show.  I believe there was no mention of it at all. 

I am not saying it was underplayed or that it was too far down the list of news stories (which included such important events as Venus Williams pitching a fit during a tennis match, kanye west acting like the street thug that he is and the promo-posing-as-a-news-story about Jay Leno's NBC show which debuts tonight). 

I am saying it wasn't there in any form.  Not one word about it.

Even MSNBC, NBC's hard-left cable news network, estimated the crowd in the "hundreds of thousands" 

In other words, if you are a Today show viewer who relies on the show for your news, you don't know the magnitude of this march.  You don't even know there was a march of any size.

I rail a lot about media bias in this blog.  But what Today did - more exactly, didn't do - this morning - goes beyond bias.  NBC literally censored out the news it did not want Today show viewers to hear.  On whose behalf?  On behalf of Barack Obama and his Democratic Party.

There is no greater disgrace in journalism.


Ken Berwitz

Patrick Swayze died today, after a valiant battle with pancreatic cancer.  He was 57 years of age.

From what I've heard and read, Mr. Swayze, despite some personal issues (alcohol being one of them) was a genuinely nice person (which isn't exactly the coin of the realm in Hollywood) and a family man with a stable, 34 year marriage.

Before the cancer took him, Swayze was a fine entertainer;  an excellent actor, tremendously talented dancer.  He'll probably be best remembered for his role as Demi Moore's man in "Ghost", but maybe also for his role as the young dancer who became Jennifer Grey's lover in "Dirty Dancing".

Even after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, he finished a TV series, "The Beast", for A&E - 13 episodes.  As you may be aware, doing a TV series can be physically gruelling even for a healthy person.  He did it with pancreatic cancer.

In Patrick Swayze, we lost a really good one.  May he rest in peace.


Ken Berwitz

From Charlie Martin at -- and see if you can find any site that refutes it on a factual basis.  Because, other than having partisan hacks barf out numbers without anything to back them us, I can't:

March on Washington: How Big Was the Crowd?

Our attempt to calculate the true size of the 9/12 march.


September 14, 2009 - by Charlie Martin


 How big is it? is certainly one of the worlds most dreaded questions.


In fact, after the Million Man March in 1995, Congress restricted the National Park Service from even making estimates a restriction that was maintained for 14 years and then quietly rescinded this January for the Obama inauguration.


Im talking about crowds, of course. I cant take you people anywhere.


There have been a lot of estimates, from the official one of 60 to 70 thousand, up to the rumored 2 million. Lets see if we can make a plausible estimate with some rigor and some idea of possible error.


Yesterday, I made a back of the envelope calculation that Stephen Green picked up at Vodkapundit, simply to see if the high estimates were at all plausible. A number I picked up by Google searching told me that a pretty good crowd is about 18 people in 10 square meters thats about half as crowded as a crowded elevator (approximately one person per six square feet).


Wikipedia told me that the National Mall covers about 125 hectares, or about 1.25 million square meters, and simple multiplication then tells us that if the whole mall was that crowded, that would be as many as 2.3 million people. Which is one hell of a crowd. Call that an upper bound anyone who says it was more than 2.3 million is almost certainly wrong.


Just for comparison, weve got the Obama inauguration, which was originally estimated at 2 million and then revised down to about 850,000. Popular Science got GeoEye to take a satellite photo.

Now, via Green, we have a number reported by Barbara Espinosa from the people meter on Pennsylvania Ave a total of 1.5 million people passed by during the march. Now, thats some kind of direct count, but we dont know what kind if anyone has any information on this people meter Id love to see it so lets save that as an estimate and see what else we get.


The National Park Service actually has a methodology for crowd estimation; they just were forbidden by Congress from using it after the Million Man March came out to be less than half a million. That restriction mysteriously disappeared for the Obama inauguration, and USA Today published a useful article on it.


Turns out the Park Service thinks a crowd is about one person per five square feet, or a little more dense than I used, but they clearly use a different area for the Mall than I got from Wikipedia they say a full Mall is about 1.5 million. So all we need is an overhead photo, and we should be able to compare easily, right?

The only problem is that I cant find one. No one paid to have GeoEye take one (next time, dammit) and no one has published one that I can find.




So lets take another approach. Weve got Barbara Espinosas 1.5 million count. Is that plausible?


