Tuesday, 29 June 2010

THE IDIOCY OF BOYCOTTING ARIZONA (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

Here is another example of why boycotting Arizona, for the crime of daring to believe it has a border with Mexico, is idiotic. 

This one comes to us via excerpts from an article by Jan Norman, writing for the Orange Country register. The bold print is mine:

Owner: Ariz. boycott causes local layoffs

June 29th, 2010, 4:25 am posted by Jan Norman, small-business columnist

California politicians calling for boycotts of Arizona need to realize that the boycott will hurt California businesses and workers, says Huntington Beach resident George Saffarrans who owns Rogers Poultry, a food processor with plants in Vernon and Huntington Park.

He was responding to another recent story about the local impact of calls to boycott Arizona. The states new immigration enforcement law requires police to ask for documentation of legal status of people they stop for violating another law. The police must have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

Saffarrans is the third generation owner of a family business founded in 1927. He employs about 200 people, mostly Hispanic, U.S. citizens and legal immigrants; were a union company, and my guys are union workers, he emphasizes.

Theyre members of the United Food and Commercial Workers, he adds.

Rogers Poultry supplies chicken to such hotels and restaurants as Claim Jumper, the Islands and Four Seasons and does about 5% of its business in Arizona.  The company ships poultry products to Phoenix six days a week, according to its website. Orders placed before 3 p.m. will be delivered the next day.

If I lose 5% of my business, thats two or three guys Ill have to lay off, Saffarrans says. Heres what boycotting Arizona means to me: I sell less product, make less revenue, pay less business taxes and may have to lay off some workers who are, in fact, legal immigrants.

It angers me that the city of Los Angeles already has an official boycott; ( Los Angeles City Councilman) Richard Alarcon is a big union guy. Now the (California) Assembly wants to pass a boycott and (Assembly Speaker) John Perez (D-Los Angeles) is a union crony for the union I use, Saffarrans says. They dont understand that they are hurting union workers here.

But Saffarrans notes that the Los Angeles City Council, despite its own boycott, voted to continue a contract with an Arizona company for red light cameras.

Great going, California.  Damage your own businesses and hurt Latinos who are legally here in the bargain. 

I guess The Golden State's economy is in such great shape that it can do this without blinking an eye.  Right?

Hey, I have a great idea.  Since so many panderin...er, sincere, dedicated politicans in California want that border to be opened, why don't they make a major effort to convince illegals who are leaving Arizona to come there. I'm sure Los Angeles, San Francisco (which proudly calls itself a "sanctuary city") and the other locations voting to boycott Arizona will be happy to take as many of them as they can. 

Just warn them to be careful of running red lights, or Arizona will get 'em.


BOB HERBERT GETS IT (SOMEWHAT) RIGHT

Ken Berwitz

It isn't often that I have a chance to agree with New York Times columnist Bob Herbert.  And I don't agree with at least some of what he has written today.

But I agree with enough of what he has to say about the Obama administration's performance on job creation, so that I'm posting the key portions below. (You can read Mr. Herbert's entire column by clicking here):

Wrong Track Distress
By BOB HERBERT

Published: June 28, 2010

 

Its getting harder and harder for most Americans, looking honestly at the state of the nation, to see the glass as half full. And thats why the public opinion polls contain nothing but bad news for Barack Obama and the Democrats.

The oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, the war in Afghanistan and, above all, the continuing epidemic of joblessness have pushed the nation into a funk. All the crowing in the world about the administrations legislative accomplishments last years stimulus package, this years health care reform, etc. is not enough to lift the gloom.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats have wasted the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity handed to them in the 2008 election. They did not focus on jobs, jobs, jobs as their primary mission, and they did not call on Americans to join in a bold national effort... (which would have required a great deal of shared sacrifice) to solve a wide range of very serious problems, from our over-reliance on fossil fuels to the sorry state of public education to the need to rebuild the nations rotting infrastructure.

