Saturday, 13 March 2010

OBAMACARE & QUOTAS

Ken Berwitz

Here's something I did not know about until I read Mona Charen's illuminating column at www.townhall.com:  The ObamaCare legislation mandates racial, sexual and ethnic quotas.

Please read Ms. Charen's column, which is posted below.  And you will see (I guarantee you will see because I put it in bold print), among her other salient points, how these quotas are being implemented:

The Democrats Won't Talk About This Provision

by Mona Charen

 

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future . ... We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." -- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, March 9, 2010

Pity the Democrats. They just can't get their message out. Not with a charismatic president (who has delivered 52 speeches on the subject), control of both houses of Congress, the gooey enthusiasm of 90 percent of the press, and more than a year of ceaseless agitation. Their efforts have been thwarted, so they imagine, by "misinformation," "distortion" and the "special interests." So influential are these dark forces that the leadership cannot shout over them. Speaker Pelosi must pass the grossly unpopular bill in order to get the peace and quiet she needs to explain its virtues.

In fact, on the most important variable about this legislation -- cost -- Americans see through the optimistic projections. Asked by Rasmussen whether the health care plan will cost more than currently estimated, 81 percent of voters said yes and 66 percent said it was "very likely" to exceed projections. Doubtless the Democrats can explain that Americans believe this only because they've been duped by lies and clever ad campaigns, not because 60 years of recent history demonstrate conclusively that government programs, particularly open-ended entitlements, nearly always exceed projected costs. In 1966, Medicare cost taxpayers $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that by 1990, we might be spending as much as $12 billion. The actual 1990 figure? $107 billion. In 1987, Congress estimated that the Medicaid DSH (disproportionate share hospital) costs would be less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost? $17 billion.

 

But since Pelosi is so eager for us to know the details, let's indulge her. Among the specifications of the House bill that passed last November are several sections that mandate racial and ethnic quotas for medical schools and other federal contractors. As Allan Favish reported in The American Thinker, the bill specifies that the secretary of Health and Human Services, "In awarding grants or contracts under this section ... shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of ... training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

This, along with other provisions, is broad enough to cover every medical, nursing, dental school and teaching hospital in the country and guarantees the institutionalization of racial, sex, and ethnic quotas in perpetuity (though the use of the word "underrepresented" before "minority" ensures that the quotas will not apply to Asians or Jews).

The rationale for quotas, insofar as there is one, is that African-Americans and Hispanics have, on average, poorer health than other groups. Liberals assume that these disparities are the result of discrimination or lack of access to health care rather than other factors like poverty, eating habits, heredity, and fitness. If medical and dental schools are required to admit more minority applicants, newly minted minority professionals will tend to those "underserved" populations.

Of course, medical and dental schools have been practicing affirmative action for decades, but they've had trouble recruiting large numbers of minorities. Part of the problem is that African-Americans do not tend to gravitate to math and science (the solution to which is to be found in families and schools). Still, for the past few decades, less-qualified minorities have been offered spots in medical schools, with the result that: 1) Those minority professionals who would have qualified without affirmative action bear a stigma, and 2) less-qualified minorities fail licensing exams at much higher rates than their classmates. Is it a service to the African-American or Hispanic communities to provide physicians and dentists who are less capable than others? Will it improve health outcomes to be treated by less-qualified professionals?

President Obama asked this week whether anyone could oppose "holding insurance companies accountable," and "bringing down costs for everyone." Funny, he doesn't ask whether we object to this: a provision on "maintaining, collecting and presenting federal data on race and ethnicity," in order to "facilitate and coordinate identification and monitoring ... of health disparities to inform program and policy efforts to reduce such disparities." That's an engraved invitation to social engineering.

But then, even to mention it is probably contributing to the "fog of controversy."

How does that sit with you?  Are you ok with pushing people to the front or the back of the line based on race, religion or gender?  Isn't that what we are supposed to be against?

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again now:  You do not redress discrimination by creating more of it. 

If merit is the prevailing basis for acceptance into medical, nursing, dental schools and teaching hospitals, then it is being done right.  If merit takes a back seat to skin color, religion and gender, it is not. 

You are not doing anyone any good by "getting back" at people whose crime is that they are the same color or gender as the ones who perpetrated a past injustice. 