Here we have other comparable data, in the various pictures from Pennsylvania Avenue. There is a time lapse from the traffic camera at 14th Street, roughly where E would cross 14th NW if only E actually crossed 14th. Its overlooking the Freedom Park, and looking down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. The White House is basically behind us from this point of view.


What that shows us is Pennsylvania Avenue full of people walking past for at least three hours. (This matches some other independent accounts, like this at the New York Times.) So more back of the envelope: its 1.1 miles from Freedom Park to the Capitol, and Pennsylvania is six lanes plus a middle turn lane and some sidewalks call it 100 feet wide. Thats about 600,000 square feet, so if it were a crowd standing still, that is at least 100,000 people. Weve got a picture of that, so thats got to be a lower bound. Weve also got a variety of pictures of at least the part of the Mall from 3rd to Capitol Circle and its pretty full the Park Service method tells us thats around 250,000 right there.


But the people on Pennsylvania arent standing still: theyre walking, marching, at something between 2 and 4 miles per hour because thats how fast people march. Lets choose 3 mph: that would mean a line of people marching past a single point for three hours would be about 9 miles long. In that time, there would be enough people to fill that chunk of Pennsylvania about 8 times. Thats conservative, as what Ive heard from people actually marching is that it was pretty packed; it wouldnt be hard to believe the 1.5 million number either.


Thats 800,000 people.


The Park Service method, filling just the Capitol end of the Mall, is 250,000, but we have many reports of much overflow, and we also can figure that they wouldnt have marched past for three full hours if there were only that many.


The legacy media estimate of 60-70 thousand is ludicrous: we have pictures of twice that. Still, its been reported, so well keep it.


Thats a pretty wide range. To summarize:


Rumored number:  2 million

"People meter" count:  1.5 million

Eight "Penssylvania Avenues" full of people:  800 thousand

Grant Memorial area by Park Service method:  250,000

Legacy media reports:  70 thousand


Average all of those and we get 900,000 plus (924,000). Throw out the outliers, we get 850,000. And remember that the 1.5 million was a real count; its inherently a more believable number. Our estimate should be pulled upward by that.


Conclusion: probably well more than 850,000 in the crowd.


Which is a lot of people.

Maybe the actual number of marchers is why NBC's Today show totally ignored the march this morning and didn't say a word about it.  In the tank is in the tank.

How many people were there?  You'll get a good idea by watching this 3 1/2 hour lapsed time footage of Pennsylvania Avenue (from 8AM to 11:30AM).  The entire clip runs just 41 seconds.  But I have a feeling that it will be enough to convince you that there is a media snow job of epic proportion regarding how many people showed up for the march.


Ken Berwitz

This goes straight into the "you can't make this stuff up" file.


107-year-old Malaysian woman seeks 23rd hubby

A 107-year-old Malaysian woman says she is ready to marry for the 23rd time because she fears her current drug addict husband might leave her for a younger woman, a report said Monday.

Wook Kundor made headlines four years ago when she married Muhammad Noor Che Musa, a man 70 years her junior in northern Terengganu state, with pictures of the couple's wedding splashed across regional newspapers.

But Wook is now looking for new love as she fears that Muhammad, 37, who is undergoing voluntary drug rehabilitation treatment in the capital Kuala Lumpur, will leave her once the programme ends, she told the Star newspaper.

"Lately, there is this kind of insecurity in me," the paper quoted her as saying, showing a photograph of the smiling, wrinkled-faced centenarian wearing a Muslim headscarf.

"I realise that I am an aged woman. I don't have the body nor am I a young woman who can attract anyone."

"My intention to remarry is to fill my forlornness and nothing more than that," she said, adding that she felt lonely without her husband by her side to celebrate the coming Muslim festival of Eid al-Fitr next week.

Wook said she planned to visit Muhammad on the second day of Eid if her neighbours were willing to drive her to the capital.

Muhammad, who was a lodger in Wook's house, had previously said it was "God's will" that the couple fell in love.

If you're asking me, she should never have settled for Muhammad Noor Che Musa.  This babe is old enough to have hooked the original Muhammad altogether.


Ken Berwitz

Here, excerpted from an Associated Press article at CBS news' web site today, is a story that will qualify as old news to regular readers of this blog.  The bias is media's, the bold print is mine:

Poll: News Media's Credibility Plunges

Nearly Two-thirds of Americans Think News Stories are Frequently Inaccurate

(AP)  The news media's credibility is sagging along with its revenue.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans think the news stories they read, hear and watch are frequently inaccurate, according to a poll released Sunday by the
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. That marks the highest level of skepticism recorded since 1985, when this study of public perceptions of the media was first done.

