Friday, 18 November 2011


Ken Berwitz

National Public Radio (NPR) has aired a multi-part series on the "kidnapping" of I\indian (or native American - your choice) children in South Dakota.

Based on an extensive, five-part analysis by John Hinderaker of, the story is fraudulent.  And I don't mean a little fraudulent, I mean a complete hit job that ignores facts and makes things up as it goes along. 

I am going to give you a little bit of Part five which, I would hope, will hook you into reading the rest.  If Mr. Hinderaker is correct (and, based on what he is showing, I would bet just about everything I have on him) this is a truly stunning cesspool of deceit, partisanship, sloppiness and journalistic malfeasance.

Read this:

We are nearing the end of my investigation into NPRs disgraceful three-part series on South Dakotas Department of Social Services. NPR alleged that the state agency kidnaps Indian children from Indian reservations, and places them in white foster homes because it profits by doing so, and because this kidnapping scheme financially benefits South Dakotas current governor, Dennis Daugaard. I deconstructed these absurd accusation here, here, here and here. NPRs story was, to put it politely, a tissue of lies and deceptions. In a sane world, South Dakotas responsible officials would be able to sue NPR for defamation. That, of course, is not the world we live in.

Apart from all of NPRs specific misrepresentations and errors, a broader and more important point looms over the series on South Dakotas Indians. There is, indeed, a terrible problem, but NPR didnt have the courage to identify it honestly. Unemployment on South Dakotas reservations runs around 80%. There are hardly any jobs, other than manning convenience stores. Tribal leaders have estimated that the alcoholism rate also runs around 80%. Think about it: who would want to live in a place where there are virtually no jobs? Only those who are content with dependency and happy to live on welfare. There are plenty of hard-working, ambitious Indians, but few of them live on reservations.

If you imagine a place where 80% of the people are unemployed and 80%not coincidentallyare also alcoholics, do you suppose that there will be serious problems involving children? Problems like abuse and neglect? Of course. Hence, by virtue of requests that it gets from tribal law enforcement and directives from tribal courts, South Dakotas Department of Social Services has the unenviable task of trying to rescue some of those abused or neglected children.

That is the real story, but NPR didnt have the courage to tell it. NPR would have been hampered, of course, by the fact that state employees are barred by confidentiality laws from talking about the facts of particular cases. So it was much easier for a lazy NPR reporterin this case, Laura Sullivanto simply take the tall tales that she was told on the reservations as gospel. That was bad enough, but she added her own endorsement of those fables, and worse yet, her own fabrications.

Did that get your attention? I certainly hope so.

I strongly urge you to use John's links and read the first four parts of this incredible expos.  Then use this link to read the rest of Part V.

Unless you started at the bottom, I doubt that you will ever think of NPR the same way again.


Ken Berwitz

We are now up to 51 house members demanding that the disgraceful, incompetent toady and Obama sock-puppet, eric holder, resign as Attorney General.  The reason?  His involvement in, and lies about, Operation Fast and Furious.

Excerpted from Matthew Boyle's blog at

The surge in congressional calls for Attorney General Eric Holders immediate resignation has reached a new milestone: More than 50 members of Congress are now demanding Holder step down in the wake of Operation Fast and Furious.

The number of congressmen calling for Holders immediate resignation is now 51. New additions to that list include Republican Reps. Todd Akin and Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri, Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, Steven Palazzo of Mississippi and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.

Rep. Westmoreland said Operation Fast and Furious was a disgrace to the American people and that Holder needs to resign immediately.

Fast and Furious played fast and loose with the American publics safety, leaving a U.S. Border patrol agent dead and DOJ-purchased guns in the hands of Mexican drug lords, Westmoreland told The Daily Caller. To say this program was a failure and an embarrassment to the U.S. justice system is an understatement.

No matter how many times the attorney generals statement of when he was aware of Operation Fast and Furious changes and it has changed almost daily at the end of the day, he is the head of the Department of Justice and the buck stops with him, said Westmoreland.