Not, that is, unless you think it makes sense to blame a 22 year old White male for jim crow laws that he did not create and which have not existed in his lifetime.  If you do that, how are you different than the racist who stereotypes Black people as being ignorant, lazy, sex-crazed, etc.?   In both cases, the decision is made on nothing other than skin color.

Intolerance is an odious stain on the human condition.  No matter where it emanates from.  How about we just don't do it?  Ok?  Great.

Now, why is it in the health care legislation?  And why are our wonderful "neutral" media not talking about it?

Zeke ... ... .... Back in 1993, HillaryKare contained the exact same requirements .... .... the term used then was "race norming". In other words, Medical Schools would take the top, say 5% of applicants ... BUT .... BUT.... BUT ..... each Race Pool [Black, Latino, White] would be considered SEPARATELY, with quotas for the size of accepted applicants from EACH POOL. So, let's say 100 Latinos were required to be admitted .... then the school would select the top 100 Latinos for this ... doesn't matter if there are more qualified Asians .... tough... it is the OUTCOME of the selection that counts. .... .... ... Of course this results in .... 1) the valid perception that favored groups are not as compent .... and ... 2) ... the message to favored applicants that they don't have to put forth much effort, because the schools won't kick them out for non-performance. ..... ..... .... ..... Could it be that the admission process was designed by the KKK .... the RESULT seems to indicate that. (03/13/10)


USA-ISRAEL UPDATE

Ken Berwitz

Here is Jennifer Rubin's latest column on the already bad, and fast becoming even worse, relations between the United States under Barack Obama and Israel.  Please pay special attention to the two paragraphs I've put in bold print:

A New Low

Jennifer Rubin - 03.13.2010 - 10:17 AM

It is hard to imagine that U.S.-Israeli relations could have reached this point. But they have. The Washington Post aptly described where we stand: Ties Plunge To A New Low. In short, relations with Israel have been strained almost since the start of the Obama administration. Now they have plunged to their lowest ebb since the administration of George H.W. Bush. And there is no improvement in sight. After the public and private scolding by the vice president over the building of housing units in Jerusalem, Hillary Clinton continued the hollering, this time in a conversation with Bibi Netanyahu that was eagerly relayed to the media:

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley described the nearly 45-minute phone conversation in unusually undiplomatic terms, signaling that the close allies are facing their deepest crisis in two decades after the embarrassment suffered by Vice President Biden this week when Israel announced during his visit that it plans to build 1,600 housing units in a disputed area of Jerusalem.

Clinton called Netanyahu to make clear the United States considered the announcement a deeply negative signal about Israels approach to the bilateral relationship and counter to the spirit of the vice presidents trip, Crowley said. Clinton, he said, emphasized that this action had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process and in Americas interests.

As the Post points out, the relationship has been rocky from the get-go. (From the start of his tenure, President Obama identified a Middle East peace deal as critical to U.S. national security, but his efforts have been hampered by the administrations missteps and the deep mistrust between the Israelis and the Palestinians.) Actually, it is the mistrust between Israel and the U.S. that is at the nub of the problem. We hear that the Obami intend to use this incident to pressure Israel to something that could restore confidence in the process and to restore confidence in the relationship with the United States. And it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Obami are escalating the fight making relations more tense and strained to achieve their misguided objective, namely to extract some sort of unilateral concessions they imagine would pick the lock on the moribund peace process.

Its mind boggling, really, that after this public bullying, the Obami expect the Israelis to cough up more concessions and show their faith in the American negotiators. And if by some miracle they did, what would that change? Where is the Palestinian willingness or ability to make a meaningful peace agreement?

In the midst of the administrations temper tantrum, we find yet another reason for George W. Bush nostalgia: we used to get along so much better with Israel. Bushs deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams (who had the curious notion that a relationship of mutual respect and affection could encourage Israel to take risks for peace) writes:

The current friction in U.S.-Israel relations has one source: the mishandling of those relations by the Obama administration. Poll data show that Israel is as popular as ever among Americans. Strategically we face the same enemies such as terrorism and the Iranian regime a fact that is not lost on Americans who know we have one single reliable, democratic ally in the Middle East. the Obama administration continues to drift away from traditional U.S. support for Israel. But time and elections will correct that problem; Israel has a higher approval rating these days than does President Obama.

