Wednesday, 25 November 2009


Ken Berwitz

I kept meaning to write a blog about the need - the desperate need - to relieve Army Chief of Staff General George Casey of his command.  But other things kept pushing ahead.  Fortunately, however,  Ken Blackwell of has written it - and probably a lot better than I would have. 

Here is Mr. Blackwell's commentary.  The bold print is mine:

Dismiss General Casey

By Ken Blackwell


We don't yet know how bad the Ft. Hood shooter's case was. We do not know -- and we must find out -- how it was possible for an Army medical officer to openly express treasonous statements and not be court-martialed. We do not know if the shooter or his family members were under surveillance by the FBI or other federal law enforcement agencies. We must soon find out.

But we do know this much: Gen. George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, raced to the Sunday morning talk shows to express his deep concern. Gen. Casey's concern was not for American victory in the war on terror, nor for the safety of the American people, nor for the safety of U.S. military personnel. Gen. Casey's greatest concern was for diversity.


He said that if diversity were a "casualty," then it would be an even greater tragedy than the murders of fourteen innocent Americans.


If we want to know how such an obvious terror threat was ignored, how such a mass killer was enabled, we need look no further than the command climate created by Gen. Casey and his politically correct subordinates.


If you are serving in a forward unit of the Army today, can you have confidence that your fellow soldier can be trusted to "have your back"? Can you sleep soundly in an Army barracks wondering whether your bunkmate might be a jihadist?


Unit cohesion is essential to any effective fighting force. Troops must trust one another when their lives are on the line. By winking at treason, Gen. Casey and his subordinates allowed Major Nidal Hasan's conduct to taint every Muslim currently serving in the U.S. military.


No one has a right to serve. Service is an honor and a privilege, but it is not a right. Colorblind people and people with heart murmurs are perfectly loyal Americans. It casts no aspersion on them or their families to be excluded from military service.


All military personnel in the U.S. Armed Forces must demonstrate their loyalty to the United States of America. When they raise their right hand and take that oath before God to protect the Constitution of the United States "from all enemies foreign and domestic," Americans have a right to expect that that oath will be enforced. No one gets a pass.


Gen. Casey has clearly failed to do this. No action could reassure our troops more in the wake of the worst case of domestic terrorism since 9/11 that national security and loyalty to the United States is the first requirement for military service than the dismissal of Gen. Casey.


Our all-volunteer military should know that even a four-star general is held to the same high standard that we expect of the lowest-ranking enlisted man or woman. From now on, it should be understood by all our serving men and women that you can report disloyal, insubordinate, and treasonous statements by anyone in the military and that that report will be acted upon promptly.


Only if this lesson is forcefully taught by the prompt, public dismissal for cause of Gen. Casey will the troops have renewed confidence that they can trust all their fellow soldiers. They must know that the United States will be loyal to them as they are loyal to the United States.


In this, as in so many things, George Washington said it best. In his historic letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport in 1790, he wrote:

[The] Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.


Notice this strong pledge of respect for rights of religious minorities comes with a stern requirement: All good citizens must give their "effectual support." Can anyone say that Major Hasan -- after more than a decade of taxpayer-funded education and special treatment -- gave the United States his effectual support? Of course not.


There were warning signs aplenty. Many of the shooter's classmates and fellow officers raise concerns about this man's loyalty and reliability. The command climate created by Gen. Casey stifled those warning cries. The result is the death of innocents. Gen. Casey must be replaced as Army chief of staff.

Think about what we have learned about nidal malik hasan since his killing rampage.  We have found out that, for years, this son of a bitch bastard did everything but wear a sandwich sign saying "I am a Muslim fanatic, I hate you all, and I'm counting the days until I do something about it".  And yet he was allowed to stay on that base, no problem at all.

Are we out of our minds?

Dump Casey.  Now.  And make it clear to every other military person that diversity, as preferable as it is in concept, does not extend to hating the United States, speaking against it and supporting the activities we are fighting around the world..