The poll didn't distinguish between Internet bloggers and reporters employed by newspapers and broadcasters, leaving the definition of "news media" up to each individual who was questioned. The survey polled 1,506 adults on the phone in late July.

The survey found that 63 percent of the respondents thought the information they get from the media was often off base. In Pew Research's previous survey, in 2007, 53 percent of the people expressed that doubt about accuracy.

The findings indicate U.S. newspapers and broadcasters could be alienating the audiences they are struggling to keep as they try to survive financial turmoil. Pew Research didn't attempt to gauge how shrinking newspapers, reduced staffs and other cutbacks at news organizations are affecting people's perceptions, although the reductions probably haven't helped, said Michael Dimock, an associate director for the center.

Not for nothing do I sarcastically refer to our wonderul "neutral" media.  It is edifying to see that John and Jane Q. Public are catching on in a big way as well.

But, sadly, the coverage of Saturday's Tea Party march on Washington DC shows that a great many of the media themselves are still living in a delusional ivory tower, where they think they can look down on us and tell us what to think. 

If these data are accurate, however, it is clear that they can't anymore. 

By their actions media asked for this immense level of distrust.  And they're getting it. 

Now they can either start reporting both sides, or watch those numbers continue in the same direction.  It will be interesting to see which they choose.


Ken Berwitz

From Tim Graham, of (the bold print is mine):

WaPo Promotes Story That 9-12 Marchers Are Racist: 'They Don't Even Know What They Are Protesting'


By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
September 14, 2009 - 08:33 ET


On Sunday, the home page of the Washington Post website buried the 9-12 rally in tiny type, while the rotating photos at the top of the page were all local stories. On Monday, one of those rotating photos highlighted a Post story on the front of the Metro section on how people attending the Black Family Reunion think that tens of thousands of Americans came to Washington not because they love freedom, but because they hate black people. Metro reporter Yamiche Alcindor began:


On Saturday, tens of thousands of protesters thronged to the U.S. Capitol to angrily accuse President Obama of taking the country in the wrong direction. A day later, in the shadow of the Washington Monument, many participants at a much smaller gathering -- the 24th annual Black Family Reunion -- said the level of hostility toward the nation's first African American president had little to do with policy differences over health care or taxes and everything to do with race.


"It's not conducive to the coalitions we need to build in this country," said Vera Hope, 60, of Mount Rainier as she left a booth promoting health prevention. "I'm disgusted and upset by the hostility. Let's call it was it is -- it's just a disguise for right-wing racists. They are fomenting a climate of violence to provoke people."


The Posts headline for this nasty smear was "Seeking Healing, Seeing Hostility." Alcindor didnt highlight one person who suggested conservatives were racists, and not principled free-marketeers. She found two:


Colleen Freeman, 50, said many of Obama's critics are motivated by race. "A lot of people are protesting, and they don't even know what they are protesting," she said. "Some of these folks are getting Social Security, and it's because their grandparents put in the work for it. Now they won't give Obama a chance to work. Some know they need health care but don't want it to be Obama that gives it to them."


The Post itself admits the Black Family Reunion was a much smaller event. So why did it draw much more prominent placement and promotion on the Post home page than the 9-12 rally?


Alcindor and the Post made no attempt to explain that this was an event thrown by a liberal lobbying group that opposes black people in government who are not liberals, like Clarence Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown:


Dorothy Height, president of National Council of Negro Women, which holds the reunion, said that although she was pleased that the protesters and the reunion participants coexisted peacefully, she was disappointed that some marchers were so crass.


"They are a bad sign for democracy," said Height, 97, who supports health-care reform. "I've never heard anyone say that they wished the other presidents would fail," she said. "President Obama has shown courage and leadership in trying to tackle various problems."

Crass? How can the Post line up the repeated suggestion that tens of thousands of American are too dumb to know what theyre protesting and then accuse the marchers of being crass?

Interesting.  The event is comprised of "a liberal lobbying group that opposes black people in government who are not liberals" - and the premise is that not them, but the Tea Party marchers, are racist. 

It makes you wonder if the WaPo "brain trust" bothers to read what they print.


