The Real Philadelphia Occupiers: Deadbeat Tenants

THE FOLLOWING BLOG IS INCOMPLETE. IT WILL BE FINISHED IN JANUARY, 2012. AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 2011, THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS 1,975 WORDS.

The infamous Occupy Wall Street group in Philadelphia was forcibly ordered to vacate its City Hall encampment November 30, about 50 days after the tent erections started (double entendre intentional).

This is an article, however, about the ones who are occupiers much longer than the Occupy group, and in far greater numbers.

It is close to crushing to be a landlord in Philadelphia. City Council has created a bomb of a Landlord and Tenant law; tenants are enjoying a 95% edge over the 5% landlords. It has been going on since the 1970′s. Each evicted tenant moves out owing thousands of dollars to the landlord. It is City Council’s fault. Reform is absolutely necessary.

Perhaps only landlords will care. We, the landlords, truly are victims. However, City Council considers the landlords the bad guys. It is absurd.

City Council makes it very rough, inconvenient and especially costly for a landlord to evict a deadbeat.

There may not be doubt that tenants had drawn the short straws going back more than 35 years. Some of their situations cried out for reform. However, City Council since then tipped the scales so far in the other direction, it is necessary that Philadelphia finally right one of its wrongs.

If a landlord wants to evict a tenant, the tenant still wins for much longer than is fair, logical and justifiable. City Council makes it possible for the tenant to keep living in the apartment and not paying rent, money the tenant will use eventually toward the rental of a new apartment from an unsuspecting and trusting landlord, someone who gambles to rent to this new tenant. The tenant does not write “I am a deadbeat” on the apartment application. So, yes, for the landlord, every tenant is a gamble.

In 1968, the Northwest Tenants Organization (in northwest Philadelphia) was founded as a rent strike-oriented militant group. In a couple of years, the movement grew and evolved into the Tenant Action Group, which developed as a political action and lobbying organization.

By 1974, the TAG had persuaded City Councilperson Ethel Allen, a nice lady, to introduce rent control legislation. Over the next decade, TAG successfully showed that Philadelphia had a lot of slumlords. But in the fashion of its grandiose lack of wisdom, City Council went entirely overboard. Ever since, landlords have been getting the hell beat out of them.

This is not to say that there aren’t any slumlords anymore. However, good landlords are taken advantage of by the 17-member City Council (by the way, why do we need that many Council members?). Over the years, the City Council legislation has been on the warpath through both its ordinances on the eviction of tenants and the regulations in the Department of Licenses and Inspections. The procedures regarding each, today, serve as a months-long Christmas present to unlawful tenants facing eviction and a big body blow to landlords at the mercy of so many regulations. Electrical contractors, plumbers, fire alarm companies and so on make sure the rental facility is safe. In itself, that is fine. But when you consider that many tenants trash their rooms, and their electrical switches, and faucets, the glass in the windows, and the walls and ceilings, and so on, you wonder just why they do that, and you wonder why City Council lets them virtually completely off the hook, and the landlord must spend, yes, thousands of dollars, to bring the rental property back to Code, and suitable for the next move-in.

This blog will concentrate on the eviction of tenants, but the reader should recognize that City Council has added entirely too much costly and time-consuming glob with its Department of Licenses and Inspections regulations.

The City tells you that if a tenant fails to pay his rent on time, you should, at once, proceed to the eviction process. However, the eviction process is a real doozy. When you ask the tenant for the rent, prepare yourself to hear Lie Number One (in early June). If the tenant is good-natured and seemingly reasonable, you think of the tedium in front of you if you go for eviction, and instead you roll the dice and figure the tenant is a truth-teller. You hope the rent will be forthcoming “soon”.

This process can repeat itself. The landlord is hanging on every word, and allows the tenant to skate (read this “continue to lie”). That is the easier of the alternatives for the busy and/or retired landlord.

In my case this year, the tenant showed me his H & R Block receipts showing the three IRS tax refunds (about $7,000 altogether) he was to receive “in four to eight weeks”.

After four weeks, and then in two-week intervals, you are told that the tenant’s mother is going to call him as soon as she receives the refund envelope. You wonder why the refunds are not coming to your rental property, but you mostly hope the IRS is timely.

After you have heard, say, Lie Number Eight, you realize how you have been swindled and played for a fool, and you realize you have but one avenue remaining.

Eviction, you know, is the really hard part.

First, you must send, by registered letter (in my case, the letter was just going upstairs), a notice of eviction. The tenant can think this over for 10 days.

I have yet to see a tenant move out on an eviction letter sent by registered mail.

So, after 10 days, you must go to Philadelphia Municipal Court, 34 South 11th Street, and apply for a Landlord and Tenant Complaint. In this document is listed the rental owed by the tenant, including amounts for utilities listed separately.

You pay the City of Philadelphia $100.00 for today’s action.

The complaint serves to schedule your court hearing. In my case, the hearing date is 42 days away! Six weeks! All during the 42 days, you are losing additional rental and utility payments, and you know you must provide adequate heat for the fall season, for which you will not receive one penny. Your tenant is living in your apartment for free!

You calculate that your tenant is now at a more than $5,000 swindle, but soon to be closer to $7,000. And you cannot do a thing about it. City Council made it this way. And, your tenant continues to live in your rental unit.

On the day of your hearing, you are in the courtroom of Judge Barbara S. Gilbert. But actually, because of subsequent developments, you will not appear before her. With the Judge not in the courtroom, two clerk-types call off the names, case by case. Some people did not show up; some agree to arbitration in the next room, and some are to await talking with the Judge.

My name is called and an attorney stands before the bench to tell the clerks he requests a meeting with me in the arbitration room. The attorney tells me that his client, who on the complaint owes $3,800, will move out in 50 days if I will agree to waive all rentals and utility amounts owed. He explains that if I do not agree, the tenant still can stay in the apartment for more than 35 days through law-required periods of time, additional lost money time for the landlord.

I replied that as of that day, the amount owed had grown to more than $5,000. I said I would split the difference in the number of days between what the City already afforded him vs. the 50 days. We compromised on 40 days, i.e., December 18th. The key aspect here for the attorney was to achieve an agreement in which I would waive any trip to Small Claims Court to get a judgment for the $5,000, or whatever the tenant now owes. You should understand that Small Claims judgments are often ignored. Hence, the landlord gets nothing but presumed satisfaction that the tenant’s good credit rating (if he/she has one!) is torpedoed.

The tenant’s attorney then went on a computer in the arbitration office to write a “Judgment by Agreement” that would list all of the specifications of the move-out. This document was to assure me that the tenant would vacate not later than December 18th. Actually, the agreement said: “No lockout prior to 12/18/11.”

Other clauses said: Tenant shall leave the property in clean broom-swept condition and return keys to landlord. AND: Landlord waives rent, any rent that might be owed and tenant waives security deposit.

In the meantime, I must obtain a Writ of Possession. This is a court order I could file for 11 days later advising the tenant he/she has 11 days to move out.

The Writ of Possession was served on my tenant Saturday, November 28th. Cost for this was $95.00, payable to Robert H. Messerman, “Landlord and Tenant Officer” of the Philadelphia Municipal Court. Before I went to the Messerman office (ninth floor, 21 South 12th Street, around the corner from the court filing location), I had to go there (34 South 11th Street, fifth floor) to start the process and pay $4.40 for “paperwork”. For the record, the Messerman office states it will serve the Writ of Possession “no later than one week” from the day payment is received for the Writ.