Ken Berwitz

From Steve McCann at

November 25, 2009

Thanks again, President Bush

Steve McCann

The Kyoto Protocol went into effect in February 2005.   George W. Bush was excoriated by the left for not signing on and acquiescing to the global warming hysteria.

All of us can recall how President Bush was called all sorts of names and accused of wanting to destroy the world.  Even some nominal Republicans fell for the settled science and got on board the climate change express.

Nonetheless, George Bush remained firm in his refusal to allow the United States to destroy its economy and standard of living for what has now turned out to be a political movement not one based on science.

With the exposure of the global warming hoax through the release of the CRU emails, we should offer a toast to the much maligned President George W. Bush and thank him for not committing the United States to similar disastrous actions that our counterparts in Europe fell for.   

The delay allowed the truth to come out as it always does.

With one exception - I disbelieve the truth always comes out - let me second Mr. McCann's motion. 



Ken Berwitz

Has there been a more in-your-face publicity hound in the presidency than this (ok, I admit Clinton is in the running, but he's a distant second):

From James Hibberd's "Live Feed" site:

November 25, 2009

ABC announces Oprah-Obama Christmas special

By James Hibberd & Nellie Andreeva

The queen of daytime will interview the president of the country during an ABC holiday special that brings together Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama.

The network has announced "Christmas at the White House: An Oprah Primetime Special," which includes an interview with the president, a conversation with the First Couple and tour of the White House. The special will also go behind-the-scenes as staffers prepare the White House for the holiday season.

The special marks the first time Winfrey has interviewed Obama since he took office. "Christmas at the White House" will air Sunday, Dec. 13, at 10 p.m. 

Winfrey, who has never endorsed a presidential candidate before, was a strong supporter of Obama during his presidential campaign, stumping for him in key states.

She attended Obamas victory rally in Chicago last November and the presidents inauguration in January but has not been politically involved since the election and recently interviewed former Alaska governor and Obama rival Sarah Palin.

Winfrey also didnt attend the high-profile first White House state dinner Tuesday night, but her close friend Gayle King did.

While she reigns in daytime with her talk show, Winfrey has rarely hosted primetime specials, most notably her 1993 interview with Michael Jackson at his estate. Oprah recently announced she will end her syndicated talk show in 2011 and focus on launching her cable network, OWN.

There are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The economy remains a shambles while our national debt goes from horrible to hopeless to impossible.  The people are rebelling against the godawful ObamaCare legislation, even as the senate slouches toward its passage.  The Attorney General is handing terrorists an international forum in New York to recruit for al qaeda.  We are about to commit hundreds of billions, maybe trillions, to fight global warming that may well be a complete hoax.  And there STILL is no decision on how many more troops, if any, will be sent to Afghanistan.

Doesn't this man have something to do besides co-opt Christmas? 

I would rather swim in nuclear waste than see an Obama Christmas special.  With or without Oprah Winfrey. 



Ken Berwitz

Here is another update on how the so-called "stimulus package", which puts our children and grandchildren into near-hopeless debt, has benefitted the economy.  The bold print is mine:

U.S. durable goods orders fall unexpectedly

Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:39am EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New orders for long-lasting U.S. manufactured goods fell unexpectedly in October, according to government data on Wednesday that reinforced views of a gradual economic recovery from recession.

The Commerce Department said durable goods orders dropped 0.6 percent after rising by an upwardly revised 2.0 percent in September. New orders in September were previously reported to have increased 1.4 percent.

Analysts polled by Reuters forecast orders rising 0.5 percent in October. Durable goods orders are a leading indicator of manufacturing activity, which in turn provides a good measure for overall business health

Let's see:  Durable goods orders dropped .6% instead of rising by .5% as they were expected to.

This comes on the heels of today's news that there are another 466,000 new jobless claims (which, so help me God, some media are reporting as good news, not bad).

And then we have the downward revision of last quarter's economic growth (virtually all of which is in the government rather than private sector anyway), from 3.5%  to 2.8%.