 (THE DAILY CALLER: Complete Operation Fast and Furious coverage)

The White House and the Justice Department remain silent as pressure for Holders immediate resignation builds, which may be a sign that the Obama administration is prepared to force Holder out if it is politically necessary

How much longer must we endure this incompetent liar as our Attorney General? 

And how much longer will our Accomplice Media protect him, by either under-covering the Operation Fast and Furious scandal or not covering it at all?

How do they call themselves journalists?  How do they even look at themselves in the mirror?


Ken Berwitz

Here's an interesting take from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on who was running yesterday's (largely unsuccessful) "Occupy Wall Street" day of disruption.  It comes to us via excerpts from MJ Lee's article at

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested Friday that unions took over the Occupy Wall Street protest yesterday.

A vast percentage of the people were union members protesting some private unions and then some municipal unions and they had, you know, organized signs and leadership and that sort of thing, Bloomberg said on WOR radio station Friday. So it really wasnt the protesters that have been in Zuccotti Park or that you see around the country.

Bloomberg added, It was just an opportunity for a bunch of unions to complain or to protest or whatever they want to do.

Executive director of United NY Camille Rivera who was involved in coordinating Thursdays rallies pushed back on the mayors comments.

It wasnt all unions. Thats an inaccurate response. It was a coalition of communities, Rivera told POLITICO. The mayor should take a look at the all the videos and all the photos of the days events where the thousands of people were not just union members. It was people from across the city that came out in response, in outrage over whats happened over the course of the week.

Bloomberg also suggested to the Occupiers that it was time to move on. There are problems in the country. The ways to fix those problems you can make yourself heard, which I think has been done. But now its time to get back and build our economy. 

Who is right?  Well, let me give you an easy way to figure it out:  if you see lots of identical signs - i.e. someone ran them off on a printing press very quickly - you can pretty much bet it is unions.  And there were lots of identical signs.

I have a feeling that the original group of "Occupy Wall Street" protesters are feeling a lot like the original protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square.  They thought they were the movement but, instead, they were just moved out of the way. 

See, the way it works is that when media give a huge amount of coverage to a group of protesters, most of it highly sympathetic, other groups immediately try to get into the act.  Eventually the loudest and the strongest run the show.  In New York, and most other major cities, that spells U N I O N S.

So, to a great extent, the "Occupy" protesters have, themselves, become occupied. 

Think they're enjoying it?

Zeke ... ... .... The Unions and Soros' minions were PAYING for the 100 or so Occupy's .... ... food, tents, sleeping bags, $20 bills for STD tests, and probably drums. .... ..... These unclean demonstrators served their purpose -- feeding lice and establishing the "right" to squat on public areas. .... .... Now, the Unions will take over, and tie up the city until they get THEIR demands met. .... ..... (11/18/11)


Ken Berwitz

Last night my wife and I were watching a news report about the "Occupy" protests in New York.

As we watched them try, desperately, to disrupt New York City as much as possible (and fail in doing so), my wife asked me a question that I can't get out of my mind:

Why isnt anyone asking what it would take to get them to pack up and go home?


We all know what the protesters say they are against:  corporate greed, Wall Street greed, money manipulation (except if sugar daddy soros is the manipulator), higher student loans, personal hygiene, stuff people expect you to pay for....(ok, I admit I haven't seen those last two on any of their signs).  But, presumably, they would stop protesting, declare victory and go home if something happened.

What would that be?

If the answer is a series of glittering generalities, I don't want to hear them.  I've already heard them, and they are meaningless.  What, specifically, do "Occupy" protesters want to be done?

-Do they want other people to pay for what they get - like food, clothing, shelter, school tuition, etc.?  It is pretty clear that a great many of them do.  But it is equally clear that a large majority of the people who would be subsidizing them - which includes a great many among "the 99%" who work for a living, feel otherwise.  

"You sign up for a tuition loan?  Don't expect me to pay for it.  You feel that tuition costs are too high at the school you go to?  Then "occupy" the school, not a public park.  And if that doesn't work, go to a school that charges less tuition.  This is your expense, not mineTake responsibility for your own life."

