Monday, 21 March 2011


Ken Berwitz

Regular readers of this blog know that I regularly attack the disgraceful Obama toady and sock puppet eric holder for the racist tilt our Department of Justice has taken since he was appointed Attorney General. 

But let's not forget loretta king - an under-the-radar lackey of Mr. Obama and holder who seems to think the DOJ is her personal racial fiefdom.

Here is the first part of an article by Caroline May of the Daily Caller, which should give you an unsettling idea of king's activities: 

Attorney General  Eric Holder may be the face of the Justice Department, but behind the scenes, a little-known assistant attorney general named Loretta King (no relation to Martin Luther King, Jr.) has been the driving force behind the DOJs recent, most questionable racially motivated decisions.


Neck-deep in the more divisive civil rights cases of the past several years most notably the New Black Panther voter intimidation case and the recent Dayton, Ohio police departments testing standards issue the Obama appointed assistant attorney general has many wondering whether her guide is the law or racial politics.


Some of the most outlandish policies of the Holder Justice Department over the last two years flow directly from Loretta Kings worldview, J. Christian Adams, who worked with King while serving as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department, told The Daily Caller.


In testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the New Black Panther case, former DOJ Voting Rights Section chief Christopher Coates explained that King ordered him to stop asking trial attorney applicants whether they would have a problem dealing with cases involving white victims.


In the spring of 2009, Ms. King, who had by then been appointed Acting AAG [assistant attorney general] for Civil Rights by the Obama Administration, called me to her office and specifically instructed me that I was not to ask any other applicants whether they would be willing to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the VRA [Voting Rights Act], he testified. Ms. King took offense that I was asking such a question of job applicants and directed me not to ask it because she does not support equal enforcement of the provisions of the VRA.


In 2009, King was one of the lead attorneys who went after Georgias voter verification program, which was instituted to ensure those voting were actually U.S. citizens. The DOJ argued that the process was discriminatory. Georgia was ultimately able to continue the program, but not before Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel issued a scathing rebuttal of the DOJs efforts.


In North Carolina, King was the lead attorney in a case which halted the city of Kinstons decision not to list candidates party affiliations. In a letter to the city, King expressed her distaste for the measure, saying it would harm minorities ability to be elected.


Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office, she wrote. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the citys electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.


In New York, King is currently the lead attorney in an effort to disregard low test scores to allow more minority candidates to become firefighters. The effort, as some have pointed out, disregards the 2009 New Haven firefighter case, Ricci v. DeStefano. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that objective test results could not be thrown out merely to meet a desired racial outcome.


Here are the questions that, in my opinion should be asked and must be answered:

-Why is a racist sack of manure like this in a position of importance within the Department of Justice?

-Why is a racist sack of manure like this in he Department of Justice at all?

-Why is Attorney General eric holder allowing her to function, other than because he agrees with her racism?'

-Why is President Obama allowing holder and king to function as racists within the DOJ?

-And - with great appreciation to Caroline May and the Daily Caller - where are our wonderful "neutral" media on this?   loretta king's activities are there to be seen and to be judged.  If Caroline May can find them, does it not stand to reason that the mainstream media can too?

The fact that mainstream media are again  looking the other way on behalf of Barack Obama and shameful people like holder and king, is the biggest disgrace of all.


Ken Berwitz

I, along with a good many others, have recently written a great deal about what I call "The Obama Disconnect" - i.e. the fact that as more and more major events require President Obama's attention, he seems to be focussing on less and less important - you might even say time-wasting - issues.

The latest piece I have read on this truly disturbing situation is Victor Volsky's article at American Thinker .  Here is his first two paragraphs:

The world is going to hell in a hand basket; Japan, ravaged by an earthquake and a tsunami of biblical proportions, is teetering on the brink of yet another, nuclear, disaster; the Middle East is aflame; the national debt is skyrocketing while Congressional Democrats and Republicans are mud-wrestling over the budget; gas prices are inexorably climbing to the psychologically devastating $4/gallon level -- and meanwhile what is the U.S. President doing?