Wow, isn't this working great?  And now they're talking about another stimulus package!  Hey, why not?  We can have even more of this amazing success story.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.

And that goes double for 2012.

Zeke ... Huge long-term debt has financed a portion of the economic activity -- Cash for Clunkers, $8,000 home purchase credit. .... .... This credit card stimulus is great -- until it is time to pay the bill ... ... and when interest rates rise to normal levels, bond payments will consume huge portions of the annual budget. (Interest rates reflect the loss of value due to inflation, which will result from the monetary supply expansion.) (11/25/09)

free` If they do the 2nd stimulus like they should have done with the first [tax breaks for businesses and investment] i would support it. But i doubt that is what they have in mind. (11/25/09)


Ken Berwitz

As I have said here before, I'm not an Ann Coulter fan.  But, even though we strongly disagree on a number of issues,  I respect her intellect and her writing.

And how can you resist a column that takes both keith olbermann and Kathleen Sibelius apart, by showing how completely they misrepresent facts?

Here is Ms. Coulter's latest column:

November 25, 2009


It's been weeks since eyewitnesses reported that Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted "Allahu akbar" before spraying Fort Hood with gunfire, killing 13 people.

Since then we also learned that Hasan gave a medical lecture on beheading infidels and pouring burning oil down their throats (unfortunately not covered under the Senate health care bill). Some wondered if perhaps a pattern was beginning to emerge but were promptly dismissed as racist cranks.

We also found out Hasan had business cards printed up with the jihadist abbreviation "SOA" for "Soldier of Allah." Was that enough to conclude that the shooting was an act of terrorism -- or does somebody around here need to take another cultural sensitivity class?

And we know that Hasan had contacted several jihadist Web sites and that he had been exchanging e-mails with a radical Islamic cleric in Yemen. The FBI learned that last December, but the rest of us only found out about it a week ago.

Is it still too soon to come to the conclusion that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism?

Alas, it is still too early to tell at MSNBC. For Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews -- at least two of whom would be severely punished under Shariah law -- the shooting of George Tiller was an act of terrorism, no question. The death of a census taker in Kentucky was also an act of terrorism. (We learned this week that it was a suicide/insurance scam.) But as to Maj. Hasan, the jury is still out -- and will be out for many, many years.

Actually, according to Keith, the Fort Hood massacre may not have happened at all. He has argued persuasively, on several occasions, that it is impossible, literally impossible, to commit mass murder at a military base.

Like many on the left, Keith loved to sneer at all terrorist plots allegedly foiled by the Bush administration. He was particularly contemptuous of the purported plan of six aspiring jihadists to sneak onto the Fort Dix army base and kill as many soldiers as they could.

On Nov. 11, 2008, he explained why the Fort Dix terrorist plot was a laughable fraud, saying the "morons" apparently didn't realize that "all the soldiers have these big guns."

Keith, the moron, apparently doesn't realize that on military bases on U.S. soil only MPs have guns. (Special authorization is required for soldiers to carry a firearm, which can be granted only in the case of a specific and credible threat against military personnel in that region. Thank you, Bill Clinton.)

Again on May 21 this year, Olbermann ridiculed the Fort Dix terror plot, pointing out that the six alleged terrorists seemed to be "forgetting that every man there was armed." (Curiously, even though ROTC was offered at the ag school Keith attended, he appears not to have investigated it.)

But it was not until Aug. 21 of this year that Olbermann hit upon the true reason for the Bush administration's hyping of this implausible terror plot. According to Keith -- and I'm not kidding -- it was to distract from Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' announcement that her state had been unable to respond adequately to a tornado because Bush had diverted the National Guard to his crazy war in Iraq!

The Bush administration, you see, had revealed the arrest of the Fort Dix conspirators the day after Sebelius' world-reverberating bombshell about Kansas' decimated National Guard! Eureka!