-Do they want Wall Street traders to make less money?  It is pretty clear that a great many of them do.  So how would they like to accomplish that?  By capping salaries?  "Sorry, Mr. Smith, Mr. Robertson can't put your money in an IRA.  He hit his salary limit and, since he won't be compensated for handling your account, has declined to work for nothing".

-Do they want to take down the capitalist system?  It is pretty clear that a great many of them do.  But a) most people think that is nuts and b) if they're that hot to live in a non-capitalist system, there is one less than 100 miles from Key West, Florida that they can emigrate to - one that Michael Moore thinks they will get great health care in.  I don't notice any of them going there.

See the problem?

When people mass in the street to demand results without any specific remedy, they aren't really protesters, so much as they are whining babies.  "Waaaahhhhh, I WANT this and you won't GIVE it to me.  IT'S NOT FAIR!!!  WAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

Well, it's getting cold, winter will be coming on soon, and there are finals to worry about.  So, as indicated by yesterday's non-showing in New York City, the "Occupation" appears to be just about over - at least on the East Coast. 

Maybe by spring, they can regroup, and figure out what their specific demands are.  But I hope they don't expect much support from Democrat politicians, some of whom initially spoke on their behalf but in recent weeks have gotten strangely silent. 

With favorability for "Occupy" protesters already through a trap door, and heading even further south, only the safest Democrats from the safest districts would even consider supporting them in an election year - especially a year when the country votes for President, the entire house of representatives, and 33 senate seats, 23 of which are held by Democrat incumbents.

Having started with my wife's thought, let me leave you with one of mine:  If "Occupy" protesters really did represent "the 99%", those politicians would come running.   Especially in an election year.  What does it tell you if, instead, they are running away?


Ken Berwitz

I read about Jon Corzine and MF Global in today's New York Times.  Not on the front page, or even in the news section; it was relegated to the business section.  On line, it wasn't even among the lead business stories; you had to click into Business to find it down the list.

Read the first few paragraphs of Azam Ahmed and Ben Protess's article, see just how big the story is - and then wonder where the story would have been placed if Jon Corzine were a Republican:

MF Global improperly diverted customers cash for its own use in the days before its bankruptcy, an act that regulators believe may help explain why $600 million of customer funds remains missing, people briefed on the investigation say.

Investigators have now zeroed in on hundreds of millions of dollars in suspect borrowing at the commodities and derivatives brokerage firm, which at the time of its collapse was run by Jon S. Corzine, the former Democratic governor of New Jersey. At least some of that money was used to cover trading losses at MF Global, regulators suspect, meaning the money may no longer be simply missing. It may be gone.

MF Global, like other brokers, can use customer cash if it puts up sufficient collateral. But the firm did not provide enough backing in late October, essentially taking free loans, said the people briefed on the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry was continuing.

It is unclear what MF Global did with all of the money or whether it can be recovered. The firm may have used some of the cash to keep its own lenders at bay, which means the money could be sitting in an account at another firm.

How badly does this stink?  How illegal do the actions of Corzine-led MF Global appear to be?  How many people will be screwed out of how much money because of those actions?


But, in the New York Times, this isn't a first page story.  It isn't even a news section story.  On line, it isn't even one of the lead stories in the business section.


And where are the network news reports?  Other than little more than in-passing, perfunctory coverage, have you seen them? 


Every day we get massive coverage of the "Occupy" protesters - often with a sympathetic tinge to it.  Is this not exactly, specifically what they are railing about? 


How come, therefore, media are not tying MF Global's collapse to the protests?  How come the so-called protesters are not marching to MF Global's offices (former offices, that is) to set up camp there?  Or to Corzine's place of residence? 


If Jon Corzine were a Republican instead of a Democrat, would he be getting this much of a free pass?


When bernard madoff was taken down, our wonderful "neutral" media did as little reporting of his major ties to the Democrat Party as they could get away with.  Is this a repeat performance on behalf of Jon Corzine? 


Maybe soon they can laugh about it together in the exercise yard.

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!!