All of that could have been pulled together under the umbrella of job creation short-term and long-term. In the immediate aftermath of Mr. Obamas historic victory, and with the trauma of the economic collapse still upon us, it would have been very difficult for Republicans on Capitol Hill to stand in the way of a rebuild-America campaign aimed at putting millions of men and women back to work.

Mr. Obama had campaigned on the mantra of change, and that would have been the kind of change that working people could have gotten behind. But it never happened. Job creation was the trump card in the hand held by Mr. Obama and the Democrats, but they never played it. And now were paying a fearful price.

Fifteen million Americans are unemployed, according to the official count, which wildly understates the reality. Assuming no future economic setbacks and job creation at a rate of 200,000 or so a month, it would take more than a decade to get us back to where we were when the Great Recession began in December 2007. But were nowhere near that kind of sustained job growth. Last month, a measly 41,000 private-sector jobs were created.

We are in deep, deep gumbo.

There is a widespread feeling that only the rich and well-placed can count on Washingtons help, and that toxic sentiment is spreading like the oil stain in the gulf, with ominous implications for President Obama and his party. Its in this atmosphere that support for the president and his agenda is sinking like a stone.

Employment is the No. 1 issue for most ordinary Americans. Their anxiety on this front only grows as they watch teachers, firefighters and police officers lining up to walk the unemployment plank as state and local governments wrestle with horrendous budget deficits.

And what do these worried Americans see the Obama administration doing? Its doubling down on the war in Afghanistan, trying somehow to build a nation from scratch in the chaos of a combat zone.

By nearly 2 to 1, respondents to the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll believed the United States is on the wrong track. Despite the yelping and destructive machinations of the deficit hawks, employment and the economy are by far the publics biggest concern. Mr. Obama is paying dearly for his tin ear on this topic. Fifty-four percent of respondents believed he does not have a clear plan for creating jobs. Only 45 percent approved of his overall handling of the economy, compared with 48 percent who disapproved.

Yes.  Yes.  And Yes again.

Mr. Obama's most important mission was to have righted the economy (maybe "lefted" it is more accurate, since that's the perspective he was working with).  And the truth - BS claims of "saving or creating" millions of jobs to the contrary - is that he has performed with all the competency of his efforts in the Gulf of Mexico and in sealing the USA-Mexican border. 

In other words, Mr. Obama has been an abject failure.

That's the part that Bob Herbert won't say (whether or not he believes it).  But I will.


BIDEN'S EMAIL BS

Ken Berwitz

Just a few moments ago we received an email "signed" by Vice President Joe Biden.  In it, Mr. Biden tells us that "We've put millions of Americans back to work".  I swear, that's really what it says.

Presumably Mr.Biden (or whomever wrote the email for him) is basing this on the claim, made last week, that the Obama administration either "saved or created" 2,200,000 to 2,800,000 jobs

Don't ask me what "saved" means or how it is measured, I don't know any better than the Obama administration does.  And don't ask me how they measure created jobs either, for the same reason.

But here is what I do know:

-The day Barack Obama signed the so-called "stimulus package" into law, unemployment was at 8.1%.  Mr. Obama scared the country, and the congress (not that he needed to, given its Democratic majorities in both houses), by ominously warning that, without it, the economy would completely tank.  However, he happily intoned, unemployment would cap right there.

-But unemployment didn't cap right there.  And it certainly didn't start dropping.  Instead, unemployment jumped over 10%.  And right now, only because there is a temporary work force for the census bureau that will be finished in a couple of months, it is at 9.3%.  Without this temporary bubble of employment it would still be in the neighborhood of 10%.

-But what about the future?  Are we headed in the right direction?  In answer, read this excerpt from a just-released Associated Press article and see for yourself:

Stocks began the day by following Asian and European markets lower. Asian exchanges fell after economic figures in Japan signaled that the nation's recovery has slowed. And then European indexes fell sharply after Greek workers walked off the job to protest steep budget cuts.

Then, shortly after U.S. trading began, the market was hit with news that consumer confidence fell sharply this month because of worries about jobs and the overall economy. The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index fell nearly 10 points to 52.9, down from a revised 62.7 in May. Economists polled by Thomson Reuters had forecast only a modest drop.