Eleven days after paying for the Writ of Possession, you may apply for an Alias Writ (costs $35.00, payable to Robert Messerman) which takes care of the padlocking on Eviction Day because, believe it or not (IMK), some tenants refuse to vacate even after receiving service of the Writ of Possession. In such cases, you need a Sheriff’s deputy to padlock the apartment entrance. In such case, you as the landlord must meet the deputy outside the apartment at a specific time on lockout day. You also have to have a locksmith there to change the keying. And you sign the Alias Writ to take possession.

In its infinite wisdom, City Council requires the landlord to hold and preserve the tenant’s goods “for at least 30 days”. If the tenant does not call for the goods within 30 days, “it’s still possible that you may be responsible for them”, so says Mr. Messerman.

The wonderful City Council, always protecting the deadbeat tenants, says you don’t have to leave the tenant’s goods on the premises after the eviction…… “you may move them to storage or wherever you wish, but you are still responsible for them”. Isn’t that nice of City Council?

These latter rules, in fact, may be procedures put in place by the Landlord and Tenant Officer, but still are under the aegis of City Council. Regardless of authorship, it still is another phase of the process which favors the tenant.

The landlord who is forced to hold onto the goods, by now, is beyond furious, and only wants to trash all of the tenant’s belongings. Why shouldn’t the tenant be obligated for his/her own goods?

So, for the tenant situation of 2011, it cost $100.00 + $4.40 + $95.00 + $35.00. TOTAL: $234.40.

That does not describe everything. Each trip downtown takes three to four hours. As time is money, those hours, in effect, add to the landlord’s cost.

About a decade ago, another landlord-tenant dispute arose at my place. After the apartment was padlocked, the tenant returned with a crowbar (as they say, I am not making this up). It was amazing. The attempted break-in prompted an immediate call to 911. Three Philadelphia police cars were on the scene in what seemed like two minutes. The “former” tenant immediately was stopped in his tracks. Police ordered him to honor the court order and never come back. (He didn’t.)

One of the police officers told me: “We see this all the time. Tenants get enough money to move in, perhaps paying for both the first month and last month, plus security, and never pay again. When the first 30 days is up, they pay nothing more. That means….in this city……they have a home for free for the next four to six months. Happens all the time!”

#################

President Obama and the Tea Party

President Barack Obama promised the people “hope” and “change”.

It all is in the process of being exposed as a hoax.

His campaign slogan next year should be: No We Cannot.

When he was a Presidential candidate in 2007-2008, he was advancing his own brand of snake oil. A majority of voters purchased the new brand, not recognizing the product as nothing but a medicinal quick fix.

Today, it clearly is a hoax, yet many of “the people” who have that snake oil on their shelves are just getting to the point of realizing it. Unfortunately, it will take a while for “the people” to admit they made a mistake. It is concerning that we ponder more than a year ahead of the election whether “the people” not only will admit their mistake but put their vote where their hearts and minds are or should be.

Emerging simultaneously with the Obama Hoax is the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party is going to win; there is no question about that. The people in the Tea Party will be in the forefront of exposing the hoax. But they still have a big task ahead. Their opponents will be employing tactics the left has been famous for, what Author Ann Coulter calls “outright thuggery”. The Tea Party must expand forces nationally to turn back the left, and answer the liberals, Obama et al, as a response to any mob thuggery.

Liberals cannot stand the Tea Party movement. Until FOX News came along, liberals had free rein on news bias. Only one side of the news was published or broadcast. Of course, that’s still a highly manipulated situation among most of the “mainstream media”.

Liberals are especially bothered because little by little, a few members of the media are coming around. Not the liberal media. But a minority of true journalists in the media. This is a critical issue for the Tea Party: developing a fair and balanced media.

You hear various people decrying the fact that there is such a “divide” in this country. What is emerging is the fact that the Tea Party is getting in the face of liberals. Liberals (and most Democrats) go bonkers nowadays when they hear “Tea Party”. Get used to it. The battle is just starting.

The members of the Tea Party are not evil; they are not crazy; they are not racists. They are good people who see President Obama as a hoax.

The hoax really has not been exposed yet. Maybe this blog will help you.

Part of the story is the FACT that Obama knows exactly what he is doing, just like the snake oil salesman. “The people” are having some difficulty with this. Some liberals, in defending the President, insist that he is brilliant, a genius and so on.

Aside from his alleged brilliance, the cold fact is that he is a conniver. And clever as such.

Did you skip over that sentence above: “…….Obama knows exactly what he is doing.” Ignore it at your peril.

It is necessary to prove that here. The Tea Party cannot survive and succeed unless and until it proves that Obama is a clever conniver. Much of his “plan” already is in motion; you just don’t hear about it from “the mainstream media”.

He has not pulled the wool over the eyes of the Tea Party people. But he has done an effective job with his friends, the liberals, and the radicals, and many independents. That many independents must take a new look at Obama is a sober given, however difficult that may be for them.

Before we get to the facts about Barack Obama, let us bring up the big phony issue, the elephant in the room: racism. This always has been a major crutch of liberals, the big haymaker that never has failed to score, or so liberals think. If there is a black person involved in a controversy, it obviously is agreed: cry racism. That’ll scare the hell out of them! Those Tea Party people are all racists, for example.

The Tea Party, of course, does not accept this critical canard. However, it must fight back and demonstrate that racism is NOT Obama’s defender, but rather a canard. Just to clarify: what is a canard? Merriam-Webster defines it as a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report and “a groundless rumor or belief”.

That is what most racism of today is.

Of course, a small minority of whites are racist. But this means a great, great majority are not. And members of the Tea Party are not racists.

If we want to start a fight here, all we need do is point out that many of the black people who voted for Obama in 2008 are racists. They voted for him because he is black. In their eyes, he can do no wrong. They will stick with him through all of his foibles. They will eat from his hand, no matter what. Many blacks never read or hear anything negative about Obama. He is their Community Organizer (a noble term for all-day agitator).

It is black racism.

They are blind to his all-day, full-court ego. Most blacks have no idea of the Obama hoax, which is described in detail below. (It is unfortunate, for example, that a black conservative can hardly get his/her foot in the door, due to national villification by liberals, liberal blacks and the liberal media.) Black conservatives (there, in fact, are some!) are brilliant and unique in their perspectives, so much so that liberal blacks go out of their way to discredit them.

Blacks have been promised since the days of LBJ (“The Great Society” it wasn’t, for most blacks) that government will see to it that their lives and livelihoods will be improved. Of course, there are millions of both whites and blacks on welfare, some of them undeserving, but the sober fact remains: you likely will not become middle class on welfare. The War on Poverty was a scam.

But we must get to the crux of all of this: the Obama Hoax.

You, my reader, are sitting on the sidelines watching Obama mostly covertly demonstrate that he is the top student in the world …… of Saul Alinsky.

The media should have told you about Saul Alinsky in the 2008 campaign. But the media almost totally kept most Obama negatives out of print and off the air/cable.

This is the critical issue. This is why we should state, every day, that we as a nation have been standing idly by as Obama tries to tear this nation apart. And we certainly cannot be standing idly by. Obama is doing this while reading and re-reading Saul Alinsky.

From his grave, Saul Alinsky has exacerbated a disturbingly increasing national debt. The current debt is a staggering amount, one that is over the heads of most Americans, unfortunately. They have no idea what a trillion dollars is.

We ought to have every school student each day write the following dollar amount: $14,748,803,094,463. That was the National Debt on the afternoon of Wednesday, September 21, 2011, more than 13 months in advance of the November, 2012, election. (Of course, that won’t happen. For one thing, many school teachers, especially college professors, are liberal, and some arrogantly advance their own liberal agendas in the classrooms.)

