Friday, 27 April 2012


Ken Berwitz

Just how pervasive does the Obama administration want government to be in our lives?  How about its proposal that children who live on farms should not be allowed to do farm chores?

Think I'm kidding?  Believe me I'm not.  And if it weren't for an article at which went viral and embarrassed them into quickly reversing themselves, this policy would still be on the front burner.

Excerpted from Paul Conner's piece at

Under pressure from farming advocates in rural communities, and following a report by The Daily Caller, the Obama administration withdrew a proposed rule Thursday that would have applied child labor laws to family farms.

Critics complained that the regulation would have drastically changed the extent to which children could work on farms owned by family members. The U.S. Department of Labor cited public outcry as the reason for withdrawing the rule.

The decision to withdraw this rule including provisions to define the parental exemption was made in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms, the Department said in a press release Thursday evening. To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration.

I am pleased to hear the Obama Administration is finally backing away from its absurd 85-page proposal to block youth from participating in family farm activities and ultimately undermine the very fabric of rural America, but I will continue working to ensure this overreaching proposal is completely and permanently put to rest, said Sen. John Thune, Republican from South Dakota. The Obama DOLs youth farm labor rule is a perfect example of what happens when government gets too big.

The Daily Callers story about the proposed regulations quickly went viral on Wednesday, attracting hundreds of thousands of readers through Facebook, The Drudge Report and other online and social media platforms. 

The Department of Labor, it should be noted, is headed by Secretary Hilda Solis, as radical a leftist as you can find in the Obama administration - and that is no small accomplishment either.  Try and find a left wing cause she does not support, whether labor-related or anywhere else; I dare you. 

Little wonder, then, that Ms. Solis would be happy to stick her government-uber-alles nose into the family farms. 

Let me end by thanking for embarrassing Hilda Solis and her cohorts into keeping their hands off the family farms of this country.

And, on a separate note, I would also like to thank Matthew Boyle of for his dogged reporting of the Operation Fast and Furious scandal.  Other than Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News and a precious few other real journalists, this scandal - in my opinion, the biggest of the Obama administration - has been buried by our so-called "neutral" media on behalf of their lord and saviour, Barack Obama.

Matt and Sharyl, the people of this country owe you, big-time, for keeping on top of Operation Fast and Furious.  And they owe most of Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media the back of their hands, for acting not as journalists, but as state propagandists.

free' I wonder if the unions will be going after these children now? (04/27/12)


Ken Berwitz

Do you really believe that Barack and Michelle Obama paid off their student loans in full only 8 years ago? 

More importantly, do our wonderful "neutral" media believe it so completely that they will not ask to see any documentation which backs their claim up?

In this connection, Johathan Karl of ABC News did a little digging.  And here is an excerpt of what he found out:

Heres a rundown of the presidents income, according to his tax returns, in the years before he paid off his student loans:

2004: $207,647

2003: $238,327

2002: $259,394

2001: $272,759

2000: $240,505

In 2001 and 2002, the Obamas would have met the $250,000 standard the president has set for those wealthy enough to afford to pay more taxes.

Its also notable that the Obamas didnt claim deductions for student loans on any of those years, most likely because they made too much money to qualify for the student loan deduction.

The president and first lady worked their way through college and law school, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told ABC News. Their education was made possible by student loans, which it took many years to pay off.

Does this mean Mr. Obama is lying?  No it does not.  It is possible that, despite his "1%" income for those years (remember, $250,000 in the year 2000 is equivalent to maybe $350,000 - $400,000 now) he still needed all that extra time to pay off what was owed. 

The point is that we do not know.  And, Mr. Karl's piece notwithstanding, no one seems to be asking him for any evidence that proves it.

Why not? 

If Mr. Obama is using this claim in his re-election campaign, what possible explanation is there for giving him a free pass, and just taking his word for it? 

Is there any doubt about why I use the term "Accomplice Media"? 

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!!