This little theory of Keith's, adorable though it is, has problems apart from his insistence that it would be impossible to kill army personnel on "a closed compound full of trained soldiers with weapons." The other problem is Gov. Sebelius was full of crap.

First, Sebelius wasn't in much of a position to know how well Kansas responded to the tornado, inasmuch as she had been partying at New Orleans' Jazzfest the day after the tornado hit -- while Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts and both local congressmen were on the scene, helping the rescue efforts.

Second, the manager of the actual rescue team soon contradicted Sebelius, saying: "We have all the staff that we need and can manage at this time. If we had more people right now, it would just start being a cluster."

The Kansas National Guard had 352 Humvees, 72 dump trucks and more than 320 other trucks, which would seem to be sufficient for the town hit by the tornado, Greensburg, Kan., population 1,574. That's almost one National Guard truck for every two people. (This is the same tornado that Obama claimed had killed 10,000 people. He was off by 9,988.)

Third, it turned out that Gov. Sebelius had rejected offers of additional help from neighboring National Guard units.

Consequently, the day after her dramatic cri de coeur for more National Guard resources, Sebelius' office completely reversed course, telling The Associated Press that the rescue efforts were going "just fine."

What the governor had meant, her office explained, was that Kansas' National Guard might be stretched thin if, hypothetically, another natural disaster were to strike immediately after the tornado.

Keith, unfortunately, was unaware of Sebelius' humiliating about-face, as it was not carried on Daily Kos.

Last December, five of the Fort Dix plotters were found guilty by a federal jury of conspiring to kill American soldiers. The sixth had already pleaded guilty.

Still, compare the macho posturing of the Bush administration over thwarting the Fort Dix terror plot to the masterful handling of domestic terrorist plots since the angel Obama has taken the helm. Why, the Obama administration managed to capture and arrest Maj. Hasan without violating a single American's civil liberties!

Thank you, Ms. Coulter for exposing this sorry pair for what they are. 


Ken Berwitz

My previous blog pointed out that, at least for a few of the so-called "news" venues, the global warming scandal either barely exists or doesn't exist at all.  But I don't have the time or resources to check further (I'm a staff of one, and I intersperse blogging with my business day).

L. Brent Bozell, however, does.  And here is his latest column on the two scandals - 1) the global warming scandal, and 2) major media's determined effort to ignore it.:

When the Press Favors Secrecy

by Brent Bozell


Here's a dirty little secret about The New York Times: It likes to leak things. Important things. Things that change the course of the public conversation. From the Pentagon Papers to the ruined terrorist-surveillance programs of the Bush era, the Times has routinely found that secrecy is a danger and sunlight is a disinfectant.

Until now. A troublesome hacker recently released e-mails going to and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain, e-mails that exposed how the "scientific experts" cited so often by the media on global warming are guilty of crude political talk, attempts at censoring opponents and twisting scientific data to support their policy agenda.


The e-mails prove just how dishonest this left-wing global warming agenda truly is. And now suddenly, The New York Times has found religion and won't publish these private e-mails. Environmental reporter Andrew Revkin, who's more global warming lobbyist than reporter, quoted -- sparsely -- from the e-mails, but declared he would not post these texts on his "Dot Earth" blog on the Times website: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."

That rule didn't apply to things like the disclosure of the SWIFT global bank monitoring program against terrorists.

Unlike our secret terror-fighting efforts, there is no grave matter of national security to protect here. There is only a danger of shredding the undeserved reputation of some global-warming alarmists as nonpartisan, nonideological, just-the-facts scientists with no preconceived environmentalist or statist agenda.

The networks also have ignored this emerging scandal with all the ignorance they could muster. But in the seven days after The New York Times revealed the existence of an NSA program to monitor communications to terrorist cells abroad, the three networks ran a combined 23 stories about the program, more than one story, per network, per night.

Revkin's story in the Times did have some truncated quotes with ridiculous details. In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing apparent climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones of the CRU said he had used a "trick" employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to "hide the decline" in temperatures.

Dr. Mann confirmed the e-mail was real, but told the Times "the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem," and not as something secret.

