Tuesday, 13 October 2009

IRAN: PROTECTED SPECIES

Ken Berwitz

Did you think you would see a day when  Iran got "protected species" status from the Obama administration? 

Before you answer, read this genuinely disgusting report from Agence France Presse, via Steve Gilbert of www.sweetness-light.com:

Hillary: Not Time For Sanctions On Iran

October 13th, 2009

From the Agence France-Presse:

Not yet time for further sanctions on Iran: Clinton

MOSCOW (AFP) The time has not yet arrived for further sanctions against Iran, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday, amid continuing diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear standoff.

Clinton assented with a recent statement by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that sanctions against Tehran may be inevitable if the Islamic Republic defies world powers over its nuclear drive.

But she added: "We are not at that point yet."

She also praised Russia, seen as a crucial player in the nuclear crisis, for its diplomatic work in the Iranian atomic standoff.

"Russia has been extremely cooperative in the work we have done together," Clinton said at a joint press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

If the Islamic Republic defies world powers over its nuclear drive? If?

Where has Mrs. Clinton been for the last five or six years? Campaigning?

Alas, we fully realize that this is merely the official signal to the world that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have completely caved to the Russian position on Iran.

You see all the good that has come from giving up that missile shield in Europe?

By the way, we had this report from Reuters, just an hour or so earlier:

Clinton seeks Russia support over Iran sanctions

By Jeff Mason

MOSCOW (Reuters) U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met top Russian officials on Tuesday hoping to win Moscows support for tougher sanctions against Iran if Tehran fails to allay fears it is making nuclear weapons.

U.S. President Barack Obamas decision to scrap plans for an anti-missile system located in eastern Europe has helped improve ties with Moscow after stormy relations under his predecessor George W. Bush.

But diplomats say that in return the United States now wants better Russian cooperation on an array of foreign policy issues such as the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, missile defense and a nuclear arms reduction treaty

But should you go looking for this Reuters article you will find that it has been miraculously transformed into:

Clinton says not yet time for Iran sanctions

By Jeff Mason and Michael Stott

MOSCOW (Reuters) U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday the time had not yet come for more sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program and praised what she said was Russias help in tackling the issue.

Clinton, on her first visit to Russia since taking her post, quoted Russian President Dmitry Medvedev as saying sanctions against Iran might be inevitable, adding:

"But we are not at that point yet. That is not a conclusion we have reached. And we want to be very clear that it is our preference that Iran works with the international communityto fulfill its obligation on inspections."

Where did you ever hear the myth that Mrs. Clinton never wanted tougher sanctions against Iran?

It must have been from one of those rightwing chain emails.

What's going on here?

-Iran is busy building the nuclear weaponry it has virtually guaranteed will be used to attack Israel;

-Russia, through former KGB operative and current "President" (helluva last election) Valerie Putin,  is busy trying to rebuild the USSR;

-Israel is busy trying to survive.

So guess which country, among these three, has the Obama administration criticized most severely, and threatened with sanctions?  Yep, you got it.

To the 78% of US Jews who voted for Barack Obama in the last election:  I hope you're happy with what you got.

Speaking as one of the other 22%, I can assure you I am not.


HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION: THE BATTLE LINES ARE DRAWN

Ken Berwitz

We've seen the preliminaries.  Now get ready for the real battle.

The health insurance industry understands that what is being proposed is not competition, but essentially the end of its existence.  Understandably, these people are not going down without a fight.

Excerpted from an Associated Press article by Ricardo Alonso-Zalvidar:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Insurance companies aren't playing nice any more. Their dire message that health care legislation will drive up premiums for people who already have coverage comes as a warning shot at a crucial point in the debate, and threatens President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

 

Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy. "Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "Fundamentally dishonest," said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. "A hatchet job," said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

 

But the health insurance industry's top lobbyist in Washington stood her ground. In a call with reporters, Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, pointedly refused to rule out attack ads on TV featuring the study, though she said she believed the industry's concerns could be amicably addressed.

 

At the heart of the industry's complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.

 

Insurers are now raising possibilities such as higher premiums for people who postpone getting coverage, or waiting periods for those who ignore a proposed government requirement to get insurance and later have a change of heart.

 

The drama threatened to overshadow Tuesday's scheduled vote by the Senate Finance Committee on a 10-year, $829-billion plan that Baucus has touted as the sensible solution to America's problems of high medical costs and too many uninsured.