So maybe students can learn to write the day’s ever-increasing national debt amount. Maybe they can eventually realize what a trillion dollars is. Or 14 trillion.

Before discussing Obama and Alinsky, which is at the core of this nation’s daily problem/dilemma, you need to take a break from reading this happy blog. Go to http://www.usdebtclock.org and see all of that money increasing and increasing and increasing and increasing.

Look at all of those red and green figures changing and changing and increasing and increasing. It is a sobering experience to do this. So just don’t sit there; do it ! http://www.usdebtclock.org

(FOR THE RECORD, THE TOTAL DEBT PASSED $15,000,000,000,000.00 in mid-November, 2011.)

Not long after the earthquake in Haiti, Rush Limbaugh commended actor George Clooney for leading the multi-network fund-raising telethon. Do you remember it? It was on all the major networks for two hours, a Friday night, not long after the quake. George and everybody else taking part raised $66,000,000. Certainly, a million dollars is alot of money. Too, $66,000,000 is alot more money.

I will update Rush’s illustration to the $14,748,803,094,463 figure listed above. Rush asked his national radio audience if they had any idea how long it would take George Clooney et al to raise the total of the national debt (now $14,748,803,094,463 for our illustration) if they raised $66,000,000 daily. Every day including Thanksgiving and Christmas each year. How long would it take to do that?

‘Twould take 612 years!

It would take a staggering 223,466 George Clooney telethons! So, the ultimate question for you: do you have any idea how much a trillion dollars is? Or $14,000,000,000,000?

That’s 612 years to … every day … raise $66,000,000 (did I mention you have to do this every day??) to reach the total amount of the national debt. That $66,000,000 is a distant share of a mere 1% of the national debt, something like 0.0000044749394 of the national debt. Scary. No. Very scary. Remember, we concluded $66,000,000 is alot of money! Give Obama identification for nearly one-third of all of the $14,000,000,000,000+.! And he did his part in 32 months!

Want another sobering statistic? First, the figure: $4,200,000,000. That’s $4.2 billion. That’s 4,200 MILLION DOLLARS. The government of the United States, on a DAILY BASIS, spends $4,200,000,000 more than it takes in. That’s every day, podnuh. This is exactly what President Obama wants. He wants us to spend ourselves into oblivion……. into socialism. He must be stopped.

On that usdebtclock.org website, you will get the latest figures for debt per citizen (more than $47,000), number of taxpayers (112,000), “official” unemployed (14,000,000), “actual” unemployed (25,000,000), federal employees (4,300,000), and so on and so on and so on, concluding with bankruptcies (1,589,000 so far this year) and foreclosures (982,678), and so on and so on. Some suggest the number of bankruptcies should be increased by one: the United States of America!

By the way, if you are keeping score, the national debt on the day President Obama was inaugurated was $10,626,877,048,913.08. (Yep, even eight cents.) Since Obama became President, the national debt has been increasing at a rate of more than 15 per cent each year. President George Bush has been blamed as somewhat of a big spender, and he was in the White House when the rate was 8% per year.

Many Bush defenders say he was a big spender because of what Congress sent his way. But Obama has come along to DOUBLE the sins of the Bush years.

So, OK, what about the hoax. The hoax that is Obama.

President Barack Hussein Obama is hellbent on tearing down the structures of the United States of America. He purports to do this feigning innocence and good intentions while continually reading his speeches off the teleprompter. He is the nation’s Community Organizer, but he is being found out, one day at a time.

Saul Alinksy (1909-1972) of Chicago has been called the “first” Community Organizer. His claim to fame was his “Rules for Radicals” (available on the Internet; search for “The Twelve Rules for Radicals”). Obama is a “disciple” of Saul Alinsky; he even taught workshops on Alinsky’s tactics.

Alinsky said the community organizer must first rub raw the resentments of the people and fan the hostilities to the point of overt expression.

The key to power for radicals, said Alinsky, is to teach hatred for the majority. But, said Alinsky, you cannot hate millions of people. To do that effectively, he contended, you need a one-person scapegoat to focus your hatred on. “Pick the target,” he said, some say quoting Lenin, “freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” That is the politics of personal destruction.

Mob thuggery is doing this on a daily basis.

Obama, a follower of Alinsky, came along to say: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” That is the Chicago-style language of gang war. Alinsky called ordinary Americans “the enemy”. Normal people do not declare war on all of society. But that is what Obama is doing.

And there is no question, absolutely no question, that Obama is following Alinsky.

Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from two main sources: money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. That was Rule #1.

Number 2 says: Never go outside the expertise of your people. It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

You owe it to yourself and your education to read all of them, all 12 Alinsky rules.

Another says “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”.

The American people must understand these rules before November, 2012. The liberal media did not find it comfortable to expose them before the 2008 election. In fact, the media did its best to “cover” for Obama’s arrogance and radicalism, and his love of Alinsky and his rules.

Remember Joe the Plumber?

On Sunday, October 12, 2008, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher was playing catch with a football at his home near Toledo, Ohio. Presidential candidate Barack Obama campaigned on his street, prompting Joe the Plumber to ask Obama about his tax proposals affecting small businesses. Obama replied in part: “I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they’ve got a chance at success, too.” Then, he added his infamous line that the liberal media, and everybody else, for that matter, cringed on: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Spread the wealth around. Income redistribution.

There was widespread media coverage about Joe the Plumber but because they (the media) are overwhelmingly in the tank for Obama, they threw curve balls all over the place. They made Joe the Plumber the issue to the point that three state officials in Ohio, without authority, “investigated” Joe, using the taxpayer-supported government to attack him.

Income redistribution was the key peg of the campaign but more than 50 per cent of the people didn’t let that bother them. They voted for that hope and change. They need to read a certain document (see below).

And the fact remains, however, that this is a key example for charges that Obama is a socialist. He wants to spread the wealth around.

And he wants to run your life without caring what the U-S Constitution says. Some liberals call the Constitution “a living, breathing document”, which is why some members of the U. S. Supreme Court think they have been given an appointment to amend the document. Only the people may and can amend.

Want an example of the Saul Alinsky techniques?

The longest-serving (nine terms) U. S. Senator in history (Democrat Robert Byrd) did not get much publicity but he, on more than one occasion, blasted the President for his appointments of Presidential Czars. Do you know what and who they are? There are 41 of them, or at least that was the last known count.

The czars answer only to the President, despite what some of them allege; they have been given enormous (unilateral) power to regulate and control the American economy and government without any sort of oversight.

According to the late Senator Byrd, the czars manage crucial areas of national policy in violation of the constitutional system of checks and balances and its separation of powers. Senator Byrd called Obama’s “czar strategy” an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority for this nation solely in the White House.

Obama has appointed czars to oversee everything from healthcare to energy, science, terrorism, education, diversity, AIDS, Medicare, technology and cyberspace, among others, 41 in all.

What do those in the “mainstream media” report about the czars? Little.

Hope and change? What hope has President Obama given us? What change has he given the nation’s poor? (Recent news reports have disclosed that we have more poor people in the U. S. since Obama took office. Where is the hope/change emerging?)

The poverty rate here in Philadelphia JUMPED (says the Philadelphia Inquirer) nearly two percentage points from 2009 to 2010, according to a federal report.

What change has President Obama given us? Certainly the answer is not $14,748,803,094,463.

The hope he has given us is vaporized mystique, spun right out of his teleprompter. The change he has given us is adding each of us to the bankruptcy tabulations, even though they are not counted on usdebtclock.org.

Obama’s bankruptcy plan, in the wake of Saul Alinsky, is designed to cripple the people, and introduce a kind of socialistic euphoria. Such has been tried over the years; it never worked. It won’t work. Success stories do not exist.