Ken Berwitz

From Patrick Gavin at


ABC's Terry Moran set the Twitter-sphere all aflutter when he wrote: 

Terry Moran:  Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a "jackass" for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won.  Now THAT'S presidential.

We've reached out to Moran and will update this post when we learn more. 

Now, an ABC spokesperson explains to POLITICO what happened:

"In the process of reporting on remarks by President Obama that were made during a CNBC interview, ABC News employees prematurely tweeted a portion of those remarks that turned out to be from an off-the-record portion of the interview. This was done before our editorial process had been completed. That was wrong. We apologize to the White House and CNBC and are taking steps to ensure that it will not happen again."

Help me out here:  what in the world is President Obama apologizing for?

Terry Moran is right.  He nailed this one perfectly.  And he's apologizing?

I don't get it.


Ken Berwitz

Excerpted from an article by Jonathan Martin of

AUSTIN Eight months into Barack Obamas presidency, as criticism of his administration seems to reach new levels of volume and intensity each week, the whispers among some of his allies are growing louder: That those who loathe the nations first African-American president, and especially those who would deny his citizenship, are driven at least in part by racism.

Its a feeling thats acutely felt among those supporters of Obama who are themselves minorities. Conversations with Democrats at an otherwise upbeat Democratic National Committee fall gathering here, an event largely devoted to party housekeeping, reflected a growing anger at what many see as a troubling effort to delegitimize Obamas hold on the office.

As far as African-Americans are concerned, we think most of it is, said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), when asked in an interview in between sessions how much of the more extreme anger at Obama is based upon his race. And we think its very unfortunate. We as African-American people of course are very sensitive to it.

Johnson is a somewhat-reserved, nine-term member of Congress, more gracious southern lady than racial bomb-thrower. She enjoyed a warm personal relationship with fellow Texan George W. Bush when he was in the White House and fondly recalled their ability to get along, divergent politics aside.

But she said the disdain for this president, especially sharp in her home state, had reached a point where it had become necessary to speak out.

Its hurting the spirit of this country, Johnson said, citing concerns about what the rest of the world may think about a powerful nation where a significant segment of the population does not accept their elected leader as legitimate.

Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, agreed with his colleague that elements of the opposition cant accept the reality of a black president.

Theres a very angry, small group of folks that just didnt like the fact that Barack Obama won the presidency, Honda said, adding: With some, I think it is [about race].

Said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) about the race factor: There are some issues that have been swept under the rug and were not witnessing them come out.

But it's still a sensitive enough issue that the party doesnt broach it directly.

Do you notice even one specific reason why criticism of Barack Obama is racial, other than the impossible-to-challenge comments such as "we think most of it is", "with some, I think it is (about race)" and "There are some issues that have been swept under the rug"?

I have zero doubt that some people oppose Barack Obama because he is Black. There is plenty of racism still in existence.  Only a food would say otherwise. 

But if the point is that there is some major political movement against President Obama because of his skin color, it seems to me you should have more than vague, unsupportable/unchallengeable insinuations. 

Do you see any here?  Me neither. 

When they don't have answers, they invoke racism.  And, by so doing, they take one of the genuinely serious problems of our country and trivialize it into a meaningless slogan. 

That does not help Barack Obama or his political agenda.  And it sure as hell doesn't help victims of racism.


Ken Berwitz

Here's one you are unlikely to see in much of our wonderful "neutral" media.  I pulled it from the ever-vigilant steve gilbert at (the bold print is Steve's, not mine):

Obama Motors To Cut 10,500 Opel Jobs

September 14th, 2009

From a conveniently memory deficient Associated Press:

Magna: 10,500 Opel jobs in Europe could be cut

By George Frey And Patrick Mcgroarty, Associated Press Writers


FRANKFURT As many as 10,500 Opel jobs in Europe could be cut, including nearly half of them in Germany, the co-chief executive of Magna International Inc. said Monday a move likely to draw strident criticism in countries where the automaker has operations.


Speaking to reporters in Frankfurt, Siegfried Wolf said part of his companys plan for General Motors Co.s European unit envisions possible job cuts, including 4,500 in Germany, where Adam Opel Gmbh is based. GM agree last week to the sale of its European subsidiary to Magna and Russias Sberbank


Last week, General Motors Co. agreed to sell 55 percent of the unit to Canadas Magna International and Russian lender Sberbank in a 50-50 split. GM will keep 35 percent, the biggest single stake in Opel, and Opel workers will hold 10 percent.