 

The Baucus bill is still expected to win Finance Committee approval. The insurance industry is trying to influence what happens beyond the vote, when legislation goes to the floor of the House and Senate, and, if passed, to a conference committee that would reconcile differences in the bills.

 

It's at that final stage where many expect the real deal will be cut.

 To believe insurance costs will not go up under the Democrats' health care legislation requires a genuinely staggering amount of naivete.  This is what you're being asked to buy into:  

"We're going to insure tens and tens of millions of more people, we're going to insure all the highest-risk people that insurance companies reject, we're going to provide at least as good health care to these tens of millions more people as they got before, and it is going to cost less than what you're currently paying.  And these amazing efficiencies are going to be provided by the government -- just check our history of efficiency to date". 

You would have to be a spud to believe this.  A brainless, mindless spud.

On the other hand, because the insurance industry has an obvious stake in this legislation, is it any more believable than the Obama administration?  Frankly, you should be just as skeptical of both sides.

Consequently, we have to consider what each is telling us, and then make up our own minds, using our own logic and common sense. 

Some of us do this all the time.  But some of us do it only occasionally and some of us do it rarely if ever.

Since health care reform has the potential to literally change the way our country operates (ok, bad pun in there, sorry), now would be a great time for everyone to do some serious thinking about what we want, what is being offered and what the consequences are.

Let's.  Ok?

Zeke ...... Government Health Care : .... The EFFICIENCY of the Post Office ... ... The COMPASSION of the IRS (10/13/09)


THE OBAMA INDOCTRINATION (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

The story of schoolchildren being indoctrinated on behalf of President Obama is not over.  Not by a long shot.

Here is the latest, from CBS TV New York:

Oct 13, 2009 6:07 am US/Eastern

Protesters Rail Against Obama Song In N.J. School

Parents Revolt, Say Having Kids Sing Song Is "Brainwashing"

Woman To CBS 2 HD: "This Is Not America. This Is A Communist Country"

Reporting
Chris Wragge

BURLINGTON TOWNSHIP, N.J. (CBS) ―

(10/9/2009)

 

A New Jersey elementary school is under scrutiny after students were seen on tape singing a song in praise of President Barack Obama.

On Monday, dozens of protesters chanted outside the school, saying the children are being brainwashed.

"Educate, don't indoctrinate; Educate don't indoctrinate," they chanted.

The demonstrators protested across the street from the "B" Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington Township. They carried signs saying "No Kiddie Propaganda" and "No Politics In The Classroom."

They are angry about a video made at the school last March.

It shows a group of children singing a song about President Obama. The occasion was a visit by the author of the children's book titled "I Am Barack Obama."

But this wasn't the first time students at the school sang the song. School officials said it was performed a month earlier at an assembly, and that the lyrics were sent home to parents in advance. But one mother, who protested Monday, said that's not true.

"These words never came home. Obama. Say yes to Obama. Find your inner Obama. That's brainwashing," Gina Pronchick said.

"This is not America. This is a communist country."

Added parent Gina Altokova: "I came from former Soviet Union as a kid. I was singing songs to the leader Brezhnev and all the others. They were bigger than God.

"Millions of us were singing songs to Gerat leaders. This is a shame. This must stop."

A smaller group of people held a counter protest, chanting "Barack Hussein Obama; Barack Hussein Obama."

"I have no problem with the song. Kids sing songs and make rhymes," one person said.

"I have a little cousin who goes to this school when the whole thing was going on and I personally think this is ridiculous," added Lauren Robinson of Burlington Township.

Protesters maintained the song crossed a line.

"They need to stick to reading, writing and arithmetic," one person opposed said.

School officials said the song was not intended to make a political statement or promote a political agenda. The teacher who was in charge of the class has retired.

Let's see: 

-It specifically, intensely praises Barack Obama, but it isn't indoctrinating the children;

-The school says it told parents about the lyrics but at least one mother says that is not true (and no one, so far as I know, has produced any written documentation that the school did so);

-The teacher who was in charge of the class "has retired".  How convenient.

Get ready.  Because, since this is not the only school which instructed young children to sing songs of praise to President Obama, we can expect similar protests elsewhere. 

Nah, no problem there........