Several months ago, I started attending meetings of the Northeast Philadelphia Tea Party. It is a small group. Many of those on the “e-mail list” do not attend the meetings, at least not this year. Attendance likely will increase in 2012 when Obama is raising his campaign millions (he says he needs a billion, as in $1,000,000,000!!!!).

That’s alot of money, but to keep things in perspective vs. the national debt, what he seeks for his campaign is a “mere” 0.00006780211205 of the national debt.

These various figures are intended to demonstrate the enormous magnitude of the national debt.

Each Northeast Philadelphia Tea Party meeting starts with recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, a radical expression of patriotism. Eh????? (as they say in Canada). However, the Northeast Philadelphia group and all the other Tea Parties are not the least bit radical; they are not “far right” (the favorite appellation of the liberal left); they are not evil.

The Director of the Northeast Philadelphia group is Edith V. (Eydie) Rodebaugh. She retired three years ago from her long-time job as School Teacher. She taught history (American History, especially) and economics and political science. Today, as part of her busy schedule, she teaches piano. She is assisted in Tea Party work by her husband, William F. (Bill) Rodebaugh, Jr.

The Tea Party Patriots organized because it saw the dangers of excessive government spending and taxation. In their Mission Statement, the Tea Party Patriots state that they aim to attract, educate, organize and mobilize citizens to secure public policy consistent with three core values: fiscal responsibility, Constitutionally limited government and free markets.

The Tea Parties, for one thing, represent the answer to the need for good journalism. Liberals are going ballistic because Fox News has some commentators who are hitting them between the eyes. For decades, liberals never heard or read anything that opposed their views. Biased reporting was easy for the liberal left. Not anymore. The Tea Parties’ goal must include nationwide efforts to expose the liberal media. Stick to the facts; it is an easy task.

In Philadelphia, the Tea Party has a difficult task amidst a sea of east coast liberalism. Both Philadelphia newspapers, the Inquirer and the Daily News, are overwhelmingly biased in their political coverages. The liberalism is blaring and glaring. The editorial cartoonists for both papers are liberals sometimes bordering on radicalism. Nearly all of their employed columnists are liberal. A majority of the readership of the papers is registered Democrat. Democrats outnumber Republicans 6-1 inside the city. The City Council has been overwhelmingly Democrat for the past 60 years. Fourteen of the (it is too many!) 17 Council members are Democrat.

The Tea Party on a national basis must expose the liberals for what they are.

Critically, unlike the liberals, the Tea Parties have a rock foundation: the U-S Constitution. At the September meeting, Eydie Rodebaugh distributed copies of the Constitution to all in attendance. As a demonstration of Tea Party dedication, we recited the introductory sentence of the Constitution:

“WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

At this writing, President Obama is urging passage of his latest brilliance: the Jobs Bill. He went before Congress earlier this month, ala the State of the Union, and proposed a new bill to spend $450,000,000,000 to create jobs. (By the way, the reader should think about changing the way we gloss over these dollar amounts. Years ago, newspapers found it convenient to write a figure like that as $450 billion. You don’t have nearly as much understanding of $450 billion as when you write it as $450,000,000,000.)

I never thought I would write something “favorable” quoting President Bill Clinton, but he obviously does not dig Obama’s socialist spending. Newsmax.com asked him this week about the Obama economic proposals. He replied a rather funny: “This whole thing is a little confusing.”

Imagine Bill Clinton being confused! He told Newsmax.com new taxes and spending should be delayed until the economy gets out of the doldrums.

He said the nation first must start with resolving the home-mortgage crisis (see “foreclosures”, above).

The former President called for a bipartisan approach to dealing with the nation’s economic woes: “I don’t think you can tax or cut taxes, I don’t think you can spend or not spend enough to get America back to a full employment economy until we flush that debt.”

By the way, as is typical of the liberal media, that criticism of Obama appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer in a short item on Page 6A.

I will close with comments received in an e-mail this week from Ann Coulter.

Ann drives liberals crazy. Liberals cannot handle blows to their noses. She is a conservative who does not cloud her words.

“Did your blood boil as you watched the violent spectacles in Wisconsin staged by Democrat-led public-sector unions?”

“If so,” she wrote, “brace yourself for what’s ahead. As the 2012 election draws nearer, I fear sickening scenes like this will become as frequent as Nancy Pelosi’s Botox appointments. Heck, some blunt-speaking Democrats already admit they’re going to get rough.”

She quoted Democratic pollster Paul Maslin as saying: “It’s not going to be 2008 ‘Yes We Can’ anymore. I think it’s going to be slash-and-burn.”

“You see,” said Ann, “in 2008 (AKA “the Year of the Second Coming” to liberals), Barack Obama had no record to run on. He was free to campaign with vague promises of ‘hope and change’ while counting on foolish independents and naive young people to project their own wishes upon him like a blank screen.”

But Ann says in 2012, Obama will have no such luxury. We know who he is now. He can’t hide behind hope. Or change.

Which is why, says Ann Coulter, Democrats will use the same vile “Wisconsin Strategy” to frighten conservatives and independents and make them fearful of daring to unelect the first African-American president of the United States.

The Tea Parties are ready to respond with unified national emphasis: Hope and Change ….. a Hoax.

Katie Couric

The main summary below was written in May, 2006, posted on May 18th of that year. Five months after that, I added the “To start off” lines immediately thereafter, and below that I will insert the five-years-later postscript to Katie’s anchor history, as she had failed. I will not start a “new” post on her successor, mainly because Scott Pelley does not merit such standing. He even will lose some of the audience Katie had. And it will happen within the next year…. in other words, before June, 2012. Suffice it to say that Scott Pelley is drab, dull and not interesting. He is puffed up, and that “air” will not pull viewers over from ABC and NBC. The fact that the collective audience of the nets keeps declining does not give Scott Pelley any room for error. He possesses all of the Katie negatives and adds a few of his own. Katie’s last day on The CBS Evening News was Thursday, May 19, 2011. CBS kept her so as to serve the full five years in her contract. When the ratings in the latter part of 2006 confirmed that Katie was a big mistake, CBS already was on the hook for the duration, and decided to have Katie work it off, which she did for the full five years.

In his review of Scott Pelley’s first night on “The CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley” Monday, June 6, 2011, Jonathan Storm of the Philadelphia Inquirer said the network offered the viewing audience the “same old same old” human-interest fare. “It was so low key,” said Storm, “even a whale couldn’t hear it.”

The column concluded with a Katie review hitting the nail on the head, something predicted five years before in these lines. Said Jonathan Storm: “Couric consistently finished last in the ratings, in part because her personality didn’t jibe with the evening news audience. But it was her frequently lackluster report, filled with the same kind of emphasis on personal stories, that turned a lot of viewers away.” So concluded Jonathan Storm in the Philadelphia Inquirer, my morning yawn.

The choices in news (anchor) talent made by the network suits often show how ill-equipped these people are to make multi-million-dollar decisions. Katie’s future may be brighter simply because her future “bar” will be so much lower. In early June, 2011, ABC-TV announced that Katie, in 2012, will host a syndicated daytime talk show. She will be the show producer along with her former “TODAY” show executive producer, former NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker. The two spent more than a decade together on the “TODAY’ Show. Katie should have stayed there. As part of her new job with ABC-TV, she will “have a position with ABC News starting this Fall”. MEMO TO DIANE SAWYER: If you want to maintain your own ratings, don’t let Katie do any “pieces”.