Doesn't a network correspondent just smell the fraud when scientists start offering lame excuses for the words they somehow didn't mean? Don't just listen to conservatives. Try Nate Silver, a statistician and liberal-media favorite, recently named one of Time's 100 Most Influential People. He says the scientists in this exchange were unethical:

"Dr. Jones, talking candidly about sexing up a graph to make his conclusions more persuasive. This is not a good thing to do -- I'd go so far as to call it unethical -- and Jones deserves some of the loss of face that he will suffer." But then he adds the typical liberal disclaimer: "Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in both academia and the private sector -- have you ever looked at the graphs in the annual report of a company which had a bad year? And it seems to happen all too often on both sides of the global warming debate."

When conservatives are wrong, conservatives are wrong. When liberals are wrong, everyone does it, don't you know?

It's also important to note that these folks play a rough game of hardball. This isn't about science. It's politics -- the brass-knuckles sort. In another e-mail from Jones to Mann, reported in The Washington Post, there's talk of cutting skeptical scientists out of the official United Nations report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal to reject the work of climate skeptics, perhaps with a boycott: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes. "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

This kind of censor-your-opponents activity ought to disgust a journalist who values openness and rigorous debate above all. Every day the networks avoid this story, they're saying they don't really care about either of those values. In fact, they become willing accomplices in a cover-up of global proportions.

Simply stated, I do not know how a media venue can call itself a media venue and not be reporting on this.

But we have major media venues doing just that, don't we?

Then they wonder why people call them biased.....


Ken Berwitz

Do you have any doubt at all that the enormous sums of money being tossed around in the eminently PC name of "Global Warming", "Climate Change", etc. are once-in-a-lifetime opportunities for lying, corruption and money-grabbing?

For anyone who thought for a minute that this would be done honestly, here is a BBC report to disabuse you of your fantasy:

Climate change help for the poor 'has not materialised'

Large sums promised to developing countries to help them tackle climate change cannot be accounted for, a BBC investigation has found.

Rich countries pledged $410m (247m) a year in a 2001 declaration - but it is now unclear whether the money was paid.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has accused industrialised countries of failing to keep their promise.

The EU says the money was paid out in bilateral deals, but admits it cannot provide data to prove it.

The money was pledged in the 2001 Bonn Declaration, signed by 20 industrialised nations - the 15 countries that then made up the European Union, plus Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland.

They said they would pay $410m per year until 2008. The date the payments were meant to start is unclear, but the total should be between $1.6bn and $2.87bn.

The declaration said: "We are prepared to contribute $410m, which is 450 million euro, per year by 2005 with this level to be reviewed in 2008."

But only $260m has ever been paid into two UN funds earmarked for the purpose, the BBC World Service investigation has found.

"There have been promises which have not been fully materialised. There is an issue of trust," says Ban Ki-moon.

The question of finance for developing countries to tackle climate change is one of the keys to a deal at the Copenhagen summit next month.

Poor countries may not sign up to a new agreement unless they trust rich countries to keep their promises, and are satisfied with the mechanisms put in place to handle the flow of funds.

Unequal sums

The industrialised governments which drew up the Bonn Declaration say they never intended to put the money just into the UN funds.

The Declaration allowed them to spend it in "bilateral and multilateral" ways, they say.

Artur Runge-Metzger, the senior climate change negotiator for the European Union, maintains the EU has lived up to its end of the bargain.

"We can say we met the promise, climate finance has really been stepped up," he argues.

However he admits the EU cannot provide data to show it did pay the money through these bilateral and multilateral means.

"It's sometimes very hard to say what is the climate bit of this financing," he says.

Richard Myungi, a climate change negotiator for the Least Developing Countries says: "We feel frustrated, we feel betrayed."

Boni Biagini, who runs the UN funds, also believes much more money should have been paid in.

"These numbers don't match the $410m per year. Otherwise, we'd be handling billions of dollars by now," he says.