Here's a radical idea:  maybe the B. Bernice Young Elementary School should consider teaching children schoolwork, not political direction.  That idea is so crazy, it just might work.


STEALTH CENSORSHIP

Ken Berwitz

So how are Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats going to limit free speech - i.e. speech that does not praise Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats?

Here's how, courtesy of Byron York at the Washington Examiner.  The bold print is mine:

Dems undermine free speech in hate crimes ploy

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
October 13, 2009

What does a hate crimes bill have to do with money for U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Nothing, except that the National Defense Authorization Act, which will win final passage in Congress and be sent to the president's desk this week, also contains the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which Democrats placed inside the defense measure over Republican objections.

The crime bill -- which would broaden the protected classes for hate crimes to include sexual orientation and "gender identity," which the bill defines as a victim's "actual or perceived gender-related characteristics" -- passed the House earlier this year as a stand-alone measure. But it's never had the votes to succeed by itself in the Senate. So over the summer Democrats, with the power of their 60-vote majority, attached it to the defense bill.

Republicans argued that the two measures had nothing to do with each other. Beyond that, GOP lawmakers feared the new bill could infringe on First Amendment rights in the name of preventing broadly defined hate crimes. The bill's critics, including many civil libertarians, argued that the hate crimes provision could chill freedom of speech by empowering federal authorities to accuse people of inciting hate crimes, even if the speech in question was not specifically related to a crime.

Republican Sen. Sam Brownback offered an amendment saying the bill could not be "construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the First Amendment" and could not place any burden on the exercise of First Amendment rights "if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another."

The Senate passed Brownback's amendment. After that, several Republicans, their fears allayed, voted for the whole defense/hate crimes package, which passed the Senate last July.

Meanwhile, on the House side, representatives passed their own version of the defense authorization bill, which did not contain the hate crimes measure.

Then it was time for the House and Senate bills to go to a conference committee, where the differences between them would be ironed out. That's where the real action began.

First, the committee -- controlled by majority Democrats, of course -- inserted the hate crimes measure into the House bill, where it had not been before. Then lawmakers made some crucial changes to Brownback's amendment. Where Brownback had insisted, and the full Senate had agreed, that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights, the conference changed the wording to read that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights "unless the government demonstrates ... a compelling governmental interest" to do otherwise.

That means your First Amendment rights are protected -- unless they're not.

The bill was finished. When it was returned to the House last week for final passage, there was just one vote; lawmakers could either vote for the whole package or against it. They could vote to fund the troops, which would also mean voting for the hate crimes bill, or they could vote against the hate crimes provision, which would also mean voting against funding the troops.

At decision time, 131 of the Republicans most opposed to the hate crimes measure voted against the whole bill. Their vote "against the troops" will no doubt be used against them in next year's campaign, which was of course the Democratic plan all along. The bill passed anyway, with overwhelming Democratic support.

Now it's the Senate's turn. Like the House, there will be just one vote. Although some Republicans will balk, the bill will be passed there, too, with big Democratic support.

In the past, Democrats knew they couldn't get away with a trick like stuffing a hate crimes bill into a defense measure because there was a Republican president to threaten a veto. But now, President Obama says he'll proudly approve the improbable combination of national defense and hate crimes.

"I will sign it into law," the president told a cheering crowd at the gay activist group Human Rights Campaign on Saturday. "Together we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America."

Actually, we will have moved closer to that day when lawmakers use stealthy, behind-closed-doors maneuvers to chip away at fundamental constitutional rights. Ask Republicans how it happened, and they say simply, "Elections have consequences." They're right.

Now, ask yourself why our wonderful "neutral" media are giving this virtually no coverage.  Why do you think?

"Look Barack, we're good boys and girls, we say what you want.  Go after those other bad guys, not us"?  Something like that?

These geniuses better remember the old adage that what goes around comes around.  There will come a day - maybe sooner than they think - when this legislation will be used against them.  Quite possibly by the same people they are so foolishly abetting right now.

And regardless who this affects now, or tomorrow, freedom of speech is taking a major hit. 

That doesn't sit very well with me.  How does it sit with you?


KATIE CARWRECK FALLS FURTHER BEHIND

Ken Berwitz

The new numbers are out for network news (I just picked them up from www.drudgereport.com).  And Katie Couric has again earned the title Katie Carwreck - even more so now than previously.