It is a bit difficult to NOT SAY “I told you so” but the three major networks that do world news at 6:30 p.m. Eastern were anything but fertile field for Katie Couric. The nets have been in a steady decline for nearly 50 years. There are several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the liberal biases of the network newsrooms are a super drag on their potential. It has been clearly shown over the years that the “audience” has been in steady decline due to the networks’ overwhelming liberalism. It has been a scourge. The network suits do not have time to devote to mere news ratings. And they have little knowledge of journalism, especially as it relates to sending pictures through the air.

So, here then is the “insert” written in late 2006 after the blog, which follows, which had been posted in May of that year:

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-

To start off, this is an update entered Wednesday, October 18, 2006.  It is not a gloating statement  nor an “I told you so” but simply to point out that Katie Couric so far is not setting the world on fire at 6:30 p.m.  EDT or EST.  On Monday, October 14, the DrudgeReport gave ratings for Katie in New York City, Los Angeles and Washington, DC.  These were ratings for the LOCAL VIEWERS in each of the three markets.  In New York, WABC (Charley Gibson) was at 7.1, WNBC (Brian Williams) was at 5.3 and WCBS (Katie) was at 3.7.   In Los Angeles, KABC was at 5.9, KNBC was at 3.1 and KCBS was at 1.5.  In Washington, NBC was out front with a 9.3, ABC scored 7.8 and CBS (Katie) was at 2.5.

Then, on Thursday, October 26, 2006, the Drudge Report had even more sobering news for Katie and CBS:  on Wednesday night, she was SEVENTH in the ratings in Los Angeles.  Katie had fewer viewers in LA than a “FRIENDS” re-run, and also “KING OF QUEENS” and “MILLIONAIRE”.

Katie’s rating in Los Angeles Wednesday (October 25) was a meager 1.1 with a 2 Share, which means just 2% of those who were tuned into television at Katie’s news time were watching her in LA.

  What follows is my “blog” on Katie from this past summer (meaning the Summer of 2006).  This is NOT a sexist statement:  I will not watch Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News. So you and I are clear in the comments below, it has nothing to do with gender.   My reasons are not the same as Andy Rooney’s, but rather are of many years in the making, deep-rooted long before Andy thought he would be in any way affected by Katie Couric.

I  respect  any person who can attract a multi-million-dollar salary legally.  Whether they deserve it or not, the fact is the individuals can  laugh all the way to the bank.

So it doesn’t matter to me whether Katie Couric took a “cut in pay” to move from the TODAY SHOW on NBC-TV to the CBS Evening News.  Her annual salary will be in the millions, and she deserves credit for impressing her future bosses who agreed to pay her even above what her competitors are receiving.  Truth to tell, that DOES matter to me.  But it’s not my money, it’s NBC’s and now CBS’s.  They can afford her, whatever they pay her.

That is not a key point, except to Katie.

Katie… in this week’s Newsweek cover story …. is more or less commended for getting more ink during the week than the announced resignation of Tom DeLay.  She was featured in a recent story in the AARP Magazine.

Tim Russert, moderator of NBC’s “Meet The Press”, hired Katie in Washington in 1991.  She was a reporter on a local Washington TV station.  She was “Katherine Couric”.  Tim is the Bureau Chief for NBC News in Washington.  It always has been fashionable to hire liberals for network jobs.  You won’t find as much slant on this at the local stations, but they are themselves changing, as has been noted elsewhere on this blog. 

Tim told the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Gail Shister  (who writes columns on television):  “I saw a spark, an energy, a tenaciousness.  She was all over the place.”

Tim mostly does not show his own liberalism.  But there, in commenting on Katie Couric, he clearly was.  But this is not about Tim Russert’s own liberalism, which, as indicated above, does not reveal itself very often.

He said he thinks Katie Couric will succeed as anchor for CBS News. 

Part of the problem here is that the three major networks’ early evening newscasts have been transformed into treatises for senior citizens.  As a senior citizen, I feel insulted.  The so-called “magazine pieces” on television news started back when I was working as a TV reporter.  In those days, they were founded on journalistic principles.  Today, the magazine pieces are fluff and often liberally, not journalistically, oriented.  I am not going to cite examples here.  Just listen to any of the three networks any evening.  Not only is there the liberal slant (Brian Williams on NBC is the least guilty) but there is the constant effort for magazine pieces aimed at the assumed major TV audience of the newscasts:  older people.

Will Katie Couric attract younger viewers?  That is probably going to be her main appeal, although the “audience” that tuned to her on the TODAY SHOW also can be counted on to be somewhat loyal to her on CBS.  Yet the young people, generally speaking, are not tuned in to the news of the day.  If you listen to Jay Leno or Sean Hannity doing a MAN ON THE STREET interview, you find that young people have almost no clue who national figures are.  They probably can tell you all about the kind of guitar a rock star has, but they don’t know who the Vice President is.

A long-time star of the news spot Katie will occupy later this year, Walter Cronkite, applauds the selection of Katie Couric.  He occupied the chair from 1962 till 1981 when whatshisname took over.  To hear CBS tell it, Walter was “the most trusted man in America”.  Of course, this ignores the fact that the Huntley-Brinkley Report on NBC enjoyed a higher audience.

“I think she’s a terrific choice,” said Walter.  “I’ve followed her.  I knew her work apart from TODAY SHOW.  She’ll be fine.”

That line is precisely why I am writing this.  Katie’s work apart from the TODAY SHOW was a collection of liberal diatribes masking as journalism.  She started with the completely biased reporting she did on the Clarence Thomas (Anita Hill) Senate confirmation hearings. Along with millions of others, I watched those hearings virtually non-stop, and was appalled at her reporting.  I could not believe she would be long for the job once the coverage was concluded.

Sad to remark:  NBC News loved her.  There was more bias in her reporting than you’ll see in a month of reporting on all three networks of the evening newscasts.

The Media Research Center has done an outstanding job of compiling Katie’s liberal diatribes. citing year after year of her various liberal slants. Check out  http://www.mediaresearch.org and put “Katie Couric” in the search line.  They currently have more than 900 “links” to Katie, and while it takes a while to retrieve the various items, the summary is absolutely riveting and compelling:  Katie Couric is a flaming liberal, and likely will emerge as more of a biased reporter than Dan Rather in the same spot.

She starts on CBS-TV September 5th, the day after Labor Day. She may enjoy an early boost in the ratings due to viewer curiosity.  Sorry, I won’t be among her viewers. 

She is replacing Dan Rather, and more recently, Bob Schieffer.  The irony of Bob Schieffer’s tenure during the past year is that he has garnered better ratings than Rather.  Schieffer is a nice fellow, but nevertheless decidedly on the liberal side, based on his questioning on FACE THE NATION, which he hosts each Sunday morning. 

Said Bob Schieffer:  “I’ve known Katie Couric since she broke into journalism and she’s going to be a great addition to the CBS News team.  She’s tough, she’s fair, she’s a straight shooter…..  She’ll be terrific.  Just watch.” 

The comment is carried in TV ads on the air this summer.  Of course, CBS would not quote him saying something negative.  And I suppose he pretty much feels the way he is quoted above.

Not so Andy Rooney.  Andy Rooney is clearly a liberal, admits it and lets it all hang out. But he doesn’t dig Katie Couric.  It should be noted that Andy favors good journalism, with an aim toward objectivity  (except on SIXTY MINUTES, where he appears!!).  He doesn’t think Katie will be a benefit to CBS  just as he thought Dan Rather was a poor excuse for a TV anchor.

