Saturday, 13 November 2010


Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I wrote about the disgraceful "energy czar" carol browner.  I excerpted part of Michelle Malkin's superb, fully referenced compendium of her fraudulent activity - which, of course, covers only the instances we know about (who knows how many others there are)?

Today John M. Broder of the New York Times is reporting that Republicans leaders are about to lower the boom on browner.  Here are a few key excerpts:

WASHINGTON Three Republican senators demanded Friday that the White House explain last-minute editing changes to an Interior Department report on the BP oil spill that falsely implied that a group of independent experts had endorsed a political decision to temporarily halt all deepwater oil drilling.


Senator David Vitter called for hearings on the report.


The senators, members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, called for hearings into the matter, contending that the White House had manipulated science for political ends, a claim Democrats frequently made about the George W. Bush administration.

The Interior Departments inspector general issued a report this week asserting that officials in the office of Carol M. Browner, the White House coordinator for energy and climate change policy, had changed some wording and moved some sentences in an agency report that ended up misrepresenting the views of the technical experts.

The Interior Department report, issued at the end of May, made two dozen recommendations for improving the safety of offshore drilling and said that until those changes were adopted, all drilling in water deeper than 500 feet should be suspended. It said that the recommendations had been peer-reviewed and approved by a panel of outside engineers and oil drilling experts.

Shortly after the report appeared, the technical advisers angrily complained that while they had endorsed a number of the safety recommendations, they had not concurred that a blanket deepwater drilling ban was needed. They said such a ban would punish companies with good safety records and lead to thousands of lost jobs.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar publicly and privately apologized to the scientists for distorting their views.

Thank you senators.  May many more join you. 

Please protect us from ideologues with political agendas who will lie, distort and break the rules because they are smarter, better, and know what's good for us better than we do. (You can put carol browner's picture next to that description, can't you?)

carol browner is a disgrace.  browner is a blot on the administation and on public service in general.  She should immediately be fired. 

Unfortunately, she won't be - let's remember that The Sorosian Candidate still sits in the oval office.  But she should be.


Ken Berwitz

Earlier this year, Arizona, with an estimated half million illegal aliens within its borders, enacted laws designed to prevent said illegal aliens from coming to, and/or staying in the state.  The Obama administration was horrified by Arizona's action (hey, if they are declared legal they'll vote Democratic, won't they?) and, - through its disgraceful toady of an Obama sock-puppet, Attorney General eric holder, has filed suit against the state.

Today the Associated Press has published a progress report, written by Mark Stevenson, on how the law is working out.  I urge you to read the entire article, of course.  But here is an excerpt:

MEXICO CITY A new study suggests there may be 100,000 fewer Hispanics in Arizona than there were before the debate over the state's tough new immigration law earlier this year.

BBVA Bancomer Research, which did the study, worked with figures from the U.S. Current Population Survey. The study says the decline could be due to the law known as SB1070, which partly entered into effect in July, or to Arizona's difficult economic situation.

The study released Wednesday also cites Mexican government figures as saying that 23,380 Mexicans returned from Arizona to Mexico between June and September.

I'm sure these data are causing a major breakout of teeth-gnashing all over Washington DC.

And what about California, which a) is arguably the state most involved in boycotting Arizona because of its border enforcement and b) where at least some of the illegals who do not go back to Mexico will certainly migrate?

I suggest that all the illegals who find their way to California immediately be sent to its sanctuary cities.  Heck, since the state has full employment and hospital beds just begging for illegals to get free treatment in, they'll be thrilled with these valued newcomers. 

Won't they?


Ken Berwitz

If there is a sleazier, more corrupt person in congress than charles rangel, I would love to know who he/she is.  Because I can't think of one.

For years, we have known about rangel's dirty dealings.  They certainly have been discussed in this blog over and over again.  We've even discussed his dirty dealings outside of congress (like his stewardship of the Harlem Urban Development Corporation  and the Apollo Theater Foundation, both of which were as dirty and corrupt as it gets, and both of which you can read about by clicking here).

So how is congress conducting an ethics investigation into rangel's sleazebag activities?  By first holding it up until the elections were finished, so he could win another term in office, and then moving forward at warp speed during the lame duck session of congress so that Democrats, rather than Republicans, will be in control of the investigation.

Now how do you suppose this is going to turn out?  Any ideas?

Here are more details of this "investigation", excerpted from John R. Parkinson's article for ABC News:

A two-year ethics scandal that saw embattled Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., lose his powerful position among House Democrats but not his bid for reelection will come to a climax when he faces an ethics panel Monday on Capitol Hill.

Rangel stands accused of 13 counts of violating House rules but has emphatically denied any wrongdoing. Rangel allegedly failed to reveal more than half a million dollars in assets on financial disclosure forms, improperly obtained four rent-controlled apartments in New York City and failed to disclose financial arrangements for a villa at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the Dominican Republic.

Perhaps the most serious charge surrounds Rangel's fundraising activities for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York. Rangel allegedly used his status as then-chairman on the House Ways and Means Committee to raise money for the center from corporations and foundations that had business before the House of Representatives and his committee.

Rangel stepped down as chairman of the committee last March. Democrats then lost control of the House in elections earlier this month, so even if his name is cleared, Rangel could not retake his gavel.

