Monday, 14 May 2007


Ken Berwitz

My wife and I had a great mother's day weekend with our family.  We wish everyone the same.

But, evidently, not everyone had a similarly positive experience. 

I offer the following two news reports, from the Toledo Blade and New York Post respectively, in the hope that they will cause you to appreciate your mother's day all the more:


5 arrested in melee at area eatery
Argument over crying baby sparks Mother's Day brawl

Thelma Oliver said she thought it was a good idea to take her mother, Linda Oliver, out for Mothers Day yesterday with her father, Clarence.

The Oliver family, though, found themselves fending off punches and thrown tables and chairs at the Golden Corral restaurant, 5730 Opportunity Dr., yesterday afternoon, which could go down as The Great Toledo Mothers Day Brawl.

About 10 Toledo Police units responded to the melee with an estimated 15 people involved inside the restaurant. Five people were arrested and six people were hurt, including four who were taken to hospitals for minor injuries.

I couldnt believe it, Thelma Oliver said. This is supposed to be Mothers Day. Its just a crying shame.

The incident started shortly before 3:30 p.m. in the crowded, buffet-style restaurant near Alexis Road and Lewis Avenue. Sgt. Lee Kikolski said it appeared that two women in the restaurant had words over a child, which ignited the fight.

The sergeant said witnesses told him Christine Lewandowski, 56, repeatedly asked Sylvia Harris, 24, of Toledo to quiet her 1-year-old child, who was sitting in a high chair and screaming.

When the infant continued to scream, Ms. Lewandowski shouted at the baby to shut up, Sergeant Kikolski said.

Thats when Ms. Harris lunged at Ms. Lewandowski and began punching the woman, the sergeant said.

Other people joined in the fight, which lasted maybe 10 minutes, Sergeant Kikolski said.

It was a big exchange, Sergeant Kikolski. It seemed like everyone wanted to get their licks in, or it could have possibly been they were trying to break up the fight.

Chairs and tables were thrown as the fight participants quickly grew out of control and restaurant managers called police.

The restaurant was eventually shut down for nearly two hours, and about 100 customers were forced to leave, police said.

According to the Lucas County jail, Ms. Harris was arrested for assault, rioting, and inducing panic, all misdemeanors. She was booked and released at the jail yesterday.

Also booked and released in connection with the brawl were Stephen Robinson, 21; Christy Robb, 37; Henry Vernon, 45; and Jason Korb, 36, all of Toledo, for misdemeanor assault and rioting.

All are scheduled to appear in Toledo Municipal Court today on the misdemeanor charges.

Linda and Clarence Oliver, both 41, went to the emergency rooms at the University of Toledo Medical Center. Also taken to an unspecified hospital were Ms. Lewandowski and her 90-year-old mother, Sophia Lewandowski, police said.

Ms. Oliver said her family was sitting near where the fight started. She said she was pushed back to the floor and a table was thrown on top of her.

Laura Walker, another customer who was celebrating Mothers Day with her family, said the fighting frightened her and all she wanted to do was leave.

At that point [during the fighting], you dont know if they had a gun or a knife or whatever, Ms. Walker said.

Customers left the restaurant with take-out boxes as they briskly walked to their vehicles, some shaking their heads in disbelief about the Mothers Day fight.

Tony Puckett, the general manager at Golden Corral, declined to comment on the incident.

The restaurant reopened after 5 p.m. Police continued to investigate the incident last night.




May 14, 2007 -- A New Jersey woman spent a bizarre Mother's Day searching for her toddler - and then nearly getting arrested for trying to break into the car in which he had been left overnight by his drunken dad, authorities said.

The weird incident began at 2:30 a.m. Saturday when Danny Ribot drove his 2-year-old son, Adonis, home from a friend's house in Paterson, where the boy had celebrated his second birthday.

The plastered papa "had a real good time there," said Passaic police Lt. Luis Guzman.

Guzman said Ribot, who lives with his son two towns away in Clifton, "wound up [back] at his house. Around 11:30 yesterday morning, he wakes up and screams, 'Where's my car? Where's my kid?'

"He realizes he doesn't have his child and he doesn't know where his car is," Guzman said.

That's when Ribot called his girlfriend, Luz Ramos, who is Adonis' mom.

Ramos, 20, told The Post, "He called me in the morning and he said, 'Where's the kid?' I told him, 'What are you, crazy? I helped you strap him into the car seat.' "

The frantic mom went searching for the boy and found him in his dad's locked Lexus, parked in a closed auto-service parking lot in Passaic.

A cop in a passing patrol car saw her and thought she was trying to break in.

She explained that the screaming child, who was pounding his little fists against the windows, was her son.

Several minutes later, Ribot, 32, appeared with the car keys.