Said Andy on IMUS IN THE MORNING June 22:  “My problem with Dan was always that you knew where he stood politically.  And the fact that he stood on my side didn’t have anything to do with it.  I thought he was a bad representative of the liberal side because he was SO OBVIOUS with his opinions.  There were just little words he used when he was on the air that made it apparent to everyone that he was a liberal Democrat.  And Walter Cronkite on the other hand had the same liberal Democratic opinions as Dan had but you would never know it.  No one knew it during all the time Cronkite was on the air.”

About Katie Couric coming to CBS??  Said Andy:  “I’m not enthusiastic about it.  I think everybody likes Katie Couric.  I mean how can you not like Katie Couric.  But, I don’t know anybody at CBS News who is pleased that she’s coming here.”

CBS is arranging for Katie to go on a “listening tour” in at least six cities this summer.  She will meet with viewers who will give her their ideas on how CBS should report the news.  That is a laugh-and-a-half. 

Over the years, television people have organized so-called “focus groups” to tell them why they tune into TV news.  By and large, these focus groups courageously say they turn on TV news to get the weather.  And boy, do they get the weather.  The TV newscasts “lead” with the weather if it rains (see other item in this blog on this remark).

So, come September, Katie Couric may be giving us the weather !!!  Now, lesseee…… how can you give a LIBERAL WEATHER FORECAST  ???

In mid-July now, Katie has given her new bosses something else to think about:  she told “Access Hollywood” she would NOT venture in the Middle East to cover that hot spot  (Israel and Lebanon for the moment).  Said she:  “I think the situation there is so dangerous, and as a single parent with two children, that’s something I won’t be doing.”

Katie will have great appeal to the wusses of our society !!!

 

Why President-elect Obama won

Even more than a week after the election, nobody seems to be expressing the following points, so maybe the opinions are off the mark. I don’t think so, and I approve this message.

Barack Obama won for five main reasons. There might be 100 more but even the most significant of them only could come in at Number Six.

Here are the five main reasons, about which I will comment at length below: 1) The Media. Everybody can dance around that, but the media represent a highly powerful engine and serve to scare the daylights out of politicians while, with prejudice, sway the thinking of millions.

2) Bush hatred. Let us assume for the moment you don’t need an immediate further explanation for this.

3) The third reason Obama won was, no question about it, Senator John McCain.

4) For Reason Number Four, I copy Rush Limbaugh’s major point, the failure of the Republicans to be conservatives, and let the world know it. I am paraphrasing Rush but I think that’s close to what he said right after Election Day.

5) Reason Number Five is not overkill. It umbrellas a great deal. President-elect Obama knew how to deliver a manuscript speech from a Teleprompter. HIs first news conference after election last week confirms this point when Obama, at the brief news conference, demonstrated he is no master of the ad-lib.

As acknowledged above, there are other reasons that led to the Obama victory. But remember that more than 58,000,000 people voted for McCain, so the 7% difference in votes was anything but a landslide. It also bodes well for the opposition party four years from now if the GOP can wake up from its collective slumbers and blunders. In fact, it bodes well for the GOP in 2010 when the next House of Representatives races come up.

It is not my intention to try to list all the factors identifying victory and defeat. Blacks voted almost entirely for Obama. Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin drew many voters to McCain who otherwise might have stayed home on Election Day. She was much more effective than the media are admitting, yet she likely turned away some so-called “moderates” due to the disgraceful trashing she suffered. And so on. Victory has many fathers; defeat is an orphan.

So, back to Reason Number One. Many people in and out of politics do not want to give credit to the ability of the media to control this society. Such people are fooling themselves, but they are falling for the media feints. The media collectively did not just favor Obama; they were in the bag for Obama. They shamelessly bulldozed their biased support. It is a national disgrace and will not be corrected unless or until the people in journalism call cop.

As a generalization, the people in journalism mostly are liberals. That goes double for the educators in college schools of journalism. Generally, they are quite comfortable in their skins. Yet much of their work is journalistic fraud, an abrupt rejection of the Journalist’s Creed, which says “the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service”.

If there was news favorable to Obama, it got front-page above-the-fold treatment. If there was a favorable McCain story, it was elsewhere in the paper. If there was a negative Obama story, you often only heard about it on the Fox News Channel. The so-called “Mainstream Media” ignored it, or countered it with bogus angles or otherwise “buried” it.

Deborah Howell in the Washington Post Sunday said stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the Obama candidacy more newsworthy and historic. For example, the op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32. The number of Obama stories during the past year, going back to last November, was 946, compared with McCain’s 786. After Obama eliminated Hillary Clinton, the tally was 626 stories on Obama, 584 on McCain. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain 144. This was just the Washington Post. While we have no comparable statistics, it is pretty safe to say that most newspapers’ coverages would reveal the same percentages of biases.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism found that from June 9 to November 2, two-thirds of the campaign stories in the national media were about Obama, 53 per cent were about McCain. (Of course, some stories were about both candidates.)

You will find elsewhere on this blog that I do not admire Katie Couric. She has enjoyed a kind of rebirth for her interview in September with Sarah Palin. What a joke. Katie interviewed Palin for two hours and aired just six minutes. Anybody could interview Katie Couric for two hours and clobber her. Couric’s questions were described as fair by the Mainstream Media. Several of those CBS-TV aired were not fair. One was when she asked Palin to list several of the U-S Supreme Court rulings she disagreed with. When the question was aired, I did a double-take, trying to think of even one Supreme Court ruling besides Roe vs. Wade.

I would like to ask Katie to name the last three years’ winners of Movie of the Year. After all, she was star of the TODAY show and should have broad knowledge of news. I would like to ask Katie to name the new President of Russia. She may know now it is Dmitry Medvedev, but “I betcha” she couldn’t have told you three months after he became President. I would like to ask Katie to name the Prime Minister of Canada. Even today. It’s Stephen Harper, Katie. But believe me, in interviewing Katie for two hours, my training would enable me to “sandbag” her in the fashion of the Mainstream Media, including Katie. While it would not be good journalism, it would be revealing. For that matter, Katie interviewed Palin after the Alaskan Governor had been a national candidate for less than a month. Katie would have been easy prey to question a month after she switched to CBS-TV.

Below the radar in the subject of the media, consider the way certain stories become recycled to promote liberal causes. One day I recall USA Today running its top story on an upturn in homeless numbers (the numbers themselves were comparatively insignifcant and would have been ignored with a Democrat in the White House) and across the page was a story about a slump in car sales. Right now the Big Three automakers are in big financial trouble, but do you know the “stimulus package” Obama promoted at his first post-election news conference could be correctly identified as a UAW bailout. The auto workers’ unions exercised their extreme power to achieve wonderful union contracts that cost the Big Three $72 per hour. It takes a lot of dollars to buy a car built by $72 per hour workers. It also costs more than $1,500 in the price of a new car to pay the worker his or her hospitalization costs. Foreign cars have much less in the price for employee medical benefits. For example, Toyota cars have $110 for employee hospitalization.

So when we talk about the Big Three, there is a lot to the story you may not be told. There were similar omissions in the recent political campaign coverage. You were fed liberal viewpoints but rarely conservative ones. And the weight applied almost always leaned toward Obama.

The second reason for the Obama victory, Bush hatred, was an overwhelmingly successful effort by (Reason Number One) the liberal media. President Bush did not receive objective reporting out of the White House and he was not shown the respect the office calls for.

For example, in San Francisco, 12,000 people signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. Classless disrespect.

President Bush endured relentless attacks from the left while concurrently having to see conservatives abandon him.

I did not like everything Mr. Bush did during the past nearly eight years. I thought he should have responded to the opposition diatribes. He thought it would demean the office of the Presidency.

