Monday, 21 December 2009


Ken Berwitz

This morning, at about 1:00AM, what few of us were awake at the time were shown that if enough senators are given enough bribes they will vote in favor of a bill that this country does not want.

That is about as shocking as when, hours later, the sun rises in the east.

Two questions:

1) Why do you suppose this vote was called when almost no one would be there to see it?

2) why were they voting on a bill that most Democrats and no Republicans at all have been able to see, let alone read and digest?

3) What will the voters do about it next November?

Zeke ... ... Spend yourself Rich ! ! ... ... This is exactly the policy of Greece. ... ... Unions and progressives got large expenditures for overstaffed bureaucracies, make work jobs, huge increases in wages and benefits. ... ... Greece's credit has been downgraded sharply and now the European Union is scrambling to 'save' Greece. ... ... ... ... What happens when a nation runs out of money and credit ? ? (12/21/09)


Ken Berwitz

Here's a "you can't make this stuff up" classic.  It comes to us from WMC-TV in Memphis, Tennessee:

Memphis attorney bit off part of man's nose in restaurant scuffle

Posted: Dec 17, 2009 11:06 PM EST Updated: Dec 18, 2009 12:41 PM

By Janice Broach - bio | email

MEMPHIS, TN (WMC-TV) - A Memphis attorney has admitted to biting off part of a man's nose during a confrontation at a popular Midtown restaurant.

According to a lawsuit filed by Greg Herbers, Mark Lambert bit off and swallowed part of his nose during a dispute last June at Dish on South Cooper Street.

Lambert is a trial attorney with the Cochran Firm.
The incident at Dish began in the men's room when Herbers became annoyed because the urinal and stalls were occupied.

Herbers says two men were together inside the same stall. He says Lambert carried on a conversation with the pair while he used the urinal.

Herbers says he asked the men to vacate the stall because they were not using the toilet. He said the pair refused, at which time Lambert began yelling obscenities and showing aggression towards Herbers.

Herbers says Lambert then pushed and grabbed him and bit off part of his nose.

According to Herbers, Lambert and the other two men fled the scene.

Herbers says he called police and was transported to an area hospital.

In the complaint, Herbers claims he suffered permanent disfigurement to his nose and face and will need plastic surgery and possibly a prosthetic nose.

The police report says Herbers entire left nostril was missing. 

In a phone interview with Action News 5 Thursday, Lambert said he only acted in self-defense after Herbers physically assaulted him for no reason.  

And while he admitted to biting off part of Herbers' nose, Lambert says he didn't swallow it, but spit it out.

Herbers is asking for $5 million in punitive damages. It's not clear why he waited several months to file the lawsuit against Lambert.

Herbers was not reachable for comment.

I'm sure a guy walking out of a men's room with half a nose was just great for business. 

Personally, I'd go to the bar and have a snort.

But seriously, I'd be pretty worried if I were Lambert.  A $5 million lawsuit is nothing to sniff at.

I wonder if Herbers has contacted the Michael Jackson estate to see if they were selling, never mind..

Ok, ok, I'll stop.


Ken Berwitz

From South Carolina's Greenvile News (the bold print is mine):

Graham wants investigation

By Clark Brooks, The Greenville News

Monday, December 21, 2009


U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he wants South Carolina's top prosecutor to investigate a deal that helped secure the 60th vote needed to pass a Democratic health care bill through the Senate.


Blasting Senate Democrats for what he called "backroom deals that amount to bribes," Graham found much to complain about in their health care bill. He was particularly irked that the senator who provided that final vote to head off a Republican filibuster, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, cut a deal in which the federal government pays his state's share of the cost for new Medicaid recipients.


Graham, a South Carolina Republican, called on state Attorney General Henry McMaster to review the constitutionality of the deal, and a McMaster spokesman said he looks forward to meeting with Graham to discuss it.


"There is one state in the union where new enrollees for Medicaid will be signed up and it won't cost anybody in that state money," Graham said on CNN's "State of the Union."