The child, suffering from dehydration and heat exhaustion, was taken to St. Joseph's Hospital, treated and released.

Ribot was arrested for endangering the welfare of a child.

Ribot's mother, Agustina, defended her son. "He's a good father and he made a mistake and he will pay for it," she said.



Ken Berwitz

It is an outrage. 

How dare people claim that Hillary Clinton is a political opportunist who continually changes her position on the war in Iraq. 

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.  Therefore I am posting yesterday's column by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann (his wife, I think), which should put these ugly accusations to rest for once and for all!



Hilarious: Sen. Clinton's positions on the Iraq war don't pass the laugh test. Why not admit she's changed her mind thanks to new facts?
Hilarious: Sen. Clinton's positions on the Iraq war don't pass the laugh test. Why not admit she's changed her mind thanks to new facts?

May 13, 2007 -- FOR those who are too obtuse to understand Sen. Hillary Clinton's simple and clear position on Iraq, the following is an attempt to summarize it:

* She voted in the Senate for H.J. Res. 114, the "Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq," in October 2002. But now she wants to repeal it. Why? Because, according to Hillary, President Bush misinterpreted the "Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq" resolution to mean that the use of military force against Iraq had been authorized by Congress.

* At the time of her vote, she stated that her vote for the troop authorization bill was made "with conviction . . . as being in the best interests of the country."

* But once the war became unpopular, Hillary claimed that she hadn't really voted to send troops to Iraq when she voted for the resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq.

No, according to Sen. Clinton, all the "Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq" really did was to toughen the support we were already giving to United Nations inspectors who were looking for weapons of mass destruction. Although the text of the resolution never mentions a single word about strengthening the U.N. inspectors, Hillary believed that was the purpose of the bill.

* She won't apologize for voting for the use of military force resolution because she knew that it did not authorize the use of military force. That's always been clear to her. It was Bush's mistake, not hers. He misled her.

But, if she had known then that he would have interpreted the bill to authorize sending troops, she would have voted against it.

* So now she wants to rescind the authorization to go to war that she voted for in 2002 (although she certainly did not intend to vote for sending troops) - so that President Bush can't send any more troops to Iraq.

* But she will still vote to appropriate funds to pay for the war, even though it would be illegal for Bush to spend money for a purpose that Congress hasn't authorized.

* She's repeatedly said that she would not support a definite timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but then she introduced a bill to begin withdrawal of the troops 90 days from the day her bill passes. (Given her legislative record, that could be 90 days from the Twelfth of Never.) And she voted for the Democratic troop-withdrawal bill.

* As president, she would definitely end the war, she says . . . but she wouldn't pull out all the troops. Instead, she'd leave U.S. servicemen and -women troops there for the following missions: air, logistical and intelligence support for the Iraqis; training of the Iraqi forces; guarding the hundreds of miles of border with Iran to prevent infiltration, and chasing al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. The only thing they wouldn't do is fight an "urban civil war."

* Despite the extensive mandate of the residual mission, she would not commit large numbers of troops. She won't say how many.

* And all of the troops she sends in will have full body armor.

Got it?

Toe sucking is me When you quote DICK MORRIS, who is most famous for his "toe sucking" episodes with hookers you are getting right to the sauce! Talk about whining sissies, he is right up there. Hillary Clinton will soon be President Hillary Clinton. There is little doubt about that and nothing that you say or do will change that. It is similar to the Gonzales scandal where only the President believes him and only the President can fire him and so we have to stand back and watch the dominoes fall. Today Mr. McNulty! I love it. Dick Morris turns my stomach. He isa prissy, sissy, low life moron who is lucky to have a job. (05/14/07)


Ken Berwitz

Remember the alleged "Haditha massacre"?  The one that john murtha tried and convicted US Marines for, calling them cold blooded murderers, before knowing all the facts and without benefit of a trial?  The one that much of the mainstream media along with the usual suspects like olbermann and mouthews  were more than happy to go along with him on.

A couple of weeks ago one of these "cold blooded murderers" was cleared of the charges against him.  That was a little something you did not see in almost any of the media that were so happy to second murtha's one-man star chameber verdict;  -- hey, why cut holes in the party line?

Well, now we have this, courtesy of Rick Rogers, a reporter for the San Diego Union-Tribune.  The story ran yesterday.  Please read it and then think about whether you saw/heard even one word of it in today's newspaper or on your morning TV show.  Then think about why: -

8 killed in Haditha called insurgents
If true, it could help 3 accused Marines


May 13, 2007

Eight of the 24 people whom Marines are accused of killing in Haditha, Iraq, were described yesterday as insurgents by a defense attorney and a Marine liaison officer during a pretrial hearing.

Randy Stone
Defense attorney Charles Gittins said the eight were identified by human and electronic intelligence. They were not mentioned by name.