The index needs to climb above 90 to indicate the economy is on solid footing.

The bottom line?  Joe Biden's email is a load of BS.  Period.  End of story.

Tell me you're surprised.  I dare you.


THE EXTREME RHETORIC THAT MEDIA IGNORE (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

Here is another of the seemingly countless incidents when someone from the left spews hate-filled vitriol...and is ignored by the same media which have a collective apoplexy if they find any example of it from the right.

This latest salvo comes to us from a particularly fecund source; keith olbermann - who, if media were serious about being against extreme rhetoric, would condemn him for it every day.

olbermann's opportunity was created by a mistake Sarah Palin made when speaking at UC-Stanislaus.  Ms. Palin wrongly stated that Ronald Reagan had attended Eureka College in California.  In fact, Eureka College is in Illinois.

I would hope we can agree that, as mistakes go, citing the wrong town for a college is not a biggie.  Illustratively, compare it to Joe Biden's completely misstating the job of Vice President when debating Ms. Palin - an astonishing gaffe, especially given that he was a six term senator, and running for the job whose description he was mangling.  Which would you figure is the more significant of the two? 

But stuff like that is irrelevant'n'immaterial to olbermann.  He was going to "get" Sarah Palin, and this was his chance. 

Here are the key excerpts from what I will charitably call his commentary:

She said perhaps 100 things that brand her as a phony, but none is more symbolic of her imbecility, her corner-cutting, her downright endorsement of stupidity instead of intelligence than this one

(A VIDEO OF HER MISTAKE IS PLAYED)

There is a town of Eureka in California, but it doesnt have a college.  And Palin went to three colleges and doesnt have an education.  (In a voice trying to imitate Ronald Reagan):  Well, that woman is an idiot.

Tell me:  Does that qualify as extreme rhetoric?  Do you think Chris Matthews who is on the same network and whose show airs just before olbermann's, might use it as an example of extremism some day? 

Yeah, sure.  Count on it.

Further, let's keep in mind that this is the same keith olbermann who ended his shows for years with the statement (paraphrased) that "it is now ____________days since President Bush declared mission accomplished in Iraq". 

Every time olbermann said that, he was wrong.  Bush never declared "mission accomplished" for the war in Iraq, and never implied it. 

How many times did olbermann end his show that way?  How many hundreds of times?  Total it up, and that's how many times olbermann talked like......what were those words?  Oh, yeah:  a phony, an imbecile, an endorser of stupidity instead of intelligence and an uneducated idiot.

free` Sarah Palin is a great American and that just drives the left to insanity. (06/29/10)


OVER TWO MONTHS AFTER IT WAS OFFERED.......

Ken Berwitz

Why is President Obama taking major hits in the polls over the oil rig disaster? 

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States is accepting help from 12 countries and international organizations in dealing with the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The State Department said in a statement Tuesday that the U.S. is working out the particulars of the help that's been accepted.

The identities of all 12 countries and international organizations were not immediately announced. One country was cited in the State Department statement -- Japan, which is providing two high-speed skimmers and fire containment boom.

Unbelievable.  70 days after oil started belching into the Gulf of Mexico and 67 days after help was first offered......"the U.S. is working out the particulars"?  

When will "the particulars" be worked out?  When troops start showing up at the Arizona-Mexico border?  When the moon is colonized?  When Harry Reid grows a personality?

Could this administration possibly perform less competently?  If so, tell me how.


PROTECTING ACCEPTABLE RACISM

Ken Berwitz

Why that title?  Because what you are about to read is certainly is racist.  And it certainly is being protected by the Obama Department of Justice, headed by the disgraceful toadie eric holder. 