"A lot of people, Republicans and Democrats, are upset by this," Graham said. "Is it constitutional? I want the attorney general of South Carolina to look at this."


Nelson, who skirted the issue in a news conference Saturday, confirmed the deal in a CNN interview Sunday. But he said he didn't ask for special favors.


"What I said is the governor of Nebraska has contacted me, he's said publicly he's having trouble with the budget, this will add to his budget woes. And I said, 'Look, we have to have that fixed.' "


Graham also was upset that Nelson, a pro-life Democrat, compromised on abortion.


"I think Sen. Nelson lost a lot of trust in the pro-life community for pushing a compromise that no one on our side believes works," Graham said.


With no Republican support for the bill, Democratic leaders had a hard time compiling the 60 votes needed to avoid a Republican filibuster.


Covering the politics of the Lowcountry, South Carolina and the Nation.

The deal-making, Graham said, was "seedy Chicago politics when you think about it, backroom deals that amount to bribes." It will make it difficult for Graham and other Republicans in the Senate to work with Democrats on other important issues, such as climate change, he said.


South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint was an early leader among Republican health care reform opponents, proclaiming that thwarting Obama's efforts could make health care his Waterloo.


"This process is not legislation. This process is corruption," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said Sunday, according to the AP.


Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island responded in a speech on the Senate floor, he said Republicans are embarked on a "no-holds- barred mission of propaganda, obstruction and fear. There will be a reckoning. There will come a day of judgment about who was telling the truth."

Don't you love the part about Ben Nelson "skirting the issue" when asked about it, but claiming he didn't ask for special favors?

Yep, there you go.  This one-state deal, that no one else gets, which goes to a senator who would have voted against the bill without it, was just a teensy weensy coincidence.

You have to hand it to these people.  They don't hide their corruption and fraud.  They just put it straight out in front of your eyes and dare you to see it.

Do you?

Zeke ... ... Are these bribes included in our income taxes, or will the IRS Form 1040 now include an additional line, "BRIBES" ? ... ... ... ... Does this set an expectation that ANY critical bill now must contain substantial BRIBES in order to secure support ? ... ... Where does it all end ? (12/21/09)


Ken Berwitz

My pal Bob just sent this to me.

I have no idea if it's really from the Washington Post.  And I don't care.  It's just plain funny.\

Here are the winners of this year's Washington Post's Mensa Invitational which once again asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition:

1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.
2. Ignoranus: A person who is both stupid and an a__hole.
3. Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.
4. Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
5. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
6. Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid.
7. Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high
8. Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
9. Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
10. Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)
11. Karmageddon: It's  like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.
12.  Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.
13. Glibido: All talk and no action.
14. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come ! at you rapidly.
15. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.
16. Beelzebug (n..): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
17.  Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating


The Washington Post has  published the winning submissions to its yearly contest in which readers are asked to supply alternate meanings for common words. And the winners are:
 1. Coffee, n. The person upon whom one coughs.
 2. Flabbergasted, adj. Appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained..
 3. Abdicate, v.. To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.
 4. Esplanade, v. To attempt an explanation while drunk..
 5. Willy-nilly, adj. Impotent.
 6. Negligent,  adj.. Absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.
 7. Lymph, v. To walk with a lisp.
 8. Gargoyle, n. Olive-flavored mouthwash.
 9. Flatulence, n.. Emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.
10. Balderdash, n.. A rapidly receding hairline.
11. Testicle n. A humorous question on an exam.
12. Rectitude, n. The formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.
13. Pokemon, n. A Rastafarian proctologist.
14. Oyster, n. A person who sprinkles his conversation with yiddishisms.
15. Frisbeetarianism, n. The belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there.

16. Circumvent, n. An opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men

Just one minor carp:  I came up with, and have used, the term "ignoranus" for years.  I can't possibly know, but somehow hope, that whoever submitted "ignoranus" got it, either directly or indirectly, from me.


