Tuesday, 12 March 2013

OBAMACARNAGE

Ken Berwitz

This is for anyone who still wonders why so many people are against ObamaCare.

Here are the first three paragraphs of Paul Bedard's latest piece for washingtonexaminer.com.  The bold print is mine:

The fight over Obamacare, so far held at the 30,000-foot level, is about to hit home. The latest impact hot off the grill: prices of burgers and hot dogs at Five Guys, the national chain that started in Washington, are going to rise to cover the president's mandated insurance coverage.

"Any added costs are going to have to be passed on," said Mike Ruffer, a Five Guys franchise holder with eight of the popular restaurants in the Raleigh-Durham, N.C. area. He will need all the profits from at least one of his eight outlets just to cover his estimated added $60,000-a year in new Obamacare costs.

What's more, he's iced plans to build another three restaurants until after the administration explains the exact rules and penalties employers will face. The law's plan to have those available March 1 has been pushed back to October.

And, yes, this is the same administration which blames the lousy economy solely on what happened before President Obama took office.  Over four years later and it's still Bush's fault. 

How can any intelligent person trust a thing this administration does or believe a word it says?


OBAMACARNAGE

Ken Berwitz

This is for anyone who still wonders why so many people are against ObamaCare.

Here are the first three paragraphs of Paul Bedard's latest piece for washingtonexaminer.com.  The bold print is mine:

The fight over Obamacare, so far held at the 30,000-foot level, is about to hit home. The latest impact hot off the grill: prices of burgers and hot dogs at Five Guys, the national chain that started in Washington, are going to rise to cover the president's mandated insurance coverage.

"Any added costs are going to have to be passed on," said Mike Ruffer, a Five Guys franchise holder with eight of the popular restaurants in the Raleigh-Durham, N.C. area. He will need all the profits from at least one of his eight outlets just to cover his estimated added $60,000-a year in new Obamacare costs.

What's more, he's iced plans to build another three restaurants until after the administration explains the exact rules and penalties employers will face. The law's plan to have those available March 1 has been pushed back to October.

And, yes, this is the same administration which blames the lousy economy solely on what happened before President Obama took office.  Over four years later and it's still Bush's fault. 

How can any intelligent person trust a thing this administration does or believe a word it says?


REAL RACISM (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

This installment of the "Real Racism" series is too long to post on a blog.  So here is a link to J. Christian Adam's latest commentary at pjmedia.com.

In it, Mr. Adams, a former Department of Justice lawyer who resigned because of the racist manner in which business was being conducted there under Attorney General eric holder, details findings of the Inspector General's report on DOJ activity - and seems to back up most or all of what Mr. Adams has accused it of.

A few key excerpts which lay out the bare bones of what was uncovered (use the above link to read a list of specific examples):

Today the Department of Justice inspector general released a report on potential Labor secretary nominee Tom Perez's DOJ Civil Rights Division. The timing of the release to coincide with his nomination was certainly accidental, because the report paints a damning portrait of the DOJ unit he managed. 

The full report is here.

The 250-page report offers an inside glimpse of systemic racialist dysfunction inside one of the most powerful federal government agencies.

Chris Coates*, in response to today's report:

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the Obama administration in 2009, the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ was not enforcing the voting laws in a race-neutral manner, contrary to the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection. That pattern of racially selective enforcement of the voting laws must stop. I hope that the IG report facilitates that needed reform.

What remains to be seen is if the usual apologists for Eric Holder begin to show intellectual honesty and address the criticisms, rather than play defense.

I don't suppose any of them will be sending along an apology for smearing the people who have been reporting the facts today confirmed by the IG report, or for deceiving the public for the last four years regarding the DOJ.

We'll have more at PJ Media about this over the coming days. 

The Department of Justice is supposed to be a color-blind organization.  Not the Department of Just-us, which operates one way for Black citizens, but another way for everyone else.

When that happens, we are dealing with real racism.  And it is intolerable....even if the current administration's Accomplice Media insist on looking the other way as it happens.

=================================================

*Coates formerly was chief of the DOJ's Voting Section.  He approved the cases against Black Panthers in Philadelphia and alleged Black vote intimidation in Noxubee County, Mississippi.


REAL RACISM (CONT.)