Dr Marc Pallemaerts, who drafted the Bonn Declaration in 2001 when he was the deputy chief of staff for the European Union's Belgian Presidency, admits some developing countries may have been led to believe the promised money would go solely into the UN funds.

"Some countries may have been genuinely misled - others knew it was deliberate ambiguity," he maintains.

The Bonn Declaration is surrounded by confusion and has led to mistrust between developed and developing countries.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says any new financing agreement signed at Copenhagen must be clear.

"This whole agreement and negotiation should be based on trust and confidence," he says.

He adds that any new financing deal must be "measurable, reportable and verifiable".


Between this, and the emails that have been uncovered showing how rife with fraud and deception this whole "issue" actually is, how could you expect anything else?

Is the Obama administration still prepared to commit untold additional sums of money we do not have for this scam? 

In a word, yes.  He still is, at least as of now.   And so do a large number of his lopsided Democratic majority in congress.  They have spent so much time and so much political capital lecturing us that man-made global warming is real, that they can't go back.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.

And that goes double for 2012.


Ken Berwitz

For the poll lovers in the house:

President Obama continues to nosedive in the polls.  The latest, USA Today/Gallup, has him at just 50% approve versus 46% disapprove. 

His thin sliver of a silver lining here is that he is holding on (tenuously) to the 50% level:  five major polls (Rasmussen, Zogby, Quinnipiac, Gallup and Fox/Opinion Dynamics) have him in the 40's. 

On the other hand, the numbers are made even worse by the fact that the group running from him fastest is independents -- i.e. the swing votes that settle elections.

What does this mean?  Well, if these data are accurate, it means that Barack Obama has fallen precipitously from where he was just a few months ago.  It also means that he is becoming toxic to dozens and dozens of Democrats who have to run on his record next year.  This is particularly true in the house of representatives, where all members are up for re-election next year. 

How soon before they realize that if they don't cut him loose, voters may well cut them loose? 

Any time that some of these folks start attacking their fearless - and, so far, politically protected - leader will be no surprise to me.  Politicians have strong survival instincts.  And the survival they are most interested in is their own.


Ken Berwitz

The Today show:  Not a word about the global warming emails that I saw.  I googled "Today Show global warming emails" and, in the first two pages, couldn't find any mention that Today has ever said a word about the emails, though this is is the fourth Today broadcast since the scandal broke.  

New York Times:  A front page article, below the fold, on Friday.  Nothing since.  A one-day-and-out story.

I have not monitored the network news shows, and do not know if they have covered this scandal.  On the web sites: has put up a couple of articles about the emails.  Good for them;  Not a thing about it that I can find;  I can't find any articles on the emails, but I did find one saying that the scientists - presumably including some of the ones doing the emailing - say things are even more dire than originally predicted;

Other major venues are reporting this - The Wall Street Journal and Fox News among them (funny how the much-maligned Rupert Murdoch empire is the only one keeping us informed of a story that is being reported around the world). 

I guess, for some news organizations, "fair and balanced" means "partial and tough luck if you want to know about what we're withholding from you".

Keep 'em ignorant and you own 'em.


Ken Berwitz

Posted without additional comment (even though I have a few additional turkeys I'd append to the ones Ms. Malkin has cited):

Turkeys of the Year

by Michelle Malkin


As we gather round the Thanksgiving table, bow our heads in prayer and feast on the holiday bird, it is only fitting to take a moment to fete the unforgettable turkeys of 2009.

1. The stimulus. Back in February, I wrote that if the trillion-dollar stimulus plan were a Thanksgiving dinner entree, it would be a Turbaconducken -- the heart attack-inducing dish of roasted chicken stuffed inside a duck stuffed inside a turkey, all wrapped in endless slabs of bacon. And so it has come to pass. After the Democratic majority larded up the massive spending package with earmarks and bribes, President Obama declared it pork-free and has stubbornly touted its job creation benefits for out-of-work Americans.