Unlike most Americans who opposed the war in Iraq, I support him. I have heard nobody on either side, really, observe that the Presidential campaign among Democrat Party candidates listed Iraq as the Number One issue. But that was more than a year ago. It hardly came up as an issue during the final two months of the campaign, thanks to the tanking economic news. The fact remains that Al Queda and similar enemies did not repeat the destruction of 9/11 because, frankly, they were afraid of George Bush.

But taken as a whole, no matter what Mr. Bush has done, he was blamed for everything. He remains despised by liberals while continuously disappointing the right, even though it should seem obvious that many of our nation’s current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush came to office, or are beyond his control.

Ironically, Obama will not suffer in the same disgraceful way. Attacks against Obama as President may sometimes be cruel and slanderous, similar to those against George Bush. But Obama will escape the same barrages because he will enjoy the fawning of a favorable liberally-biased media. Just as during the campaign, the media will serve to protect their chosen one.

Investigative reporter Jeffrey Scott Shapiro in the Wall Street Journal said our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world, he said, how disloyal we can be when our President needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House. It was juvenile; it was often virtually childish.

The media fed off Bush hatred and disseminated it, broadcast it regularly.

The third reason for the Obama victory waS Senator McCain himself. At times I wondered how he could be so unwise as to avoid obvious chances of scoring three-pointers against Obama. McCain could have clobbered Obama on many points, many issues. But he seemed more interested in getting Boy Scout merit badges for good behavior, which helped him not a whit. McCain could have campaigned on the immigraton issue, from a conservative viewpoint. Support legal immigration, oppose illegal immigration. Forget the fact that George Bush was weak on this. In fact, it would have demonstrated a key issue where he disagreed with the President. It would have challenged Obama’s campaign speech that with McCain, you get another George Bush.

McCain was politically less than astute to pull out of Michigan weeks before election day. What a terrible negative image that portrayed. It would have been much better had Sarah Palin not mentioned it, but it demonstrates how reckless the move was that Sarah Palin wanted to see the decision reversed. She just should not have said so pubicly. Obviously, McCain never discussed the move in advance with his running mate. (The only other Palin gaffe, by the way, was her reference to looking toward 2012.) She has to be careful when she speaks her mind. Comments like that do show inexperience, but Palin was one of McCain’s good decisions, and generally, conservatives thank McCain for selecting her. They won’t admit it but liberal media types feared Palin because she was so effective in defining liberalism.

And while we are beating up on John McCain, it is necessary to point out that his silence when there were negative stories did not make him look good. He needed to show some outrage when somebody asked him how many houses he owned. There were several ways he could have answered this that would have prevented the subject from showing up on the late night comedy shows.

And McCain was nothing short of stupid to alienate and ignore Rush Limbaugh.

Speaking of Rush, he described the fourth reason listed here for Obama’s victory. Rush put it at Number One. When you survey the American public, you find many people have more conservative viewpoints than THEY realize. Rush said the Republicans did not run on conservative issues, and this not only hurt them with conservatives but also denied them the opportunity to bring more voters into their camp. So Republicans need to recognize their conservative issues are far more powerful and universally appealing than they realize.

The fifth reason was the way Obama could appear impressive on the stump. He drew big crowds, thanks to extra efforts to attract audiences with rock shows, including that one in Berlin. He was especially effective in reading from a TelePrompter. He was not effective in ad lib situations, but even here, he is better than George Bush who became infamous for speech gaffes. The liberal media ignored Obama’s gaffes, such as when he made the reference to the nation’s 57 states, We don’t have 57 states, do we???

Jimmy Carter was a joke as President, and has continued to be the same as former President. It will be interesting to watch Obama to see if he can avoid becoming the remake of Jimmy Carter. Based on his liberal voting record in the U-S Senate and his leftist views and supporters, it will not be surprising if Obama mirrors Carter. Despite his fawning media, Obama will not have a cakewalk.

Ann Coulter put the status of Politics Twenty-First Century in focus by suggesting that Republicans show Obama the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that Democrats have shown “our recent Republican President”.

Arabs Having Ownership at Six American Ports

Let’s see.  The story is that a company known as Dubai Ports World had just about completed a deal,  a $6.8 billion acquisition of a British company, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.  Dubai Ports World, of the United Arab Emirates.  That one.  This is where Tiger Woods wins golf tournaments  (Dubai). Oh yes, the same one that made it into the 9/11 Commission Report when the United Arab Emirates biggees were playing footsy (going hunting?) with Osama Bin Ladin.

Yesterday, the news secretary for President Bush, Scott McClellan, said:  ”In hindsight, when you look at this and the coverage that it’s received and the false impression that is left with some, we probably should have briefed members of Congress about it sooner.”

As the great, learned Harvey Diltitcher once said, PERCEPTION IS REALITY.  The deal looks dead.

Is it dead?   At least many people think so.   Don’t hang on every word here:   there may be something more to the whole story, and we may never hear of all of the devils in the detail.

Many people are dumping on the deal.   Unfortunately, and this is the only obvious conclusion that can be drawn thus far:   the Bush administration did not umbrella the deal properly for public consumption.

It depends on what damage control develops, and whether the possible underlying aim of the deal, if any, is impossible to achieve now.

So now we have to wait two or three years for somebody to write a book exposing what was happening here.

The problem is basic.  It is the taint.   The perception.  President Bush says the United Arab Emirates is a good ally of the U. S. especially in the fight against terrorism.  The U. S. was doing the deal under the radar, it seems, because incorporated in it was an agreement for DP World to reveal records on demand about “foreign operational direction” of its business at  six U. S. ports  (Philadelphia,  New York,  Baltimore,  Miami, New Jersey and New Orleans). 

It is confusing that the White House says President Bush did not know about the deal until recently.   You have to proceed with the conclusion that Scott McClellan does not dispense lies in any situation.  This would seem to indicate nothing about terrorism was below the surface. 

Probably nobody except one of those CIA whistleblower guys (traitors, maybe) will reveal whether the deal included a method of the U. S. to infiltrate more of the Middle East.   At least this time, no whistleblower apparently surfaced this deal, but that’s beside the point.

Because Homeland Security was the lead agency in shepherding the deal, it seems to me there was more here than the perception of Arabs running six U. S. ports. 

On his radio talk show this morning, Michael Smerconish (Radio Station WPHT, Philadelphia) spent most of his three hours going over Pages 137-138 of the 9/11 Commission Report.  There, you can read the account of how Richard Clarke somehow queered a plan to bomb Osama Bin Ladin in 1999.   

The account tells about the planned attack on a hunting camp where Bin Ladin was in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp in the desert south of Kandahar, Afghanistan.  The attack was called off, according to the Commission report, because a United Arab Emirates prince also was there, along with others from the UAE.   A UAE airplane had brought the hunters to the desert camp.   The CIA not only did not want to kill a UAE prince, they were not convinced they could be sure of getting Bin Ladin.  It doesn’t take one of them there rocket scientists to conclude that some Arabs from the UAE were enjoying some leisure time with the world’s Number One terrorist.

We are in a war.   It is a peculiar war because our enemies do not wear uniforms.   However, we may have to keep reading between the lines on the port story.   It does not seem very logical that the U. S. government would be doing a deal with Arabs during a war  unless there is something there under the radar we don’t know about.   

After all, we do not want our U. S. government to broadcast the location, date and time of our next “attacks” against terrorism.

Maybe a method of fighting terrorism has been killed.   If so, it is unfortunate, and another casualty of war.  But obviously, the President’s news secretary was right yesterday:    they didn’t do it correctly …. because

 ……….   Now most people think it was wrong. 