Opel employs some 49,000 workers in Europe and has plants in Germany, Spain, Britain, Poland and Germany.


Last week, GM said that work at the Antwerp plant could be wound down and that some production at Zaragoza, Spain could be moved to Eisenach, in Germany, drawing criticism of Germany for seemingly negotiating the deal to protect its plans and work force, which numbers 25,000 people.


The deal, announced Thursday, still hinges on conditions that could take weeks or months to work out, such as final agreement for government financing and union support for what could be painful cuts. Chief GM negotiator John Smith indicated then that the Antwerp plant could be wound down.


Belgium has asked the European Union to investigate the deal to make sure German is not violating anti-trust rules.


The German government threw its support for the Magna/Sberbank bid with Chancellor Angela Merkel and the German government giving euro1.5 billion in bridge financing to keep Opel afloat and offering euro4.5 billion more in credit to complete the deal.


Magna had promised to keep Opels four plants in Germany Eisenach, Bochum, Ruesselsheim and Kaiserslautern open.


Opel has been losing money for years. Its European operations, which include Opel, Vauxhall and Saab, posted an operating loss of about $2 billion in the first quarter of 2009 and a total of nearly $3.7 billion for the years 2006-2008. Analysts say most of the losses can be attributed to Opel and Vauxhall.


GM had sought to unload Opel since it ran into severe financial trouble late last year, seeking state help in November 2008. Industry analysts say the unit has too many employees and too much factory capacity for its sales level and its costs are too high.

We are confused.


Whats this?


Havent we always been told that General Motors was having great success with Opel in Europe? So why has Mr. Obama decided to sell 55% of the company to Canada and Russia?


Moreover, havent we been told by Mr. Obama and his slaveys in our media that car companies need to make smaller, more fuel efficient cars which is exactly what Opel makes?


Are we assured that this is what the public demands, and that it is the road to riches for any car company?

So how is it possible that Opel has lost $3.7 billion in just the last two years. And why should it need to scale back its operations to match its low sales levels?


Isnt Opel the future that Mr. Obama has planned for all of General Motors?


Isnt this a green shoot?

Try to imagine the level of derision that would be sent toward the White House if this was the Bush administration.

Now try to find it when the President is Obama.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased..


Ken Berwitz

This rant from the London Daily Telegraph's Gerald Warner just came to me from my pal West Coast Russ.  Make of it what you will:


Is It Just Me


Gerald Warner


Barack Obama and the CIA:  Why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?


If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda..

"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb.. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers...

President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cozying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners.


His only enemies are fellow Americans.


Again,the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so much?



Ken Berwitz

What is it with ACORN and the prostitution trade?

Most people are now aware that a man and woman posing as a pimp and a madame, went to ACORN's offices in Baltimore and Washington DC and said they needed a house so they could open a brothel with underage Latino girls.  And, in both cases, ACORN was more than happy to help out, even to advise them of how to hide what they would be doing from the authorities.

Well, it happened in New York City as well.

From today's New York Post (the bold print is mine):

"Pimp & hooker catch B'klyn staff

Last Updated: 12:41 PM, September 14, 2009

Posted: 3:30 AM, September 14, 2009

The scandal surrounding the left-wing activist organization ACORN has spread to New York, with employees at its Brooklyn office caught on video helping supposed ladies of the night get loans for their dream houses of ill repute.

Rather than reminding the women that prostitution is dangerous and illegal and advising them to change their careers, counselors at the social-services group shockingly offer suggestions on how they can launder their earnings.

"Honesty is not going to get you the house," a loan counselor at the offices told two activists posing as a mortgage-seeking pimp and prostitute.

"You can't say what you do for a living."

ACORN workers in two other cities, Baltimore and Washington, DC, had already fallen hooker, line and sinker for the hidden-camera sting operation by two conservative activists.

Four ACORN employees have been fired as a result of the earlier videos, and last Friday the Census Bureau severed its ties with the group, whose members had been hired to do canvassing during the 2010 census.

Mayor Bloomberg spoke out on the controversy today.

"Prostitution is illegal in this state and I don't know why they would -- why an organization like ACORN, who's trying to encourage voter turnout and voter registration, why they're getting involved in any of that stuff," Bloomberg said. "But clearly it's not appropriate and they shouldn't have been doing it. Whether they broke a law or not I don't know. You'll have to talk to the legal (authorities)."