Very true, but alas, both American voters and the Israelis must endure at least another few years of this. When the Obami talked of restoring our standing in the world and repairing frayed relations with allies, they plainly didnt have Israel in mind. They have, through petulance and complete misunderstanding of the real barrier to peace, made hash out of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Those who imagined wed be getting smart diplomacy must now be chagrined to know how ham-handedly one can conduct foreign policy.

To the 78% of US Jews, most of whom presumably support Israel, who voted for Barack Obama:  I hope you are happy with what you got.

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

free` obama is a product of the left wing socialist/communist academia. On college campuses across America they display there hate for Israel right in the open. If the media had bothered to look into obamas relationships, his anti-Israel positions wouldn't be a surprise. Had the media treated obama as they did Sarah Palin there is no way this inexperienced man would have been elected. So the next time you read something in the MSM you had better check into yourself first, the MSM can not be trusted to give you the facts anymore. (03/13/10)


TWO QUICK ADVERTISING COMMENTS: PRISTIQ AND FRENCH'S MUSTARD

Ken Berwitz

Here they are:

1.  When they advertise Pristiq, an anti-depressant, one of the warnings is that it might cause "suicidal thoughts or actions" among children, teenagers and young adults.  So I went on line and read the exact wording - in which Pristiq seems to indicate this is true of other anti-depressants as well. 

That's some hell of a good argument not to give anti-depressants to children, teens and young adults, wouldn't you think?

2.  I was buying mustard at the supermarket a couple of days ago and my eye was drawn to French's Spicy Brown mustard, because it had "50% more" in big letters on the packaging.  I assumed this meant I would get 50% more than the usual amount for the same price, which certainly is a common way that products are promoted these days.

But when I picked it up and read the smaller print below, it did not say "for the same price".  In its entirety the label said "50% MORE than our 12 oz".  In other words, the come-on of "50% more..." meant nothing other than that it was an 18 oz. unit, which I would be paying accordingly more to buy.

Is French's doing anything specifically illegal?  I would think not.  But is the company doing something intentionally misleading, for the purpose of fooling shoppers into buying a larger size of their product?  I would think the answer, self-evidently, is yes.

Because of this, I won't be buying French's mustard any more.

Zeke ... ... Bob W : ... .... What is your position on French Kissing ? (03/13/10)

BOBW I WILL NOT BUY FRENCH TOAST, FRENCH VANILLA ICECREAM OR ANYTHING FRENCH AT ALL (03/13/10)


MARCELLUS OWENS: THIS YEAR'S GRAEME FROST

Ken Berwitz

Remember Graeme Frost?  He was that poignant 12 year old boy who the Democratic Party exploited in 2007 by having him read (he sure as $%#&% didn't write it) the Party's response to President Bush's radio address regarding SCHIP (State Childrens Health Insurance Program).  

The basis of this reading assignment was that the family had a car accident requiring two children to be hospitalized for months.  Since, according to the family, they were not poor enough to be poverty stricken, but close, they needed lots and lots of SCHIP money to get through their ordeal.  

Young Mr. Graeme's "testimony", however, was compromised by the fact that, as it turned out, his family owned a house worth close to a half million dollars, Frost children were going to private schools and dad owned a warehouse - not leased, owned - which we weren't supposed to know the contents of.  Further, when asked if he would show his 2006 tax returns (presumably to prove the financial status he was claiming), Mr. Frost refused to do so.  Simply stated, the Frost story stunk to high heaven. 

Now we have Marcellus Owens. 

Let me start by saying I truly have compassion for this young man, who lost his mother at a very early age.  There is a tragic story here that should not be minimized or disdained.

That said, however, this young man, like Graeme Frost, is being trotted out to sell something.  And, like Grame Frost, the sale is compromised by facts.

Steve Gilbert of www.sweetness-light.com has the specifics.  Here is his blog:

Dems/HCAN Exploits Child For Agit-Prop

March 12th, 2010

 

A little background on the latest exploited child Democrat face of the crying need for healthcare reform.

From the Seattle Times:

 

Boy who lost mom takes health-care story to D.C.

 

Marcelas Owens may be the only health-care lobbyist around here who needs an excused absence from school. The fifth-grader at Seattles Orca K-8 school has been campaigning for health-care changes since, when he was 7, his mother died after she fell ill and lost her job and insurance coverage.