Ken Berwitz

This installment of the "Real Racism" series is too long to post on a blog.  So here is a link to J. Christian Adam's latest commentary at pjmedia.com.

In it, Mr. Adams, a former Department of Justice lawyer who resigned because of the racist manner in which business was being conducted there under Attorney General eric holder, details findings of the Inspector General's report on DOJ activity - and seems to back up most or all of what Mr. Adams has accused it of.

A few key excerpts which lay out the bare bones of what was uncovered (use the above link to read a list of specific examples):

Today the Department of Justice inspector general released a report on potential Labor secretary nominee Tom Perez's DOJ Civil Rights Division. The timing of the release to coincide with his nomination was certainly accidental, because the report paints a damning portrait of the DOJ unit he managed. 

The full report is here.

The 250-page report offers an inside glimpse of systemic racialist dysfunction inside one of the most powerful federal government agencies.

Chris Coates*, in response to today's report:

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the Obama administration in 2009, the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ was not enforcing the voting laws in a race-neutral manner, contrary to the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection. That pattern of racially selective enforcement of the voting laws must stop. I hope that the IG report facilitates that needed reform.

What remains to be seen is if the usual apologists for Eric Holder begin to show intellectual honesty and address the criticisms, rather than play defense.

I don't suppose any of them will be sending along an apology for smearing the people who have been reporting the facts today confirmed by the IG report, or for deceiving the public for the last four years regarding the DOJ.

We'll have more at PJ Media about this over the coming days. 

The Department of Justice is supposed to be a color-blind organization.  Not the Department of Just-us, which operates one way for Black citizens, but another way for everyone else.

When that happens, we are dealing with real racism.  And it is intolerable....even if the current administration's Accomplice Media insist on looking the other way as it happens.

=================================================

*Coates formerly was chief of the DOJ's Voting Section.  He approved the cases against Black Panthers in Philadelphia and alleged Black vote intimidation in Noxubee County, Mississippi.


SEQUESTER WATCH

Ken Berwitz

It is day 12 of the sequester.  

Do you feel any different?  Do you think anything has changed?  Do you think the country has gone to hell in a handbasket?

No?  Me neither.

The Chicago Tribune - Barack Obama's "home town newspaper" has had enough of this charade.  It published a truly scathing editorial in its Sunday edition that ripped the scab off this festering, intentionally-inflicted sore.  Here are a few excerptes:

President Barack Obama and bureaucrats on down the federal ladder have the clout to make a 2.4 percent cut from this year's spending as inconsequential or as painful as they wish. Even if barely half of the sequestered $85 billion was to be spent this year, the administration plainly intends to make Americans feel some hurt.

All of us who have to live within budgets know how to economize if we have to get by on 97.6 percent of our income. The White House wants us to believe that Washington cannot do so. But selling that cowflop has been hard: Fact-checkers at The Washington Post, Politifact and Politico have dealt Team Obama one rollicking embarrassment after another.

The most brazen fomenting of sequester hysteria came from an arm of the Agriculture Department, which told a federal official in North Carolina that available funds couldn't be spread across several states to minimize the effect of service cuts. The word from Washington: "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else" about the cuts, "So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

On Tuesday Sen. Tom Coburn asked the White House budget office why, on the first business day after sequestration, the administration posted 606 new federal jobs, seeking recreation aides, painters, librarians, "public affairs specialists," a museum official for the Air Force (salary: $143,600 to $165,300), and a "social media management service" at the Food and Drug Administration.

You can watch America's new parlor game - exposing federal hypocrisy and needless spending - on a Twitter clearinghouse, #SequesterThis.

...the White House has been put on notice: If you cut something, be able to prove it's the least essential spending in your budget. Because if it isn't, your agency will bear the same public humiliation as the ones trying to hire painters during your supposed crisis.

The administration's job now: Manage your resources in ways that minimize, not maximize, the sequester's effects on Americans.

The Obama administration desperately needs a crisis to "prove" Barack Obama was right about what horrible consequences would come down on us if there were forced cuts in our impossibly bloated deficit spending.  And, by God, it is going to come up with one, even if it has to create the crisis out of thin air - while hoping you are "low information" enough to be convinced it is real. 

Like intentionally cutting where it will cause citizens (read that voters) the greatest possible inconvenience, and then claiming it had to be done just that way.