Ken Berwitz

How ridiculous are the claims made by President Obama and his administration about the "success" of the so-called "stimulus package?  This Washington Times editorial gives you the answer:

EDITORIAL:  What is Obama smoking?


Apparently, the debate over the economy is over, and it's settled science that government spending stimulates growth. At least that's what President Obama wants you to believe. On CBS' "60 Minutes" on Dec. 13, he boasted, "What we now know, and every economist who's looked at it will acknowledge this, is that [the stimulus] helped us [stem] the panic and get the economy growing again." Mr. Obama's exaggerations are starting to sound a lot like Al Gore's claimed "consensus" about global warming - a formerly hot topic that has cooled down recently.

Also on Dec. 13, Lawrence H. Summers, Mr. Obama's top economic adviser, professed on multiple news shows that since the economy didn't lose as many jobs in November as it had lost in January, that proves the $787 billion stimulus package saved the economy. Mr. Summers cited forecasters, saying most agree with him that unemployment will start improving in the spring. That's a bit of a yarn since the 52 forecasters surveyed each month by the Wall Street Journal predict virtually no change in unemployment through June. But, in any case, that indicator does not imply things would have been worse without hundreds of billions in government spending.

Mr. Summers somehow fails to use that same yardstick - what forecasters were predicting - when evaluating how the stimulus has performed up to this point. Back in February, before the stimulus plan was passed, the 52 business economists and forecasters expected the unemployment rate this month to be at 8.8 percent, showing only a small increase from the 8.2 percent level of 10 months ago. Instead, the unemployment rate is hovering at 10 percent.

White House predictions were even more rosy, and off base. On Feb. 28, with the stimulus already passed, the Obama administration's own forecast predicted an average unemployment rate for the year of just 8.1 percent. Despite the unemployment rate being 2 percentage points above what his own team promised, the president trumpets that his policies are working. Give us a break.

None of this is surprising. At the beginning of the year, we predicted many times that this big increase in unemployment would occur, precisely because of the stimulus.

Moreover, if Obama officials really want to take credit for changes in the unemployment rate, they are going to have to try to explain why the U.S. unemployment rate is soaring much faster than the rate in other countries. As Fox News reported earlier this month: "Among the 21 countries with available data for unemployment from January to October, the U.S. experienced the second biggest increase, going from 7.6 percent to 10.2 percent (a 2.6 percentage point change). The average increase for the non-U.S. countries was just 0.8 percentage points, just one-third what we experienced. Only Ireland faced a larger increase."

Many times this year, Mr. Obama and his economists explained away the problems and griped that it was hard to turn the economy around because there was a worldwide recession. The troubled economies in the rest of the world supposedly were dragging down the American economy. This line of argument makes no sense given that our downturn was larger than just about everybody else's dip.

The president refuses to admit the truth of the matter - that the economy was going to get better if the so-called stimulus had never passed. Whether one looks at the predictions of forecasters or the Obama administration's own predictions, the implications are the same: Mr. Obama's policies delayed the recovery.

Thank you, Washington Times, for the honesty. 

And shame on so many in the rest of our wonderful "neutral" media for not stating these clear, obvious facts.  In case you're wondering, this is why more and more people have packed you in because they see you as hopelessly biased.

Y'know, they have a point too..


Ken Berwitz

There is a terrific opinion piece about the health care, bill, in the "review and outlook" section of today's Wall Street Journal.

It's long, but definitely worth the read, so I urge you to click on the link I've provided above and do so.  But if you read nothing else, read the last segment, which I am posting below:

"After a nearly century-long struggle we are on the cusp of making health-care reform a reality in the United States of America," Mr. Obama said on Saturday. He's forced to claim the mandate of "history" because he can't claim the mandate of voters. Some 51% of the public is now opposed, according to National Journal's composite of all health polling. The more people know about ObamaCare, the more unpopular it becomes.