-At this time last year, ABC led with 7,890.000 viewers.  NBC followed closely with 7,850,000.  And CBS, with Katie Couric, was at a dismal 5,940,000.

-This year NBC has taken the lead with 8.110.000 viewers.  ABC has fallen back to 7,330,000.  And CBS is at an even more dismal 5,250,000.

It is now three years since Katie took over as CBS news anchor.  This is what the network has to show for it.

It seems logical that, at some point, CBS will stop embarrassing itself and replace Ms. Carwreck.  Then she can go back to lighter programming, where her exceptionally engaging personality can be utilized.  That could mean morning (CBS's morning show could certainly use her) or maybe some new project.

But as a news anchor?  Tow away the wreckage and put someone else at that desk.


OBAMA WINS ANOTHER ONE

 Ken Berwitz

FLASH:  President Obama has just won a Tony award for his portrayal of Frankie Valli in "Jersey Boys"

Although Mr. Obama has not performed in the play, is not from New Jersey, is not Italian and has never sung professionally, he did campaign a great deal in New Jersey, and hopes that Governor Corzine can win re-election next month.  It was felt that this qualified Mr. Obama for the award.

Congratulations to him.


DID LIMBAUGH SAY IT?

Ken Berwitz

Now that Rush Limbaugh is part of a group attempting to purchase an NFL team, the media have been inundated with two especially offensive racial comments he is supposed to have made.

One is that slavery had its merits and the other is that a medal of honor should have been conferred on the man who assassinated Martin Luther King.

From reading several accounts, it appears that both quotes come from a 2006 book by a hard-left, atheist-activist author named Jack Huberman.  Huberman's book is "101 People Who Are Really Screwing Up America"  - the title, of course, is an obvious plagiarism of Bernard Goldberg's 2005 book "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America".  

Huberman's section on Rush Limbaugh is dripping with hatred.  You can can read it by clicking here.  But if you don't care for Huberman's brand of venom, here are the exact racial quotes he attributes to Limbaugh:


"I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

"You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed."


Please note that there is no source listed for either of these quotes.

In other words, Rush Limbaugh is being tarred and feathered for two comments, attributed to him by someone who hates his guts, which, at least as of now, do not appear to have any basis in reality.

If Jack Huberman, or anyone else, can show me that Limbaugh really did make either of these quotes (I'll need a checkable reference point - a date and place, a video, something) I will immediately put it up here.  I don't have any horse in this race other than the truth.

But if neither Huberman nor anyone else can, then maybe Rush Limbaugh has a point when he threatens legal action against the people claiming he said it.

Got a lawyer, Jack?


CHRIS MATTHEWS' LATEST CRY FOR ATTENTION

Ken Berwitz

How many years will MSNBC keep running the Chris Matthews show and getting lousy ratings for its trouble? 

Counting its original network, CNBC, and its current one, MSNBC, this show has been on since 1997.  Currently it is shown both at 5PM and 7PM on weekdays.  And after all this time it always is either a distant second to the Fox show or third, to Fox and CNN. 

That ain't much to show for 12 years.

Not surprisingly, therefore, Mr. Matthews is trying harder and harder to get someone to care that Harball exists.  Here, courtesy of Mark Finkelstein at www.newsbusters.org, is his latest attempt:

Matthews: 'Someone's Going To Jam a CO2 Pellet Into Rush's Head'

 

By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
October 13, 2009 - 11:02 ET

What some guys won't say to get attention . . .

Analogizing Rush Limbaugh to a James Bond villian, Chris Matthews today fantasized: "at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp."

Hosting MSNBC's 10 AM hour today, Matthews made his remark while chatting with Politico's Jonathan Martin and Anne Kornblut of WaPo.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big?  In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up.  I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp.  That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch.

 

 I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto.  Are you watching, Rush?

 

That closing "are you watching, Rush?" was the giveaway. Matthews, whose anemic ratings trail even Rachel Maddow's in the MSNBC line-up, is desperately hoping someoneanyoneis watching.  And if it takes publicly fantasizing about the violent death of a political opponent, well, all's apparently fair in love and ratings in Matthews' mind.

 

Note: Matthews didn't even get his mean-spirited metaphor right.  "Looking more and more like Mr. Big"?  Wrong.  If anything, the suddenly svelte Limbaugh is looking less and less like him.