 

By Kyung M. Song

March 8, 2010

 

WASHINGTON Marcelas Owens may be the only health-care lobbyist around here who needs an excused absence from school.

 

The fifth-grader at Seattles Orca K-8 school has been campaigning for changes in the health-care system since his mother died after she fell ill and lost her job and insurance coverage. He was 7 at the time.

 

Owens has told his story to Sen. Patty Murray, who, in turn, has retold it on the Senate floor as well as to President Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden.

 

On Tuesday, Marcelas is taking part in a protest rally in Washington, D.C., against insurance companies organized by Health Care for America Now, a nationwide lobbying campaign. He also is planning to buttonhole lawmakers, speak at a hearing and wage a sit-in as the yearlong congressional debate on health care approaches what may be a final showdown.

 

Health Care for America Now paid to take the boy and his grandmother to D.C.

 

Healthcare For America Now is Mr. Obamas professional army of lobbyists for healthcare reform. They are funded by George Soros and the SEIU and the rest of the usual suspects.

 

The chipmunk-cheeked Marcelas didnt come to argue the merits of the public option (indeed, he couldnt define it). His plea is far simpler: "I want health care to be for everybody."

 

He came to his advocacy out of profound loss.

 

His mother, Tifanny Owens, was working as an assistant manager at Jack in the Box when she began suffering from mysterious vomiting and diarrhea in September 2006. By October that year, she had missed so much work that she lost her job and her insurance.

 

Two months later, Owens sought emergency care at Swedish Medical Centers Central Area campus, where a doctor diagnosed her with pulmonary hypertension, a serious type of high blood pressure involving the arteries in the lungs. In January, she again went to Swedishs emergency room and was hospitalized for eight days.

 

Note that Ms. Owens was treated both times, even though she did not have any health insurance.

 

Owens mother, Gina Owens, said her daughter, who didnt qualify for Medicaid, avoided regular visits to a doctor despite frequently throwing up blood.

 

If Ms. Owens was unemployed with three children, she certainly would have qualified for Medicaid and a host of other welfare benefits.

 

In June 2007, Tifanny Owens was hospitalized yet again, this time at University of Washington Medical Center. After a week of unconsciousness, she died at age 27, leaving Marcelas and his two younger sisters. Gina Owens has custody of the three children.

 

Again, Ms. Owens was treated even though she did not have health insurance.

 

Marcelas said he has many good memories of his mother "even though I knew her for only seven years."

Even before her daughter fell ill, Gina Owens had been active for years with Washington Community Action Network, the states largest consumer-advocacy group. Her death made the familys cause personal.

 

The Washington Community Action Network is a part of the Soros funded HCAN mentioned above.

 

So instead of helping the young mother when she was in dire need, they are exploiting her death and her child for their agenda.

 

But none of our media masters will ever deign to tell us the rest of the story.

See the problem?  However tragic this story is, the fact remains that Ms. Owens was treated for her condition even though she did not have insurance..  But you are supposed to overlook this tiny little detail, and join young Marcellus in demanding that there be "health care for everybody".  Tra la la la...

What does this 12 year old's view of health care have to do with his mother's situation?  Where and when was she denied health care? 

And what would the same media fawning over Marcellus Owens say, if Republicans trotted out a 12 year old to speak against ObamaCare because it would put an enormous debt on him/her as an adult?

I think we both know the answer to that one.

lou lou Let me understand? Mad about healthcare, glad about the record of the Bush years of deception, loss of life, not to mention the billions of $$ to finance a totally un-necessary war? Can anyone do anything right but the right? Hey, I made a joke, now laugh! Ha Ha Ha Ha, cry babies! (03/23/10)

Robert Deen Re Lou Lou's idiot comment - we are at war because the Muslims have attacked & will continue until all of one side or the other is dead. I perfer to fight that war in the middle east instead of NYC or even Lou Lou's home town. (03/25/10)

Phil Cooper Thanks Ken. Nice report. (03/16/10)

lou lou Let me understand? Mad about healthcare, glad about the record of the Bush years of deception, loss of life, not to mention the billions of $$ to finance a totally un-necessary war? Can anyone do anything right but the right? Hey, I made a joke, now laugh! Ha Ha Ha Ha, cry babies! (03/23/10)

kymm i think the point here is that had she had medical insurance she would have been able to afford on going preventative treatment instead of sporadic visits at critical times to the ER where she ended up dying anyway. ongoing insurance where you havean assigned doctor who knows your history etc is more favourable that going to the ER in a dire situation and seeing a different doctor each time who doesnt know anything about you and whose only mission in emergency not long term care. if we werent fighting this stupid war against so-called "muslims" (who remember were once our funded allies), the money we would have saved would have prevented the financial meltdown and paid for healthcare for every single american ten times over. (03/25/10)