The tragedy is that Mr. Obama inherited a consensus that the health-care status quo needs serious reform, and a popular President might have crafted a durable compromise that blended the best ideas from both parties. A more honest and more thoughtful approach might have even done some good. But as Mr. Obama suggested, the Democratic old guard sees this plan as the culmination of 20th-century liberalism.


So instead we have this vast expansion of federal control. Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions.


These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command-and-control regulation, in which bureaucracy trumps innovation and transfer payments are more important than private investment and individual decisions. In short, the Obama Democrats have chosen change nobody believes inoutside of themselvesand when it passes America will be paying for it for decades to come.

That says it beautifully. 

Now:  will voters remember what has been done to them when November comes around?  We'll see.



Ken Berwitz

Here, from Jason Maoz of Commentary Magazine, is an analysis of Republican prospects to mine Jewish votes from Barack Obama in 2012. 

It is tremendously disheartening to say that I agree with Mr. Maoz:

Obama, Jewish Voters, and the Lessons of 1984

Jason Maoz - 12.21.2009 - 11:59 AM


Turns out there are real questions about the accuracy of that recent Quinnipiac poll showing President Obamas approval rating at just 52 percent among Jewish voters. As the JTAs Eric Fingerhut pointed out, the Jewish sampling was derived from a sample of just 71 respondents, for a margin of error of plus or minus 11.6 percent a sample size that pollsters generally say makes such surveys unreliable.


Actually, common sense and some knowledge of Jewish voting habits should be enough to render any such poll findings suspect at best. Obama enjoys two important advantages that make him almost a shoo-in to win another landslide among Jewish voters three years from now: hes a well-spoken, nonthreatening black man (a factor not to be underestimated when considering the voting psychology of liberal and moderate Jews), and hes adamantly opposed to and by the Christian Right.


To put those realities into historical context, its instructive to look back at the presidential election of 1984. For a Republican, Ronald Reagan had done exceedingly well among Jews in 1980, winning 39 percent of their votes and holding the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter, to an unimpressive plurality of 45 percent. (Third-party candidate John Anderson got the rest.) And then came the 1984 National Survey of American Jews, conducted between April and August that year, which found that while 39 percent of respondents acknowledged voting for Reagan in 1980, some 53 percent said that, looking back, Reagan was the candidate they would have preferred.


Certainly Reagan seemed poised to at least hold on to his 1980 share of the Jewish vote and quite possibly exceed it.


In addition to Reagans performance in office, there was, in 1984, the Jesse Jackson factor. The longtime civil-rights firebrand was running for the Democratic nomination that year, and during the course of the campaign many of his past derogatory comments about Jews and Israel resurfaced, fueled both by his reference, in what he thought was an off-the-record conversation, to New York City as Hymietown and his reluctance to separate himself from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.


The Jackson factor was widely thought to threaten the Democratic partys decades-old hold on Jewish loyalties, particularly when a Los Angeles Times poll of African-American delegates at the 1984 Democratic National Convention revealed that 75 percent of the delegates pledged to Jackson and almost 50 percent of those backing eventual nominee Walter Mondale felt no need to distance themselves from Farrakhan or his statements.


Come November, however, Reagan actually ended up losing significant ground among Jewish voters. Exit polls taken the day of the election, wrote Charles Silberman in his 1985 book A Certain People, indicated that no more than 35 percent of American Jews, and perhaps as few as 31 percent, had voted for Reagan; the Jewish vote for Mondale was put at 65-69 percent analysis of the polls indicated that between 25 and 35 percent of the Jews who had voted for Reagan in 1980 switched to Mondale in 1984.


It seems that Reagans increasingly vocal embrace of the New specifically, the Christian Right scared Jews more than anything said by either Jackson or Farrakhan. Nearly 80 percent of Jews had an unfavorable opinion of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the most visible face of the Christian Right (never mind that Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin had presented Falwell with the Jabotinsky Prize in recognition of his strong support of the Jewish state). In fact, Silberman noted, more Jewish voters indicated an unfavorable opinion of Falwell than of Jesse Jackson.