Here is the latest in the scandalous, racist saga of the Philadelphia Black panthers, from Scott Johnson of www.powerlineblog.com.  The bold print is mine:

Investigate this

June 29, 2010 Posted by Scott at 6:17 AM

We learned from the mainstream media during the administration of George W. Bush that the politicization of justice is a grave offense (even if Bush didn't commit it). In the first year of the Obama administration, we saw how justice can be politicized when the Department of Justice dismissed the civil rights charges brought against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation at a polling station in Philadelphia on election day 2008. Jennifer Rubin provides a useful summary of the case:

On Election Day 2008, two members of the New Black Panther party (NBPP) dressed in military garb were captured on videotape at a Philadelphia polling place spouting racial epithets and menacing voters. One, Minister King Samir Shabazz, wielded a nightstick. It was a textbook case of voter intimidation and clearly covered under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

A Department of Justice trial team was assigned to investigate. They gathered affidavits from witnesses--one of the poll watchers was called a "white devil" and a "cracker." A Panther told him he would be "ruled by the black man." The trial team, all career Justice attorneys and headed by voting section chief Chris Coates, filed a case against the two Panthers caught on tape. Malik Zulu Shabazz, head of the national NBPP, and the party itself were also named based on evidence the party had planned the deployment of 300 members on Election Day and on statements after the incident in which the NBPP endorsed the intimidation at the Philadelphia polling station.

The trial team quickly obtained a default judgment--meaning it had won the case because the New Black Panther party failed to defend itself. Yet in May 2009, Obama Justice Department lawyers, appointed temporarily to fill top positions in the civil rights division, ordered the case against the NBPP dismissed. An administration that has pledged itself to stepping-up civil rights enforcement dropped the case and, for over a year, has prevented the trial team lawyers from telling their story.

The Obama administration's dismissal of the charges occurred over the stalwart opposition (of) Chris Coates and Christian Adams, the career Department of Justice attorneys who brought it. For his efforts, Coates has been reassigned to South Carolina. Hans von Spakovsky reported Coates's remarks on the occasion of his departure from the Voting Rights Section of the Department of Justice earlier this year.

Coates's colleage Christian Adams has now resigned from the Department of Justice and is free to discuss the case. Adams discussed the case last week in the Washington Times column "Inside the Black Panther case." Adams returned to the subject yesterday in the equally important Pajamas Media column "Unequal law enforcement reigns at Obama's DoJ." PJTV has also posted an interview with Adams on the case.

Adams writes of the case in a manner that one would think might attract the attention of organizations devoted to the dissemination of news: "The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice attorney." Adams describes a genuine scandal.

Indeed, Coates and Adams are principal actors with first-hand knowledge of this scandal. What they reveal is the tortured ground on which the Obama administration has overridden their efforts to bring the New Black Panther Party to justice. It is the by now familiar Orwellian ground that when it comes to the administration of justice, some are more equal than others.

This is a scandal that, thanks to Rubin, von Spakovsky, and Adams, is now hiding in plain sight....Yet other than a few posts by Dave Weigel regarding the Civil Rights Commission's hearings in the case on the Post site, I cannot find a trace of it in either the Washington Post or the New York Times. While justice has been politicized in a most disgusting manner in the Obama administration, the mainstream media have averted their eyes and moved on.

I've written about this scandal numbers of times over the past year.  And, despite my skepticism regarding the integrity of mainstream media, I have continued to hope against hope that, at each step along the way, they would finally start talking about it.

Who am I kidding?

This is clearly a case of what the eric holder Department of Justice considers "acceptable racism" - i.e. racism by Blacks against Whites.  And since that kind of racism is acceptable, instead of pursuing action against the perpetrators the DOJ protects them.  Even a default judgement (i.e. the accused declined to bother defending themselves), which gave the case to DOJ, was not allowed to result in a conviction.

Think about what would have happened if the races had been reversed, and it was White goons, from a White supremacist organization, intimidating Black voters instead of the other way around.

The point isn't very hard to see, is it?

Zeke ... ... Would be VERY interesting if a conservative group filed discrimination charges against Holder & Co. .... .... Discovery would be ..... a bombshell ... .... It is a constitutional issue, for sure. (06/29/10)


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!!