Reality check? The Washington Examiner reports that more than 10 percent of the jobs the Obama administration claimed were "created or saved" by the stimulus are doubtful or imaginary. ABC News uncovered countless examples of bogus congressional districts listed as stimulus beneficiaries by the Obama stimulus tracking website, The money has been lavished on shady beauty schools in New Hampshire, prison inmates in Texas and wind companies in Spain and China. Just this week, a California audit found that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation overstated the number of jobs saved by federal stimulus dollars by upward of 13,000.

While this Generational Theft Act continues to soak up our tax dollars and add to our children's and grandchildren's debt, the Democratic majority is in the government kitchen cooking up a second stimulus turkey to provide federal infrastructure money to public-sector unions. Gobble, gobble.

2. President O-bow-ma. The candidate who pledged to restore America's standing in the world couldn't figure out how to stay standing in front of world leaders. In April, he crouched before Saudi King Abdullah. This month, he provoked global derision when he broke protocol and performed a spineless blunder in front of the Japanese emperor.

The kowtower-in-chief's body language reflected the administration's broader foreign policy prostrations -- including scrapping missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland, canceling a meeting with the Dalai Lama to appease China, sitting on its hands this summer during the Iranian election protests and unveiling the 9/11 show trials in New York City that will provide a circus platform for jihadis and international Bush-haters.

The left complained that George W. Bush was too much of a cowboy on the global stage. It's better than having a waterboy.

3. Green jobs czar Van Jones. This deep-fried turkey was recruited by Team Obama's Chicago consigliere Valerie Jarrett, who boasted about recruiting the Marxist rabble-rouser from Oakland. He openly crusaded to free Philadelphia death row cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, bashed capitalism with radical revolutionary rhetoric and signed a 9/11 conspiracy petition that he meekly disavowed in a botched attempt to save his job. Jones is now at the Center for American Progress, run by Obama transition official and Democratic operative John Podesta.

The other turkey in the story, Val Jarrett, escaped unscathed and went on to push the Obamas into their failed crony campaign for the 2016 Olympics bid in Copenhagen -- a taxpayer-funded, hubris-infused debacle that ties with Van Jones for third biggest turkey of the year. Rio got the Games. America got a closer look at the pay-for-play patrons, power brokers and developers in the Windy City who have put an indelible Chicago stamp on the Potomac.

4. The New York Times. Scooped by Fox News, conservative blogs and talk radio on the exploding ACORN scandal, the paper whitewashed its own role in covering up the community organizing racket's financial shenanigans last fall when it cut off a reporter's investigation a few weeks before Election Day. Jill Abramson, the Times' managing editor for news, acknowledged that her staff was "slow off the mark" and blamed "insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio." They assigned a new "opinion media monitor" to track the competition, but refused to identify the watchdog for fear that he/she would get too many mean, intrusive e-mails and phone calls.

More recently, the paper's website demonstrated that its real motto is "All the inconvenient news that's fit to suppress." The Times' lead environmental blogger, Andrew Revkin, haughtily refused to reprint damning e-mails leaked by a hacker in the burgeoning "ClimateGate" scandal. The documents reveal a long trail of manipulated data, but Revkin balked at the ill-gotten trove. The blabbermouths at the Times had no problem exposing national security secrets to undermine Bush. But shed light on scientific hoaxes that undermine Al Gore? Unethical!

5. Tea Party-bashers. Millions of ordinary, peaceful Americans joined the Tea Party movement to revolt against big government, backroom deals and the Beltway culture of corruption. For their exercise of free speech and free assembly, they were smeared nationwide. Hollywood has-been Janeane Garofalo called them "racist, backward motherf**kers." SEIU labor thug Dennis Rivera accused them of "terrorist tactics." CNN anchor Anderson Cooper used a vulgar sexual epithet to describe them. Team Obama's astroturfers declared all-out war on them.

For refusing to sit down and shut up in the face of such unhinged bigotry, and for exposing the foulness of the political fowl, I have two words for them: Thank you.


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!!