The adjudicatory subcommittee is holding the hearing "to determine whether any counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation regarding Representative Rangel have been proven by clear and convincing evidence."

The only issue I take with Mr. Parkinson's article is with how rangel lost his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee.  He did not step down.  He was forced out - temporarily - by that paradigm of political scruples, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. 

Ironically however, since Republicans are now in the majority, thus in charge of the committee chairs, that "temporary" will be "permanent" for at least two years.  Good

Lucky for rangel that he's a Democrat.  Because if this sleazebag were a Republican (think Duke Cunningham) he'd have been ejected from the house years ago and probably be rotting in jail today. 

Instead we will most likely have a partisan kangaroo-court that will severely reprimand him, and then he'll be free to continue just as if nothing ever happened. 



Ken Berwitz

This exchange actually took place at President Obama's press conference yesterday, and is shown verbatim:

CHIP REID (CBS NEWS): What was the number-one complaint, concern, or piece of advice that you got from foreign leaders about the U.S. economy and your stewardship of the economy?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  What about compliments?  You didnt put that in the list.

Poor baby.  He wasn't given sufficient deference.  And he was miffed.

Can you imagine what the media would have said if that exercise in narcissism was displayed by President Bush?  Or even President Clinton?

With all due respect to President Obama (and, in this case, it isn't much at all), the story of his Asian trip is not the compliments he received, it is the backs of hands he received.  This trip was a fiasco;  a diplomatic disaster that provided us nothing other than an understanding of just how little esteem Mr. Obama - thus the United States - is now held in by world leaders.

Did President Obama seriously think his administration's multi-trillion dollar deficits and stagnant growth somehow empowered him to give the rest of the world an economics lesson?  Or maybe he thought that they'd all follow his lead and blame it on George Bush.

Would anyone like to measure the respect level accorded President Bush, even in his worst years, with that of President Obama?

Can we move up the 2012 elections?  Please?


Ken Berwitz

It is a game.  A terrible, crazy game. 

-We are attacked, either successfully or unsuccessfully. 

-We immediately come up with a way, however clumsy or intrusive, of preventing future attacks of the same kind. 

-While we are spending the untold millions of dollars to find ways of preventing what happened in the past, our enemies, laughing all the way I am sure, are devising different ways to attack that will not be prevented by these day-late-dollar-short reactionary measures. 

-And so it goes.

The latest example of this misbegotten continuum is the advent of total body scanners, which essentially see every passenger nude. 

Will they help?  Based on at least one report I've seen on TV this morning, they will not protect us from sophisticated enemy attacks.  For example, the so-called "Christmas bomber" of last year, who failed only because the explosives in his underwear did not detonate properly, would be able to sail right through this type of screening.

What are we doing?  Why are we doing it?  Is it any wonder that air passengers are - finally - revolting?

Excerpted from an article by Phil Gast at

(CNN) -- A growing pilot and passenger revolt over full-body scans and what many consider intrusive pat-downs couldn't have come at a worse time for the nation's air travel system.


Thanksgiving, the busiest travel time of the year, is less than two weeks away.


Grassroots groups are urging travelers to either not fly or to protest by opting out of the full-body scanners and undergo time-consuming pat-downs instead.


Such concerns prompted a meeting Friday of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano with leaders of travel industry groups.


Napolitano met with the U.S.Travel Association and 20 travel companies "to underscore the Department's continued commitment to partnering with the nation's travel and tourism industry to facilitate the flow of trade and travel while maintaining high security standards to protect the American people," the department said in a statement.


Federal officials have increased security in the wake of plots attributed to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.


Industry leaders are worried about the grassroots backlash to Transportation Security Administration security procedures. Some pilots, passengers and flight attendants have chosen to opt out of the revealing scans.


More of the units are arriving at airports, with 1,000 expected to be in place by the end of 2011.


"While the meeting with Secretary Napolitano was informative, it was not entirely reassuring," the U.S. Travel Association said in a statement.


"We certainly understand the challenges that DHS confronts, but the question remains, 'where do we draw the line'? Our country desperately needs a long-term vision for aviation security screening, rather than an endless reaction to yesterday's threat," the statement said. "At the same time, fundamental American values must be protected."

I have a question - maybe a naive one, but a question nonetheless:

Israel is despised by much - make that most - of the world, including every one of its neighbors (even Egypt and Jordan, with which it has "peace" agreements).  Untold millions of Israel/Jew haters want the country and its population - its Jewish population, that is - annihilated.  Yet, even though Israel is not subjecting its airline passengers to the half-baked reactionary procedures now being inflicted on us, it has been decades since an Israeli airplane was hijacked or blown up. 

That being the case, why aren't we working intensely with Israel to learn, and implement, the procedures it utilizes - the ones which have resulted in providing its air passengers safe travel?

What are we afraid of?  Success? 

Or does looking at nude images of every passenger make more sense?

free` why aren't we working intensely with Israel to learn, and implement, the procedures it utilizes --- Because our PC culture won't allow profiling. (11/13/10)

Zeke .... .... no silly pat-downs or x-rays needed on Fly-Nude-Airlines. ... .... the Friendly Airline ... ... (11/13/10)

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!!