The eight were among five men ordered from a car and shot to death and four men killed in a home cleared by Marines of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, said Gittins, who is representing Capt. Randy Stone at a pretrial hearing at Camp Pendleton. Stone is charged with failing to investigate and properly report the killings.

Last week, Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore, the intelligence officer for the battalion, testified that it's fairly well established through the (unmanned aerial vehicle) coverage that there were insurgents in those homes, referring to the homes where civilians were killed.

Gittins' comments outside court were supported by Maj. Dana Hyatt, a Marine liaison officer in Haditha, who testified yesterday under a grant of immunity that four men that Marines killed inside one of three houses that the Marines cleared were insurgents. If proved, the developments could complicate the prosecution of three Marines charged with murder in the November 2005 incident.

Obviously this will make a difference, said Tom Umberg, a former military defense counsel, prosecutor and judge. It's a fact favorable to the defense. I think it adds a new dynamic to what the Marines did. It may affect whether their actions were reasonable.

John Hutson, former judge advocate general for the Navy and now president of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H., agreed that this could help the defense.

If it is true and one-third are insurgents, it would certainly be complicated to explain how these guys should have been able to differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys, Hutson said.

It gives the defense the argument they were looking for.

Yesterday was the fifth day of the pretrial hearing for Stone, a legal officer. He is the first of three officers to face charges of failing to investigate and accurately report the incident. The hearing, which will determine whether the case will go to a court-martial, will continue tomorrow.

Three enlisted Marines from the battalion's Kilo Company are accused of going on a rampage after a roadside bomb blast killed one Marine and wounded several others.

Two of the Marines one since granted immunity were accused of shooting five men who arrived in a car shortly after the bomb explosion and killing 19 other Iraqis in three nearby houses over the next hour.

Top battalion officers strongly believed that insurgents used the civilians who were killed as human shields for their attack on the U.S. convoy and then fled during the Marines' counterattack, Dinsmore testified.

Marine Corps officials never investigated the Iraqis' deaths, believing that the civilians were killed during a battle with insurgents.

Hyatt testified that he visited two houses where 15 civilians had died.

The walls were black, Hyatt said. Obviously a grenade had gone off and I think there were bullet holes in another room.

It looked like hair and stuff in the ceiling, blood on the floor.

It was the most blood I'd ever seen. -

Why are so much of the media so happy to print anything that will damage this war effort, even when they can't possibly know the facts, and then bury information that might counteract their assumptions when it becomes known?

Do they think this is some kind of game?  That these people are not serious?  That they can't win? 

Do they their writers and editors will be REWARDED if it ever happens, by a greatful terrorist infrastructure?  Do they think keith olbermann will protect them?  chris mouthews?  michael moore?  george soros and  

I don't know if these young men are innocent or guilty.  But I do know that, until the trial and presentation of evidence has run its course, neither do the media which already tried and convicted them in their minds.

I will continue to post information from this trial as I find it, so that you can see what is happening.  Sadly, you'll probably need me to be able to see information that reflects well on our Marines.....and not at all if the news is bad. 


Ken Berwitz

Hugo Chavez is the dictator of Venezuela.

Before you tell me that he won a popular election, let me remind you that he rigged and stole the 2004 election, and - though we have less information on last year's election (because he CONTROLS the information) - there is no reason to assume he won honestly this time either.  What do we have, his word for it?

If you want an excellent contemporaneous report about the 2004 election - one that you probably are not very knowlegeable about if you rely on conventional news sources, go to  You will find a detailed accounting of how fraudulent the election was, and how helpful Jimmy Carter was to the fraudulence.  It was Carter who "authenticated" Chavez' fraudulent election, just like the one he "authenticated" in Haiti.  Show me a country with a dictator cooking an election, and it won't be surprising if you can also show me Jimmy Carter "authenticating" it.

In any event, the latest consolidation of Chavez' dictatorial power is his imminent shut-down of the last remaining media outlet he doesn't control.  Here are the particulars, from today's Washington Post.  The bold print is mine:


Dead Air in Caracas
By Jackson Diehl
Monday, May 14, 2007; A15

For years defenders of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have harped on what they described as the domination of the country's independent media by his opponents -- proof, it was said, that Chavez was no dictator. Two weeks from today that argument will lose all credibility. By then, Radio Caracas Television, or RCTV, Venezuela's most popular television network, will almost certainly be off the air -- on Chavez's personal order.

A lot has been happening in Venezuela the past few months. Having obtained the power to rule by decree from a rubber-stamp congress, Chavez has nationalized telecommunications and electricity companies, taken over oil fields developed by multinationals, and formed a single pro-regime political party. For Venezuelans, however, the loss of RCTV will be the greatest shock. For 53 years the television network has been a national institution, counted on for its wildly popular soap operas and variety shows as well as for its news coverage. It was on RCTV that Venezuelans saw Neil Armstrong step onto the moon in 1969, the first live-from-satellite broadcast in the country's history.