Amid all the turmoil,  he discusses an apparently world historical issue of school bullying; honors the 2009-10 Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks; delivers a radio address on another all-important subject, "Women's History Month;"  attends a fund-raiser; goes golfing (that darned weather: it was just too nice for the President to resist the temptation of hitting the links -- for the 61st time in his two plus years in office); yuks it up with the Washington press corps (pronounced "k-o-r", not "k-o-r-p-s," try to remember this, Mr. President) at the annual Gridiron Dinner. And to top it all off, the crowning event in Barack Obama's busy schedule -- drum roll, please! -- videotaping his NCAA tournament bracket picks. (Think about it: Obama discusses basketball with authority, which means that he must be spending a lot of time watching the games and listening to sports commentators. Exactly what he was elected for, wasn't he?) While Rome burned, Nero fiddled. While the world burns, Obama ponders the outcome of a college basketball tournament.  

The only dispute I have with Mr. Volsky is that he left out President Obama's decision to bomb Libya.  That is definitely doing something. 

Too bad, however, that the "something" being done is so completely wrong. 

Contrary to Mr. Obama's own position (stated, of course, when George Bush was President), he acted unilaterally, without any congressional approval.  Then there is the fact that (we are being told) the military action will not include land troops, and is not meant to depose qaddafi.  Finally, as an extra-added attraction, the bombing is taking place only after qaddafi finished destroying almost all his opposition.

A reasonably inquisitive person might ask "Then what is the objective here?  Target practice?"  And my answer - along with Victor Volsky and a rapidly increasing number of others on both the left and the right is.........."I don't know"

"The Obama Disconnect".  It is not a pretty thing. 

The 2012 elections cannot come fast enough.

Zeke ..... No, Libya does not belong in that list. ...... NCAA B-Ball brackets, Womens Month, Golf ... are all things Barry thinks about. ...... Libya does not merit any of his thought. ..... (03/21/11)


Ken Berwitz

In case you wonder whether the American Federation  of State, County and Municipal Employees union (AFSCME) treats its own members any better than it treats, say, Wisconsinites who want public sector employees to come back to earth compensation-wise, these excerpts from a Washington Times article  by Joseph Weber and David Hill should give you some insight:

Prison guards at a Western Maryland correctional facility say a union boss berated and tried to intimidate them after they raised questions at a pre-shift meeting about how their fees are spent and the benefits of belonging to a union.


Sgt. Kelley and several other guards also said Mr. Berger, a retired guard generally liked by current guards at the facility, grew angrier with each new question, eventually challenging to a fist fight a 6-foot 2-inch tall guard who later posed a query.


The guards filed written complaints and sent copies to state Sen. Christopher B. Shank, Washington Republican, who has asked Public Safety and Correctional Services Secretary Gary D. Maynard for an investigation.


Department officials declined to comment on the dispute, as did Patrick Moran, director of the unions Maryland chapter. However, Mr. Moran denied the allegation to the Hagerstown Herald-Mail, which first reported the dispute, and suggested that Mr. Shank is behind the dust-up.


These allegations were made by somebody with an agenda, he told the newspaper. Chris Shank has an anti-union agenda.


Four guards interviewed for this story said at least 70 people witnessed the episode and either sent or signed a complaint. They said the incident also was recorded on a surveillance camera.


Mr. Shank said he received about six complaints via phone, email and Facebook from correctional officers, union and non-union, who attended the meeting.


He said that six officers have filed formal reports with the corrections department, and that Commissioner J. Michael Stouffer told him the reports have been referred to Maryland Secretary of State John P. McDonough.


He said the guards gave him the same account of the meeting, which occurred before the start of the 4 p.m.-to-midnight shift at the facility, near Hagerstown. All said Mr. Berger used profanity, threatening language and was berating and belittling them.


Mr. Shank said at least one worker told him they were berated after bringing up concerns over the so-called fair-share fees, which non-members are required to pay because, unions say, non-union workers benefit from their hard-fought negotiations for better pay and benefits.


Mr. Shank said the little-known provision will require roughly 12,000 non-union Maryland employees to pay as much as $400 annually, allowing AFSCME to collect millions of dollars.


AFSCME, with 1.6 million members nationwide, is Marylands largest public-employee union with an estimated 23,000 members. The group reportedly spent a total of $87 million on the 2010 midterm elections. Gov. Martin OMalley, a Democrat, was endorsed by the Maryland chapter.


The guards said that their concerns were specifically with Mr. Berger, and that they were resigned to union ways, largely because unions are entrenched in heavily Democratic Maryland and for fear of losing good-paying jobs, which start at about $36,000 annually.


I get abused [by inmates] every day at work, so I dont have pay somebody to do that, Sgt. Kelley said.