EmmaKate Jeez! The left always does this, don't they? They make a really good, foolproof argument...until you look at the details. Just like Ms. "We have to pass it so you can see what's in it" Pelosi. Thanks for this informative article; I came across the boy's name (with a reference that he lost his mom due to lack of insurance) and knew that couldn't be the whole truth. (03/23/10)

lou lou Let me understand? Mad about healthcare, glad about the record of the Bush years of deception, loss of life, not to mention the billions of $$ to finance a totally un-necessary war? Can anyone do anything right but the right? Hey, I made a joke, now laugh! Ha Ha Ha Ha, cry babies! (03/23/10)

john heart HAHAHAHAHAH the MUSLIMS are attacking us????? how bout you put all the Muslims in a nice little box!!!! Think before you speak or write. Your uneducated and it shows. (03/25/10)

Thanks for the info Obama's plan would have apparently just forced Marcellus's mother to pay for health insurance against her will, cause she didn't qualify for Medicaid but didn't voluntarily obtain health insurance. There's no evidence she would have visited a hospital more frequently, or even that doing so would have saved her life, if she'd been covered because Obama forced her to pay for health insurance. I guess one could argue she then would have wanted to get her money's worth. But you liberals are right, extending coverage to millions of able-bodied adults who don't work is better than paying off our $12 trillion dollar debt, cause Republicans deserve it for preferring war to just sitting on our asses after we've been attacked. If we must cover everyone, why are we mandating every individual purchase insurance rather than asking corporations or only the richest to pay for this coverage? Many people simple can't afford health insurance. That's why they didn't buy it before... that and they didn't need it. (03/30/10)


SLAUGHTERING THE CONSTITUTION

Ken Berwitz

Are you aware of "the Slaughter solution" -- otherwise known as an attempt by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) to circumvent the United States Constitution?

If not, you better read this piece by Michell Malkin - every word of it (bold print is hers and mine both):

Constitution Butchers: Stop Pelosis Slaughter House

By Michelle Malkin    March 13, 2010 10:11 AM

 

Meet Constitution-butchers Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter.

 

Cleaning Houseby bloodying it:

 

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House deems the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

 

Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!

 

Constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin asks, Theyre going to present a rule, issued by her committee as chairman, that says that the House already adopted the Senate bill when we know it didnt?

U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.

 

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively

 

According to Levin, James Madison himself gave special care and attention to this clause in the Constitution.

Levin: And do you want to know why? Because this clause goes to the heart of this Republic.

 

This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President

This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.

 

And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.

 

Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!

 

Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.

 

It would be government by fiat meaning there would be no law the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us at the brink. At the brink.

 

This is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we stress the Constitutions words have meaning and historical context and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which leads to tyranny.

 

This is a crucial lesson for those of you who arent sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or arent sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by the one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.

How sick is this?  How sick and despicable?

Do we have a constitution or don't we?  Do Louise Slaughter and Nancy Pelosi even care?  Do their fellow Democcrats in the house care?

Would the US Senate ever in a million years let them get away with th....er, wait, it's 59-41 in favor of Slaughter's party, isn't it?  Sorry I asked.

When I say the 2010 elections cannot come fast enough, this is why. 

And that goes double for 2012.

Zeke ... ... ... Hey, I'm all for that. .. ... Have the "Dems Deem Da Bill". .... .... ... Man, talk about a constitutional gridlock. Obama will be a long term resident of the Old Age Home before that ever gets resolved. ... ... The scheme has already been ruled nonsense by the parliamentarian (House and Senate have their own equivalent of Roberts Rules of Order). (03/13/10)


THE COFFEE PARTY

Ken Berwitz

Let's make short work of this one.

"The Coffee Party", which founder Annabel Park claims is just a more civil version of the "Tea Party" movement, is anything but.