The historian Stephen Whitfield elaborated on that point in 1986, writing: The rise of the New Right has been more disturbing to Jews than the circulation within the Democratic Party of Third World sympathies that collide with Israeli interests.


How does all this relate to Obama and Jewish support? For one thing, the Republican partys identification with the Christian Right is immeasurably stronger today than it was 25 years ago, making it unlikely that liberal or moderate Jews will find a comfort level with the GOP anytime soon. For another, the current generation of American Jews is not nearly as supportive of Israel and Israeli policies as were their parents and grandparents and support for Israel was the one factor that in the past might have swayed some liberal Jews to vote for a Republican.


If Jimmy Carter, fresh off a disastrous four years in office and displaying an increasingly palpable animus toward Israel, could still outpoll his Republican opponent among Jews (and absent the Anderson candidacy, Carter probably would have won at least 55 percent of the Jewish vote), theres no reason to believe that even a mediocre Democratic president particularly if hes a likable African American who talks a good liberal game need worry about Jewish voters.

Someone.  Show me what is wrong with this analysis. Please.


Ken Berwitz

"Free at last!  Free at last!  Thank God Almighty, I'm free at last!"

I'm pretty sure you know that I am quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 

And I am happy to say that Dr. King inspired many, many people.  But I am also saddened to say that, for a large number of so-called "Black leaders", his statement constitutes an attack from the enemy camp.

Not that the leaders in question will publicly denounce Dr. King.  Not in words, anyway.  They denounce him by their actions. 

I'll let Black conservative Lloyd Marcus show you how it is done.  Please pay special attention to the segment I've put in bold print:

December 21, 2009

Libs Scold Black Conservatives

By Lloyd Marcus


A young married couple, Paul and Nancy, were neighbors of mine back in the seventies. Nancy was extremely excited because an unexpected opportunity arose for her to attend college. This would broaden her horizons and enable her to pursue opportunities beyond her then-current minimum-wage jobs. Paul was dead set against it. He confided in me, "I'm afraid if she gets educated, she may not want me anymore." I thought, So rather than allowing Nancy, whom you profess to love, to be all she can be, you would prefer to keep her down.

In the eighties, I was a member of a team of six artists at a Baltimore TV station. They hired a new kid. Jeff was talented, enthusiastic, and ambitious. Whenever someone came into the art department with a request and our supervisor was unavailable, (while other artists ignored them, thinking it's not my job), Jeff stepped up and took care of them. Jeff's attitude caused tension between him and our union. While the union could not nail Jeff for doing anything outside of the restrictions of our contract, the consensus was that he was too friendly with management and too eager to benefit the company. The real conflict was that Jeff's nature drove him to excellence, but our union encouraged group mediocrity.


I share these two stories as examples of attempts to stifle personal greatness. Folks, liberals (black and white) have been stifling black American individuality and greatness for years through a deceptive shroud of compassion. In reality, liberals' true attitude towards independent blacks is, "Who the heck do you think you are? How dare you achieve success without us?"


Liberals use intimidation and punishment to rein in blacks who bypass their formula for success. Dr. King believed in personal responsibility. He required his fellow marchers to be clean, sober, and even-tempered. He marched and gave his life for fairness, not special concessions.


The liberal media celebrates black achievement only when it comes from an I made it in spite of America's racism point of view. Blacks who proclaim, "I achieved because America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it" are vilified by the media, branded Uncle Toms and traitors to their race.


The Left's message is clear. To be authentically black and faithful to their race, blacks must not achieve on their own. They must view themselves as eternal victims and reserve at least a minimal resentment against white America.


While in the supermarket checkout line, I saw Rev. Al Sharpton , the poster child of the "America Sucks for Blacks" campaign, on the cover of Ebony magazine. Gag me.