The Brooklyn DA's office announced today it would be investigating the group.

In an unrelated outrage, ACORN was accused of widespread voter fraud during the 2008 presidential election by helping unqualified voters to register.

As in prior videos released by the filmmaking team of James O'Keefe, 25, and Hannah Giles, 20, employees of the group -- which specializes in housing and voter activism -- were eager to dispense advice on gaming the system and skirting the law.

"You know, what goes on in the house we don't care," one counselor said. "We just help you with the mortgage."

O'Keefe and Giles were garishly dressed as a stereotypical pimp and prostitute. O'Keefe was decked out in excessively snazzy flesh-peddler couture, and Giles, going by the name "Eden," wore almost nothing.

The ACORN workers were not the slightest bit judgmental or put off by the request for help in getting financing for a brothel.

Counselor Volda Albert freely offered financial advice to the young couple, and held back on giving out any life advice.

"I can't tell you don't do it, because you won't listen to me," Albert said.

For tax and banking purposes, and to establish a legitimate income and credit history, Giles was told she needed to start saying she was a "freelancer."

"Don't say that you're a prostitute thing or whatever," she said.

Albert also suggested that Giles open two accounts at separate banks, depositing no more than $500 each a week to ensure few eyebrows are raised.


As for the rest of the money she earned from turning tricks, Albert told her to hide it away.


"When you buy the house with a back yard. You get a tin . . . and bury it down in there, and you put the money right in, and you put grass over it, and you don't tell a single soul but yourself where it is," she said.

Albert even had advice on protecting O'Keefe from getting tied by authorities to Giles' prostitution.

Her illegally obtained revenue could be given to O'Keefe through an intermediary, and then he could use it for a down payment on the house by applying for a "no doc" loan.

In the earlier videos, counselors offered similar suggestions to a "prostitute," telling her to list her occupation as "performance artist," and even offering advice on how to claim as dependants underage girls recruited for the business.

Milagros Rivera, the Brooklyn office administrator advised Giles, "don't get caught -- it's against the law what you are doing, and there's a chance you'll get caught."

Before bidding them good luck, Albert offered two final suggestions.

"Save for a rainy day," she said. "And live well."

O'Keefe, who majored in philosophy at Rutgers University, said he and Giles funded the project themselves. This kind of undercover, guerrilla tactic is the "future of investigative journalism and political activism," he said.

Inspired by "Rules for Radicals," Saul Alinsky's bible for rabble-rousing, more often associated with the left, O'Keefe said he has been targeting and exposing the "absurdities of the enemy by employing their own rules and language."

"If you can make impossible demands on your enemy, you can destroy them," he said.

So he began using a hidden camera "in a location I'd rather not disclose" and started visiting ACORN offices around the Northeast.

As with a series of videos O'Keefe made in 2008, in which Planned Parenthood employees agreed to earmark his donations for the abortions of African-American babies, he said he expected ACORN would yield maybe "a few gotcha moments."

"But we never imagined they would all comply -- it's just disgusting they didn't just throw us out of the office," he said.

In a statement released Saturday, ACORN said that it could not defend the actions of its employees but that what O'Keefe and Giles did was criminal.

"And, in fact, a crime it was -- our lawyers believe a felony -- and we will be taking legal action against Fox and their co-conspirators," the statement said.

Fox News aired the Baltimore and Washington tapes.

O'Keefe said, "ACORN wants it both ways."

"You can't fire the employees and then say I have defamed them," he said.

Aren't you just thrilled to death that this "organization" has gotten so many millions of taxpayer dollars -- and is getting so many millions more?


Ken Berwitz

This extremely misogynistic break in the political action comes to us from my pal West Coast Russ. 

But, being an equal opportunity type of guy, I promise to put up a similarly (or even more) insulting group of husband quotes or jokes if anyone sends them to me.  Honest.