In other words, intentionally hurting the public, and then lying to us about it.

Another installment of sequester watch tomorrow.


ANSWERING A QUESTION WITH OTHER QUESTIONS

Ken Berwitz

This, believe it or not, was a real question CNN host Erin Burnett asked of former First Lady Laura Bush:

An Egyptian woman, her name's Samir Ibraham, and she's done a lot of things, courageous things. She's also been criticized for sending tweets that are anti-Semitic, anti-American. Does the U.S. need to accept that when we want to make change. You have to support people that do those things - financially in term of awards, in terms of all these things - because it pays off in the end? Is that a trade-off we have to make?

Ms. Bush, who was visibly taken aback by the question, started her answer by saying "No".  She graciously continued (why, I do not know), but could have stopped right there.

Personally, I would like to answer Ms. Burnett's question with a few of my own:

-Are you a complete idiot, or are you auditioning for the the next "World's Dumbest..." episode?

-Would you be willing to support a "courageous" woman who sent tweets supporting shari'a law for women - i.e. as slaves to their husbands, sperm repositories and housemaids, with no rights, who are basically treated less well than barnyard animals?  Do we need to accept that when we want to make change, because it pays off in the end?  Is that a trade-off we have to make?

-Would you be willing to support a "courageous" woman who sent tweets that were racist?  Do we need to accept that when we want to make change, because it pays off in the end?   Is that a trade-off we have to make?

I wish you could tell me that CNN does not pay this brainstem to host a cable TV show.  But you can't, because CNN does.

And they wonder why their ratings are dropping from tiny to infinitesimal?  Yikes.


FAT LESBIANS VS. WHITE HOUSE TOURS

Ken Berwitz

You can't make this stuff up.

According to Elizabeth Harrington's article at cnsnews.com, The National Institute of Health has awarded over $1.5 million dollars to study the biological and social factors which might explain why "three quarters" of lesbians are obese, and most gay males are not.

Here is the first jaw-dropping paragraph:

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $1.5 million to study biological and social factors for why "three-quarters" of lesbians are obese and why gay males are not, calling it an issue of "high public-health significance."

If the White House's estimate (about $4 million dollars a year)  is correct, $1.5 million dollars could fund White House tours from today through most of the summer.  If ABC News's estimate is correct (about $1 million dollars a year) it would fund the tours from today straight through to the fall of 2014.

But it will instead be spent on a study to find out why there are a lot of fat lesbians.

I won't write any conclusion about this.  Feel free to draw your own.

Zeke ..... ..... ..... Lesbians need Girth Control -- Call Sandra Fluke. ...... ...... (03/12/13)


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote of the day comes to us from Hamilton County (Cincinnati, Ohio) prosecuting attorney John Deters.  Mr. Deters is talking about Melowese Richardson, a poll worker who has admitted voting two times in the last Presidential election -- but has been charged with voting 6 times (so far).  The real total?  Your guess is as good as mine.

Here is what Mr. Deters had to say about it:

"This is not North Korea.  Elections are a serious business and the foundation of our democracy. In the scheme of things, individual votes may not seem important, but this could not be further from the truth. Every vote is important and every voter and candidate needs to have faith in our system. The charges today should let people know that we take this seriously."

Well said, Mr. Deters.  But a question for you:  do you take this seriously enough to demand that voters provide a valid ID before casting their ballots? ( I don't know your position on that issue, sir, but regular readers of this blog certainly know mine.)

One other thing:  Since Richardson has been a poll worker for years and years, how many other multiple-vote situations do you think she might have given the OK for - especially in 2008 and 2012?  This quote of hers, explaining why she will be fighting the charges, might give you a hint:

"I'll fight it for Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama's right to sit as president of the United States,"

Asking again:  How many other multiple-voters do you figure she has helped along? 

And how many other poll workers like her have done the same? 

Hey, no ID requirement means no way to check and see.  Those concerned citizens at the Brennan Institute of Left Wing Propagand... er, of Social Justice can hold their heads up high and say "we find nothing there" and Democrats around the country can use that to proclaim voter fraud doesn't exist, right?

Thank you, prosecutor Deters, for your quote.  Today's honors are well deserved.


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!!