 

The sense I get is that, as Matthews has become more and more desperate for viewers, he also has become more and more embittered by keith olbermann and rachel maddow far surpassing his viewership.  So he's going to push that envelope more and more to see if he can get a rise out of someone bigger than he is.  A fight with the big guy, he probably reasons, will give him equity with the big guy and improve his ratings.

keith olbermann has tried this for years, by attacking Bill O'Reilly more and more viciously (and more and more childishly as well, it should be noted) in the hopes of having a dogfight with him.  It has not worked.  O'Reilly, who doesn't even mention olbermann by name, still has about triple olbermann's audience.  All olbermann has accomplished is to look like a world class putz.

You'd think Matthews would learn from olbermann's mistakes.  But this boy doesn't learn well, does he?


THE WHITE HOUSE BAN ON FOX NEWS

Ken Berwitz

Is Fox News intentionally being shut out by the White House because it dares to criticize President Obama and his administration?

Read this report from www.hotair.com and decide for yourself:

Fox News: WH told us last week Obama wont do any interviews with us this year; Update: Nixonian?

posted at 4:53 pm on October 12, 2009 by Allahpundit

Whats the significance of this, aside from it being your daily reminder that Wallace was right? Go watch the clip of Anita Dunn whining on CNN or just skip ahead here to 2:25. Kurtz specifically asked her whether The One would sit for an interview with one of Foxs news shows this year. Her weaselly response was to say that he would eventually while neglecting to mention one tiny fact revealed below by Rosen: Shed already given Fox a hard no for the remaining three months of this year and pretty obviously didnt want to acknowledge it on CNN lest it show just how petty The One is. In fact, so coincidental is Kurtzs question in hindsight that I wonder if some Foxie didnt tip him to the freeze-out before the interview so that he could put her on the spot about it. Although if that were true, why didnt he follow up and reveal the freeze-out when she declined to do so?

As for Rosens assertion that no administration officials have done Fox News Sunday since last August, Im assuming he meant this August. Gibbs appeared on the show in late July, although maybe Rosen was referring to policymakers/cabinet officials, not the White House press department. Wallace did interview Geithner just a few days ago, but that was for an event at the Newseum, not for FNS. Who knows if the White House knew who the interviewer would be.

Exit question: Did Roger Ailes slip Axelrod a briefcase full of money or something at that tete-a-tete last month in return for his promise to keep demagoging FNC? Being number one on the White House enemies list must be worth millions in free publicity.

Update: Ed sends along this piece from lefty TV critic David Zurawik, daring to invoke the specter of the jowled one to express his contempt for Dunn and Obama.

I have been writing for several months about how thin skinned the White House has been about press criticism especially when it comes to the Fox News Channel. I have compared the current administration to the White House of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, and believe me, I did not do that lightly. Nixon-Agnew was a very dark time for the First Amendment

This campaign by the Obama administration is dangerous to press freedom, and it should concern everyone in the press, not just Fox. If you want to get a sense of little regard Team Obama has for the press in general, check out this Time magazine article. You have to wonder who else is on this administrations enemies list.

What did they call this in the Nixon era?  Does the term "Enemies List" come to mind?  How completely was it condemned and reviled at that time?

But this is Saint Barack Obama.  And Fox has embarrassed the other cable news venues for years by being far preferred to them.  So who is going to complain about this other than Fox?  Not many, I assure you. 

Heck, over at MSNBC, this is Schultz's, Matthews', olbermann's and maddow's big chance. 

In case you're wondering just how badly Fox blows these folks away, here are last Thursday's data from www.mediabistro.com:

25-54 demographic: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 398 | CNN: 138 | MSNBC: 134 | HLN: 142

Prime: FNC: 691 | CNN: 151 | MSNBC: 235 | HLN: 232

 

5p:

6p:

7p:

8p:

9p:

10p:

11p:

FNC

Beck:

Baier:

Shep:

O'Reilly:

Hannity:

Greta:

O'Reilly:

 

692

494

472

946

520

574

466

CNN

Blitzer:

Blitzer:

Dobbs:

Brown:

King:

Cooper:

Cooper:

 

181

185

152

127

171

157

117

MSNBC

Matthews:

EdShow:

Matthews:

Olbermann:

Maddow:

Olbermann:

Maddow:

 

113

101

125

254

198

251

163

HLN

Prime:

Prime:

Issues:

Grace:

Behar:

Grace:

Showbiz:

 

144

99

148

288

215

204

171


Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.