Annabel Park is a left wing operative who worked long and hard for Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

Here are the particulars from Lucianne.com, via Thomas Lifson of www.americanthinker.com.  The bold print is mine:

March 04, 2010

NY Times, WaPo willing tools of astroturf scam

Thomas Lifson

 

Thanks to bloggers, two liberal newspapers have been busted as willing tools of a sophisticated astroturf PR scam by the Obama camp. Desperate over the wildfire success of the Tea Party movement, an astroturf group, the Coffee Party Movement, was created to be portrayed as "civilized" in contrast to the media caricature of the Tea Parties as racist, violent, and in-bred. Co-opting the energy, and splintering the protests, as well as drawing attention away are the obvious intentions.

David Axelrod is a proud maestro of astroturfing, having ginned up phony grass roots groups for private clients as well as politicians for years before guiding Obama's way to the White House .

 

Both the New York Times and Washington Post willingly portrayed the political operative who fronted the astroturf group, Annabel Park, as a civic-minded activist. From the Times:



"We're not the opposite of the Tea Party," Ms. Park, 41, said. "We're a different model of civic participation, but in the end we may want some of the same things."

 

The Tea Party argues for stripping the federal government of many of its roles, and that if government has to be involved, it should be mostly state governments.

 

"The way I see it," Ms. Park said, "our government is diseased, but you don't abandon it because it's ill. It's the only body we have to address collective problems. You can't bound government according to state borders when companies don't do that, air doesn't. It just doesn't fit with the world."

 

Still, she said, "we've got to send a message to people in Washington that you have to learn how to work together, you have to learn how to talk about these issues without acting like you're in an ultimate fighting session."

 

The WaPo described Park as follows, in an online chat it published:



Annabel Park, founder of Coffee Party USA, a grassroots online Facebook/Coffee Party) network which advocates cooperation among elected representatives and promotes civil public discourse, was online Friday, Feb. 26, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss an alternative to the Tea Party movement.

 

It didn't take long for bloggers to dig up the fact that Park is a professional political operative in the Obama camp. Thanks to Twitter, Linked-in and cached websites that linger on after being taken down, the evidence is all available. Frank Ross of Big Journalism has assembled the evidence.



... her claim that the Coffee Party is "purely grassroots" and "independent of any party" is laughably rebutted by the fact that the registrant for the website was listed as "Real Virginians For Webb, 14461 Sedona Drive, Gainesville, Virginia 20155" until the information suddenly went private behind a proxy. That's "Webb" as in Virginia Sen. Jim Webb , one of at least two elected Democrats for whom Park has actively campaigned....

 

The other Democrat? Barack Obama. So intense was her support for the would-be president that Park co-directed a video for the YouTube channel, UnitedForObama, in which she encourages her mother to give a pro-Obama testimonial in their native Korean. The slick four-minute production, titled "Annabel's Mom Takes on Sarah Palin, In Korean!!!," features jaunty piano music and English translations of her mother's homage to Obama, including this comment, which has the vague ring of a "Dear Leader" haiku:



I listened to Obama's speeches/and, though my English isn't perfect/I started to change my mind about him./I came to understand/what he wanted to accomplish/and what we really need is Obama.

 

What is even more remarkable is that lurking on the web is proof that Park's politics could be no surprise to either paper. She had published an op-ed on the WaPo, and actually worked at the NYT as a researcher!

 

The willingness of these newspapers to go along with an effort to dupe the public into accepting an astroturf group as a genuine grass roots group is despicable. In this era, it takes only a minute or two to dig up the background of virtually anyone active in politics. Ignoring Park's past is negligence at best.

 

Hat tip: Lucianne.com

 Grass roots, my butt.  This is a complete astroturf scam cooked up by the Obama people, who are counting on your ignorance for it to take root. 

And look at how fast the New York Times and Washington Post bought in.  Do you doubt that they were counting the seconds for some answer to the Tea Parties to come along, which they would support no matter how obviously concocted it was?

Barack Obama promised hope and change.  As he and his people prove again and again, all it means is that his Chicago machine version of politics stays intact, and he hopes you don't notice that there is no change at all.


THEODORE OLBERMANN R.I.P.

Ken Berwitz

Theodore Olbermann, father of keith olbermann, died today in New York, of complications from a surgery last year.  Father and son apparently were very close.

My condolences to the Olbermann family.  May he rest in peace.


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!!