MAYBE THE LAW IS A ASS

This comment includes a quote from Charles Dickens.   A further explanation of   THE LAW IS A ASS  (sic)  may be found on another post on thishere blog.   Look for  “A PLEA FOR OVERTURN OF NJ DOT LAW”.   Here, then, is this particular post:  

Dr. Laura says:  WHATEVER THE LAW SAYS, DO.  You would think that would be a liberal talking.

What does a liberal say, then?

On the May 27, 2001, “MEET THE PRESS” (NBC-TV, with Tim Russert), James Carville, chief apologist for William Jefferson Clinton, dismisses the law (Carville is a lawyer).  Challenged by Russert, Carville snapped:  “The law is just a sheet of paper!”

So, it depends not on whether you are conservative or liberal; it depends on what suits your purpose.

As the learned Harvey Diltitcher once said, if the facts are on your side, try the facts.  If the law’s on your side, try the law.

The NJDOT conveniently elects for the latter.

Lawyers are ruining our society

On the Internet, somebody once said, there are 10,000 jokes about lawyers.

But the lawyers are no joke.

While some of them do essential work (example:  public prosecutors who put the bad guys in prison), lawyers, in general, are ruining our society by running our society.  And lining their own pockets simultaneously.  They are in control of your lives.  Perhaps you don’t realize it, but YOU are the ones doing the lining.

Lawyers will be the last people on earth to admit this.  And, of course, you KNOW they are costing “people” alot of money, but you probably haven’t realized how much effect they are having on your life.  But, you figure, what can you do about it?

In our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson et al complained that the King of Great Britain had “erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Alas, the King of Great Britain has been replaced by thousands of “lawmakers” who spend their days in the Congress and state and local legislatures of this land, mostly, it appears, finding new ways to generate lawyer fees, often due to more and more governmental regulations. They do this through the swarms of new laws and expanded government.  Is it un-American to ask whether this nation has become “a multitude of New Offices”?

The Declaration of Independence was signed by 56 men.  Fewer than half (24) were lawyers.  We should have stopped there.

On a national basis, and on the state and local scene, we have far too many legislators (read that:  lawmakers).  In Philadelphia, for example, can you tell me what logic there is in having 17 members of City Council?  In Philadelphia, there are 10 “district” council members and seven “at-large” members of Council.  The “routine” is just that, and should be handled by fewer than 10, effectively seven or five.

In Pennsylvania, there are 203 state representatives and 50 state senators.  Will somebody tell me why we shouldn’t operate with, say, 50 state representatives and 20 state senators?

And Congress??  Heaven forbid!  We have 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 United States Senators.  And each one of ‘em is working like the devil to write a bill that becomes law with THEIR NAME on it!  Think of how many bills are written into law!  Many tax and regulate and cause us no end of bureaucratic obligations.  Knock off alot of those state representatives and state senators, and city council members, and most of the 535 birds in Congress, use the saved office budgets and hire the fewer persons needed to implement the fewer laws that are needed to run this nation.

Alot of them are lawyers.

And they pass laws to tax and regulate you and me.  And this not only causes unwieldy big government but also hits you and me in the pocketbook.  And we have to spend alot more of our time complying with the regulations and filling out and filing the many tax forms that hit the average individual and business.

Did I hear somewhere that the paper for the printing of the tax code weighs 80 pounds?  And did I hear somewhere that something like 36,000 laws tell the American public what to do?

Pardon me, but is this not ridiculous?

Lawyers in America’s legislatures have spent the past 200 years drowning us in regulations and taxes (and tax returns).  We broke from the Mother Country to escape taxation without representation.  Now, we have taxation WITH representation, with the representation overwhelmingly in the form of sharks from the legal profession.  The major firms have HUNDREDS of lawyers.  There have to be grievances and violations right and left, all over the place, to generate work for all these attorneys. and fees, and more fees, and still more fees.  Even the law departments of our governmental agencies justify their employment by suing seemingly anybody with a big company and big buckos to be had.  Example, Bill Gates and Microsoft, a pathetic effort by our United States Justice Department.  Microsoft was forced to spend millions to defend itself from what primarily is a bogus federal lawsuit.  And the tobacco industry!  It does not matter whether you smoke or not.  The lawsuit against the tobacco industry really impressed the anti-smoking lobby.  But the lobby was a pawn.  It was all about fees for lawyers, and delayed, albeit unworthy, tax revenue for states.  It was all about money.  And that’s what lawyers are about.

Oh, sure, they “love” the law.  They keep society on a law-abiding course.  But the cost is prohibitive.

Many of the laws regulate without corresponding proper, effective enforcement.  The lawmakers whose name is on the bill signed into law can have back pain from patting themselves on the back for their acumen.  The rest of us must accept provincialism throughout our society.  And, without a lull, the lawyers keep collecting more and more fees.

Inside these NEWS items from GSS Tours is a report on how New Jersey regulates the motorcoaches that operate in the Garden State.  Just attacking the overbearing laws is a huge task.  This is why so many laws not only survive, but multiply in their applications.  The average small business owner does not have the time to fight the laws and regulations that so effectively pin him/her down.  And states pass laws that probably or in fact do violate the U. S. Constitution.  Included here, we contend, is the New Jersey law calling for unannounced bus inspections.

But here’s the rub:  you have to GET A LAWYER to fight the improper law.  You cannot ask the state lawyers to help you!  They only serve the Governor and the state legislature.  IMAGINE THAT!  Our taxes pay the salaries of all governmental employees, yet they do not really “work” for us, if they are lawyers.  Does anybody know this???

While this has practical application, it nevertheless unfairly hamstrings the private citizen who has a legitimate grievance.  Should not the public lawyers have the additional responsibility of evaluating and testing the rulings they previously had “approved”.  The governmental law departments have no “Customer Service Window” to help the public.

So, these bus inspections are conducted often almost daily in Atlantic City, and they likely are in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.  But the Governor and the state legislature, who approved the state law(s) applicable, will not initiate a review of their skullduggery.  Why should they?  Admit they may be wrong?  Admit they are over-regulating?  And why should the New Jersey Attorney General test whether he, or his predecessor, made a mistake originally by declaring the legislation constitutional which ultimately is used in such a dictatorial fashion.  Yeah, in a letter to the Governor, it was suggested that the procedure reminds one of the stories from 60 years ago (read this  “Gestapo”).   It is unbelievable.

The situation certainly is no joke.  It’s the lawyers.

In Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, the cost of malpractice insurance is becoming prohibitive for the average family practitioner.  Costs have mushroomed in recent years, increasing into the many thousands of dollars.  The typical family doctor cannot keep up with the premiums.

Of course, you can blame the insurance companies, as they are partly to blame.  But primarily, it’s the lawyers.  The lawyers file their huge claims for anything from improper surgery to hot coffee in the lap.  Juries, especially those in Philadelphia, are generous to the poor plaintiffs.  The financial awards turn into huge rewards.  And the lawyers get one-third to one-half of the money.

Lawyers know their annual income is directly affected by how aggressive they pursue lawsuits.  It doesn’t matter if they are chasing ambulances or hammering doctors, the goal is the fee.  And the greater the fee, the bigger their home, the snazzier their car.  While lawyers cannot stand to hear the criticism, and hide behind a holier-than-thou attitude, lawyers are perhaps the greediest profession of all (and that even includes the sports pro athletes).  Greed fires malpractice claims.

The situation is getting worse, America.  You ought to recognize and realize that YOU are allowing this to happen.  Just keep on giving plaintiffs 1,000 times more than they may deserve.  And, pray tell, just WHO do you think, ultimately, is paying the bill for the greed?