Ok, here they are:

When a man steals your wife,
there is no better revenge than to let him keep her.
                                                              -David Bissonette
 After marriage, husband and wife become two sides
of a coin; they just can't face each other,
but still they stay together.
                                                             -Sacha Guitry
By all means marry.
If you get a good wife, you'll be happy.
If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
Woman inspires us to great things,
and prevents us from achieving them.
The great question,
which I have not been able to answer is,
"What does a woman want?"
I had some words with my wife, and she
had some paragraphs with me.
                                                     -Sigmund Freud
"Some people ask the secret of our long marriage.
We take time to go to a restaurant two times a week.
A little candlelight, dinner, soft music and dancing.
She goes Tuesdays, I go Fridays."
"There's a way of transferring funds that is
even faster than electronic banking.
It's called marriage."
                                                            -Sam Kinison
"I've had bad luck with both my wives.
The first one left me, and the second one didn't."
                                                       -James Holt McGavra
Two secrets to keep your marriage brimming
1. Whenever you're wrong, admit it,
2. Whenever you're right, shut up.
                                                              -Patrick Murra
The most effective way to remember your wife's birthday is to forget it once...
You know what I did before I married?
Anything I wanted to.
My wife and I were happy for twenty years.
Then we met.
                                                   -Henny Youngman
A good wife always forgives her husband
when she's wrong.
                                                  -Rodney Dangerfield
A man inserted an ad in the classifieds:
"Wife Wanted"
The next day he received a hundred letters.
They all said the same thing:
"You can have mine."
First Guy (proudly): "My wife's an angel!"
Second Guy: "You're lucky, mine's still alive."


free Glad you like them!! (09/14/09)

free` LOL, those were some great ones, I will be emailing them to my family and friends. (09/14/09)


Ken Berwitz

This is the first of several blogs I will show you today on how opponents of the Tea Party march - not content with putting a virtual blackout on pre-march coverage and downplaying how large the march was when it occurred - are now trying to claim that it was all about racism. 

Let's start at the end.  The racist gambit is a flat-out lie.  Anyone who saw the signs and heard the protesters knows better.  The vast, vast majority of signs were protesting what marchers feel is a sudden, decisive lurch leftward, and the spending of trillions of dollars we do not have, which puts a crushing economic burden on our children and grandchildren.

And the fact that the crowd was disproportionately White (which will be trotted out for sure by these same media), is because something like 97% of Blacks voted for Barack Obama.  The simple math is that if Blacks comprise about 14% of the population, and 3% are against Mr. Obama, then the tea party marchers started with a base of less than 1/2 of 1% of Black people.  OF COURSE there wouldn't be many of them there. 

Then there is that untidy little factoid that, if we want to measure voting racism, about 40% of White voters cast their ballots for the Black candidate, while only about 3% of Black voters cast their ballots for the White candidate.   If you were going to make a racial incident out of this, you would be castigating Black voters for their racism, not White voters.

Were there racist marchers?  I have no doubt that there were.  In every large group you are going to have some number of extremists and hatemongers, it is a fact of life.  But racism was not the purpose of the march and the overtly racist signs and comments were few and far in between. 

 I would ask anyone who has a problem with this analysis to review footage of the "million man march" and read the signs some participants were holding up.  Then recall that it was organized by the career racist/anti-Semite, louis farrakhan and that one of the featured speakers was the racist/anti-Semite who Barack Obama calls his personal mentor, jeremiah wright.  Finally, add in the inherently sexist nature of the march.

Want to compare that to the Tea Party march on Saturday?  I didn't think so.

More coming up.


Ken Berwitz

How many times during President Bush's second term did we hear that he was ignoring obama bin laden, and why wasn't he going after him?

How many times during last year's Presidential campaign did we hear it from Barack Obama?

With that im mind, please read this excerpt from an Associated Press article published today:

CAIRO - Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden described President Barack Obama as "powerless" to stop the war in Afghanistan, and Americans' inability to grasp why the Sept. 11 attacks occurred has "cost you a lot without any result whatsoever."

The remarks by the terrorist leader were released two days after the eighth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that he ordered. Bin Laden typically addresses the American people in a message timed around the Sept. 11 anniversary.

Bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding in the mountainous region along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, said current White House officials are merely following the strategy of former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney to "promote the previous policies of fear to market the interest of big companies."

Barack Obama has been president for about 8 months now.  Have you heard of any effort whatsoever to go after osama bin laden?

If the answer is "no" (and it is), have you heard the Democrats and/or media demanding to know why President Obama is ignoring osama bin laden is being ignored and why he isn't going after him?

No you have not.

And to the Obama apologists reading this, don't you even think about saying "well, you don't know what he's doing behind the scenes so you can't say that".  Because that same statement was 100% true of President Bush and it didn't stop the attack dogs one little bit.

Hypocrisy, sorry to say, is alive and well.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!