In a way, this is somewhat reassuring.  It reminds us of the fact that a union is perfectly capable of being as thuggish against its own members as it is against non-members who question the way it operates.

And it makes crystal-clear the fact that AFSCME may represent "working people" (that's in quotations because the rest of us work too), but there is a very good argument that its primary business, its real business, is to keep the $$$$ flowing into those union the big shots have money and power. 

And if a union member has a problem or a complaint - he/she better be damn careful about saying so.  I mean, who do these workers think they are, anyway?  What makes them think they have any right to question the union?


Ken Berwitz

What is our purpose in bombing Libya?  What do we expect to accomplish there?

Excerpted from an Associated Press article by Richard Lardner:

WASHINGTON A U.S.-led coalition has succeeded in scattering and isolating Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi's forces after a weekend of punishing air attacks, Pentagon officials say, and American military authorities are moving to hand control of the operation to other countries.


Gadhafi is not a target of the campaign, a senior military official said Sunday, but he could not guarantee the Libyan leader's safety.


Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the U.S. expects to turn control of the mission over to a coalition probably headed either by the French and British or by NATO "in a matter of days."


Late Sunday, however, NATO's top decision-making body failed to agree on a plan to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya, although it did approve a military plan to implement a U.N. arms embargo.


And fifteen Air Force and Marine Corps aircraft, along with jets from France and Great Britain, hit a heavy infantry unit advancing on the rebel capital Benghazi. "To protect the Libyan people, we took them under attack," Gortney said.


Gadhafi and his residence are not on a list of targets to be hit by coalition aircraft, Gortney said. But Gadhafi won't be safe "if he happens to be at a place, if he is inspecting a surface-to-air missile site and we don't have any idea that he's there or not," Gortney said.


Earlier Sunday, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the goals of the operation are to protect civilians from further violence by pro-Gadhafi forces, while enabling the flow of humanitarian relief supplies. But it was unclear how long the military effort would continue or on what scale.

Let me get this straight:

-We have bombed the bejeezus out of Libya. 

-Why?  To protect the Libyan people from qaddafi. 

-But we are not going after qaddafi, so when we are through with the bombing he will still be in charge.

-And since we have implemented this operation after qaddafi largely decimated the rebel uprising against him, there may be no alternative government to put in place - other than one that will be created by the USA and Europeans, which neither the Libyans nor the Arab League are going to be happy about.

-Plus, "in a matter of days" we are turning control of the mission over to a coalition of NATO members who do not agree on how to proceed.

Does this answer the question "Why are we in Libya" to you?  Because it sure as hell doesn't answer it to me.

Zeke ..... .... We're at war (that's what you offensive military action) with Ghadaffi "To protect the Libyan people" .... ..... ..... OK, .... is Darfur next ? ..... ..... Tibet ? ..... ...... Half a dozen situations in Africa ? .... ..... Enforcing a 'no-fly' ? ? .... We don't have the assets there ..... .... Britain flies from England .... 3,000 mile round trip ...... France's one carrier is safely at home .... as is England's one carrier. ..... ... All US carriers are fully committed; we are employing a large landing ship that carries 5 obsolescent 'jump jet' Harrier light bombers (and nearly 2,000 marines on it). The Harriers are sitting ducks for even Ghadaffi's old Migs..... The 3 B-2 stealth bombers, flown from the US, are a hugely expensive way to hit tactical targets...... ..... ..... and, we have gone to war with the President on a good tour in the Southern Hemisphere. ..... (03/21/11)

Zeke ...... John Batchelor was on radio ..... said Libya is a civil war. ..... and we (US, UK, France) are supporting Jefferson Davis while Grant is invading Richmond. ... ..... Batchelor says in his blog : ..... ..... ..... Richard Engel, NBC, struggle mightily to convey the fact that the rebels in Benghazi are not a democratic front, not even a coherent political front, but rather a rag-tag collection of second rate thugs with a handful of ambitious lawyers and other Francophone self-elected celebrities. The coalition is bombing to protect a marginal enterprise that enjoys no legitimacy. Am told that the rebel leaders are dominated by men who barely control their own cellphones and laptops. That the rebel leaders use cellphones is the tell. The guns are in the hands of the Cyrenaica tribals, who will not move against Q. The tribals only know how to protect their territory. This is a civil war with no end in sight. (03/21/11)

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!!