I searched the internet. Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas have never been featured on the cover of Ebony. Think about that. Before the election of Obama, the two most powerful blacks in America (Rice was the also most powerful woman in the world) have never graced the cover of black America's most prestigious magazine. Why? Because most black media outlets wish to keep the "blacks need liberals to achieve" thing alive. Rice and Thomas achieved their phenomenal success the old-fashioned way: They earned it.


Sharpton on the cover of Ebony magazine is typical of liberal black media's betrayal. They have been feeding their people spin and untruths for years, all of which is designed to keep blacks on the government dependency plantation and voting for Democrats.


Imagine how empowering it would be for blacks if Ebony featured a self-made black conservative on its cover. When I say "self-made", I do not mean without any assistance. No man is an island, and all who succeed had help along the way. I am talking about achieving through education, hard work, and doing the right things -- as opposed to the demeaning liberal path to success, which is lowered standards, playing the victim card, and affirmative action.


Frustratingly, entrenched false paradigms are difficult to break. The Republican party was founded partly to end slavery. Historically and today, Republicans have proven themselves to be far greater friends to blacks than the democrats. And yet most blacks believe that Republicans are racists. Despite numerous mega-rich blacks and America electing a black president, most blacks mindlessly embrace the liberal lie that America has not changed much since the 1950s. Compassionately, I want to grab black America by the collar and slap it while yelling, "Wake up...snap out of it!"


I know two black brothers. The elder has had a factory job which he hates for twenty years. His mind is infected with liberal rhetoric: "The American system is designed for blacks to fail." Meanwhile, his younger brother ignored the lies and started his own successful janitorial business shortly after graduating high school.


Life is about choices. Liberals do a great disservice to minorities by constantly attempting to convince them they are eternal victims unable to achieve without liberal intervention. It has been said that "If you love someone, set him free."


-Lloyd Marcus, (black) Unhyphenated American

A partial disclaimer:  Lloyd Marcus does a lot of generalizing here.  I part company with him when he talks about "liberals" and "Republicans" as if they all were cut from the same cloth.  I'm no fan of generalizations, to say the least, and usually dismiss them (as I am doing here).  

But the crux of what Mr. Marcus says is dead-on true.  Keeping Black people down for profit, whether that profit is in $$$ or votes, is damn near the national pastime among some "Black leaders".  The more dependent and angry Black people are, the more important these "leaders" are.  The more success and fulfillment Black people have, the less these "leaders" are needed. 

Maybe that is why, with precious few exceptions (Oprah Winfrey being the most prominent),  role models such as Condoleezza Rice, or Richard Parsons, or John W. Thompson, or Thomas Sowell, or Kenneth I. Chennault, or Clarence Thomas, or Shelby Steele, or Gwendolyn Brooks, or Walter Williams, or Katharine Dunham, or Larry Elder, etc. etc. etc. are so underexposed to the people who would most benefit from knowing about them. 

Instead, what we see is self-preservation of these "leaders" at the expense of the people they, ostensibly, are advocating for. 

That stinks.  And the more Black people see through what is being done by this bunch, the better off they, as a group, will be.

Yes, there is racism.  Lots of it.  Every day.  I do not in any way deny or minimize this.  And, yes, it makes things harder for Black people, certainly when dealing with the non-Black world. 

But there are also people of good will who are not racist.  And there are also opportunities for advancement and success every day. 

And the Black people who break away from using racism as an excuse for any setback or failure, and as a rationale for not trying at all, are the Black people who most open themselves to the advancement and success that can be theirs.  The ones most likely to eventually be able to look down at the "Black leaders" who need them at the bottom of the barrel, and say:

"Free at last!  Free at last!  Thank God Almighty, I'm free at last!"

Zeke ... ... .... So, the "Black Leaders" - Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bonds, etc ... believe in the same goals as the Ku Klux Klan. ... ... .... (12/21/09)


Ken Berwitz

Remember when President Bush fired 7 of the 93 US attorneys?  For months media were all over it, with charges flying that the firings might have been political (they probably were - so what?) and outrage that congress was not consulted (there is no requirement whatsoever that congress has to be consulted regarding the hiring or firing of US Attorneys - they serve at the pleasure of the President).