Total Viewers: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 1492 | CNN: 517 | MSNBC: 414 | HLN: 299

Prime: FNC: 2728 | CNN: 649 | MSNBC: 841 | HLN: 594

 

5p:

6p:

7p:

8p:

9p:

10p:

11p:

FNC

Beck:

Baier:

Shep:

O'Reilly:

Hannity:

Greta:

O'Reilly:

 

2559

2157

1915

3765

2184

2196

1346

CNN

Blitzer:

Blitzer:

Dobbs:

Brown:

King:

Cooper:

Cooper:

 

546

623

585

662

784

501

316

MSNBC

Matthews:

EdShow:

Matthews:

Olbermann:

Maddow:

Olbermann:

Maddow:

 

527

440

614

962

854

707

519

HLN

Prime:

Prime:

Issues:

Grace:

Behar:

Grace:

Showbiz:

 

253

232

361

893

523

406

351


Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.

 

 

Ouch.  No wonder they hate Fox.  It blows them all away in every time period, both in total and in the most-valued 25-54 year old demographic.

 

The folks at hotair.com think this will be a major boon to Fox, because of all the publicity Obama's shutout will provide - and because the people there can use it as a proof that the Obama administration is censoring news in a way other media venues cannot.

 

I think that's a pretty valid point.  How about you?


A SELF-FULFILLING TEASER FROM POLITICO

Ken Berwitz

If you go to www.politico.com right now (not for long, I'm guessing), you will see this teaser for a story by Andy Barr:

New RNC website stumbles out of gate

By ANDY BARR | 10/13/09 7:56 PM

RNC tries to downplay criticism of a new site plauged by omissions and crashes on its first day.

Plauged? 

In the words of Yenta the Matchmaker:  Between the RNC site's omissions and crashes, and politico's spelling.....it's a perfect match!!!


DEAR MR. GRAYSON: ABOUT POLITICIANS WANTING OLD PEOPLE TO DIE.......

Ken Berwitz

Alan Grayson, the unbelievably abrasive loudmouth congressperson from Florida, may have had it right when he said a political party's idea of health care is that you should die as quickly as possible.

He just had the wrong party.

Here are the particulars, from P. J. Gladnick, writing for www.newsbusters.org.  The bold print is partly mine, partly his:

Robert Reich Reveals Brutal Health Care Truths; MSM Snores

By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
October 13, 2009 - 17:54 ET

Paging Congressman Alan Grayson! Here is a quote that validates what you said about those EVIL Republicans:

"We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die."

Aha! So it turns out that Grayson was right when he said "Republicans want you to die quickly."  Only one "little" problem here. That quote did not come from a Republican. In fact it came from the very liberal former Labor Secretary Robert Reich who is now an economics adviser for Barack Obama.

In an audio recording from a September 2007 speech to an audience at the UC Berkeley, Reich reveals what he believes an honest liberal presidential candidate would say about health care. The "truth" about health care as Reich sees it is quite shocking and as you can hear on the recording, he is definitely not kidding. Here is a transcript of the brutal truth about health care as Robert Reich sees it:

I'll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:

"Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that's true and what I'm going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you,  particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people...you're going to have to pay more.

"Thank you. And by the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die."

Are you taking notes, Alan Grayson? Okay, now back to Robert Reich and his uncomfortably brutal honesty about health care. 

"Also  I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid---we already have a lot of bargaining leverage---to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you."

And thank you, Robert Reich, for revealing the brutal truth about what liberals ultimately have in store for the public with their health care plan. Remember, this is Reich presenting what an honest liberal presidential candidate would say aloud if he weren't worried about being elected.

This recording has already gone viral in the blogosphere but so far the mainstream media is ignoring it. I guess the MSM is currently much more obsessed over what Rush Limbaugh did not say about slavery than they are over what an Obama economics adviser actually did say about health care.

An oatmeal cookie! An oatmeal cookie to the first intrepid MSM reporter to ask Robert Reich about his 2007 quote! And, please, don't let Reich try to wiggle out by claiming he was just joking. As you can hear, he was dead serious in presenting the brave new world of ObamaCare.

And all you old people..."we're going to let you die." 

Er, Mr. Grayson?  Your thoughts on this?


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



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


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

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

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