The young technician who managed to set up that first link, Marcel Granier, passed through Washington recently on a somewhat forlorn tour of Western capitals. Now the director of RCTV, the 65-year-old Granier was playing his last cards in an attempt to save the network that has been his life's work. Vilified as a traitor and counterrevolutionary by the four television networks that Chavez now controls -- as well as by surviving private stations that struck deals with the strongman -- Granier looks more like a grandfather than a political warrior and sounds more analytical than angry about his predicament. He makes a good case that RCTV's closure will be seen as the final turning point in Chavez's journey from freely elected president in 1999 to neo-socialist dictator.

It's not just that Chavez is eliminating, at a stroke, the media that gave the biggest platform to his opponents. Almost as significant is the way he has gone about it. The process against RCTV has consisted almost entirely of statements by the president on television. The law governing the license Chavez says he is withdrawing has been ignored; RCTV's appeals to the courts have gone unanswered. Protests and appeals from the Organization of American States, the Chilean senate, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter American Press Association, and countless human rights and press freedom NGOs have been answered with crude insults. Chavez called OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza "pendejo," a vulgarism referring to pubic hair.

"Say what they say, do what they do, howl where they want, the license will not be renewed," was the way Chavez put it. In other words, neither domestic nor international institutions matter in a regime that is becoming increasingly personal. "Chavez's position is that 'no one can change the decisions I make,' and anyone who tries to do so is a traitor," Granier says. "That includes the judges on the Supreme Court, the OAS -- anyone who disagrees with him is an enemy."

Those whom Chavez calls enemies suffer more than insults. Granier says some 150 journalists and station workers have been assaulted by pro-government thugs. He distributes photos of one of several attempts to storm the station made by Chavez's gangs, who set a truck on fire and sent it hurtling at RCTV's front entrance. No one has been held accountable for the attacks.

In his countless television appearances, Chavez has made clear that his problem with Granier and RCTV is political. He accuses both of supporting an abortive coup against him in 2002. There's no question that Granier and most of his journalists oppose the government. During the attempted coup the network broadcast movies and music videos. Granier says that if Chavez believes that amounts to treason he's welcome to prosecute the station or its directors in the government-controlled courts. "If I'm guilty, charge me," Granier said. "He's never done it."

Chavez apologists frequently claim that his actions might look bad to foreigners but are hugely popular in Venezuela. This one is demonstrably not. A poll in April by the firm Datanalisis showed that 70 percent of Venezuelans oppose the closure of RCTV, including 40 percent of those who call themselves Chavistas. Demonstrations in support of the network have attracted thousands to the streets of Caracas.

That's not likely to matter much more than the statements of support Granier has been collecting in the United States and Europe. "I take responsibility before the entire world" for shutting the network, Chavez said recently. Granier notes somberly that there is no statute of limitations for human rights crimes in Venezuela. He can only hope that one day, that statement will be part of the case in which Chavez is held accountable. -

Obviously Hugo Chavez is a dictator, and one who is blatantly attempting (and succeeding in) the devolution of Venezuela from a democratic state to Cuba-like totalitarianism.  All that's missing are a few showcase health care facilities to convince the Hollywood latt crowd that it is a paradise for the sick.

Anyone who values democracy should be horrified by this man and what he is doing.  But nost of us don't even know it is happening.  That, as usual, can be laid squarely at the doorstep of our mainstream media.  Put some panties on the head of an al qaeda in abu ghraib and you'll get weeks and months of coverage.  Steal an election, then close the opposition media, and you're anonymous.  That is the state of the art in USA media today.

I wonder how many people realize that, in no small part because we are not allowed to use our vast energy resources, Venezuela is one of the world's most important suppliers of oil to the USA?  That, because of our unnecessary dependency, we are FINANCING Hugo Chavez; road to dictatorship?

When Chavez "won" his election in 2004, a respected USA polling firm - one that was mostly hired by Democratic candidates in the USA, by the way - showed exit poll results literally 36% different from what the "official" final vote came out to me.  The exit polling (along with polling up to the election day) showed him a landslide loser.  The official votes (counted by who?  By him, that's who) showed him a landslide winner.  Instead of losing 59% - 41% as the exit polling showed, he won by the exact same amount. 

From this fraudulent result Chavez has become Venezuela's dictator.  When do WE wise up and use the resources we have sitting in the ground and offshore, so that we can deny him (and the Saudis and all other freedomless hellholes) the many billions in energy dollars we pay out to foreign oil suppliers every year?

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!