So what would they have done if President Bush summarily fired an Inspector General - someone who does not serve at the pleasure of the President and whose firing would require the implementation of specific procedures?  And what if the Inspector General was fired while going after a big Bush supporter who mIGHT have misused hundreds of thousands of dollars?

There would be an excrement hemmorhage from today to doomsday over that one.

Well, it happened.  But not with President Bush.  It happened with President Obama.  And suddenly that excrement hemmorhage developed a severe case of constipation. 

Here are the latest particulars, from Paul Mirengoff of  The bold print is Paul's, the blue print is mine:

The Walpin pretext, Part Two

  Share Post   Print

December 20, 2009 Posted by Paul at 5:45 PM

We've written before about the Obama's administration's firing of Gerald Walpin from the position of inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). Walpin ran afoul of Obama because he investigated a charity operated by former pro basketball star and current mayor of Sacramento, Kevin Johnson, a prominent Obama supporter. The non-profit, St. Hope, received an $850,000 grant from AmeriCorps. Walpin investigated what St. Hope did with the money and concluded that much of it was improperly spent, for example, to pay recipients to wash Johnson's car.

As a result of Walpin's investigation, St. Hope agreed to repay half the money it got from AmeriCorps. However, since St. Hope is insolvent, AmeriCorps is unlikely to get its money back. Moreover, the acting U.S. Attorney in Sacramento declined to prosecute anyone in connection with these events.

As Scott argued here, the White House's explanation for the firing of Walpin is false. Norman Eisen, Obama's special counsel for ethics and government reform, told Congress that his investigation into the merits of removing Gerald Walpin involved contacting members of the CNCS board to confirm the existence of a "consensus" in favor of removal. But Republican investigators later discovered that during that alleged "extensive review," the White House did not even seek the views of the corporation's board -- the very people whose "consensus" purportedly led to Walpin's firing.

Now, congressional Republicans have discovered an important additional inconsistency in the Obama administration's story of the firing. According to Republican staffers, Alan Solomont, CNCS's former board chairman and Obama's nominee to be ambassador to Spain, told Republican investigators that he only discussed the Walpin matter with the White House counsel's office. But White House visitor logs show that Solomont met with Jackie Norris, then Michelle Obama's chief-of-staff, on the day before Walpin was dismissed. At that time, it had been announced that Norris was leaving her White House post to become a CNCS senior adviser.

Under these circumstances, it seems virtually certain that Solomont discussed Walpin's ouster with Norris. This means that, to the extent Solomont denied discussing this matter with anyone outside the White House counsel's office, Solomont did not tell the truth.

Viewed as a whole, moreover, the record strongly suggests that the firing of Walpin was not the product of a proper investigation or a consensus among CNCS board members. Rather, it looks like something cooked up by a prominent political donor (Solomont) and an Obama operative (Norris). Indeed, as the Washington Post observes, Walpin's dismissal has already earned a bipartisan rebuke from lawmakers based on the White House's failure to give Congress 30 days' notice before the removal, as proper procedures require.

Congressional Republicans responded to the latest discrepancy in the White House's line by asking Solomont to "clarify" his original version of the facts. They say that Solomont walked out of a meeting arranged by Senator Grassley when these questions arose. White House aides who were present deny this account.

In either case, the inability of key White House players to tell the truth about the circumstances surrounding Walpin's termination leaves little doubt that the alleged reasons for the termination are pretexts and that the real reason was the Obama administration's unhappiness over the trouble Walpin caused for the president's corrupt ally, Kevin Johnson.

How bad does this stink?  The answer is it stinks plenty bad.

How much coverage are our wonderful "neutral" media giving it?  The answer to that question stinks even worse.

How biased are our media?  The answer to that question stinks worst of all.

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!!