Thursday, 08 November 2007


Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of, is proof that Bill Clinton, who can lie smoothly enough to sell oil to a Saudi prince, is still at the top of his game.  Only now he's doing it on behalf of his "co-president" Hillary:.

Bill Clinton Keeps Lying About Max Cleland Ad

November 7th, 2007

You have probably heard by now Mr. Clintons defense of his wifes latest gaffe wherein he referenced Swift-Boating.

If not, here is the text, courtesy of the DNCs Associated Press:

Text of Bill Clintons Comments

Here is a text of former President Clintons comments Monday night in Las Vegas on the criticism of his wife, Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton:

When that scandalous Swift Boat ad was run against Senator Kerry. When there was an ad that defeated Max Cleland in Georgia, a man that left half his body in Vietnam. And a guy that led several departments with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden because he dared to vote against the presidents version of the Homeland Security bill. Most Americans still dont know the truth. The president was against the Homeland Security Bill for 8 1/2 months. And Karl Rove told him they were going to lose the 2002 election unless the American people were scared about terror again. So they decided to be for a bill they opposed.

So they decided to be for a bill they opposed. And they put a poison pill in it. That bill was designed by the president to take the job rights away from 170,000 federal employees that had no access to secure information, no access to secure technology. No business being treated like CIA. We need to be able to fire CIAs. .. But we dont need to treat secretaries at FEMA that way. The whole thing was a scam.

So Max Cleland said, I didnt go to Vietnam and leave one arm and two legs to come home and hold my job by stripping the job rights of 170,000 good, hardworking Americans. I dont want to do it. So they put an ad on comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Why am I saying this?

Because, I had the feeling that at the end of that last debate we were about to get into cutesy land again

Well lets look at the ad the Saxby Chambliss camp put out about Max Cleland, courtesy of YouTube:

Chambliss Ad - Cleland

See if you can find where Mr. Cleland was ever compared to Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden, like Mr. Clinton falsely claimed above, and as he has so often falsely claimed elsewhere.

For instance, here is Mr. Clintion propounding the same lie practically word for word three years ago, via the very prestigious William J. Clinton Foundations website:

Remarks at Charles Schwab Institutional Impact 2004 Conference

November 10, 2004
Philadelphia, PA

So they jiggered around with the Homeland Security Bill, that they had opposed themselves for eight months, and put a couple of things in there that were poison pills to the Democrats, including (when they reorganized it) taking all the civil service protections away from 170,000 Federal employees, who had nothing to do with your security. No access to confidential information or technology.

So Max Cleland in Georgia said, Look, I want to vote for this Bill but I cant do this. This is not right. This has nothing to do with homeland security. These people dont work here. You cant just take all their civil service protections away because you put them in a government reorganization.

So the administration and Max Clelands opponent in Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, ran ads comparing Max Cleland to Saddam Hussein and they beat him. Max Cleland lost two legs, just below the hip, and an arm in Vietnam. Saxy Chambliss, like me, had a deferment, and it worked. Now, when you can assassinate people with those kinds of lies, why would you ever cooperate with anybody?

Pretty shameless, is it not? Especially this line:

Now, when you can assassinate people with those kinds of lies, why would you ever cooperate with anybody?

So sayeth the master of political assassination by lying.

(And yes, of course the William J. Clinton Foundation is 501c3 tax-payer supported charity.) .

Lots of politicians lie.  Some lie a lot.  A few seem to do very little other than lie.  And once in a great while you get a politician who not only lies all the time but is so good at it that a segment of the population laps every lie up, like a cat in the cream bowl.

That, folks, is the story of Bill Clinton.  And if we elect Hillary we'll have him for four to eight more years.  Lucky us.


Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of, is the latest climate heavyweight to debunk al gore's, brilliant science about global warming:.

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming Greatest Scam in History

By Noel Sheppard | November 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250):

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.


I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

Uh oh.  Another heretic.  Get that oil into the cauldron again and let me know when it boils.  Or maybe we can build another stake to attach this guy to, the marshmallows were great last time....

I wonder how many degrees of separation there are between Al Gore's loyal sycophants and Cotton Mather's.  I guess we'll find out soon enough.


Ken Berwitz

My son Scott sent me this Associated Press article about that paradigm of Democracy, Hugo Chavez, and his latest effort to advance "democracy" in Venezuela.

Scott wondered why I hadn't blogged about it.  And that made me wonder about the same thing.  So here it is.  The bold print is mine:.

8 Injured After Anti-Hugo Chavez March

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) Gunmen opened fire on students returning from a march Wednesday in which 80,000 people denounced President Hugo Chavez's attempts to expand his power. At least eight people were injured, including one by gunfire, officials said.

Photographers for The Associated Press saw at least four gunmen their faces covered by ski masks or T-shirts firing handguns at the anti-Chavez crowd. Terrified students ran through the campus as ambulances arrived.

National Guard troops gathered outside the Central University of Venezuela, the nation's largest and a center for opposition to Chavez's government. Venezuelan law bars state security forces from entering the campus, but Luis Acuna, the minister of higher education, said they could be called in if the university requests them.

Antonio Rivero, director of Venezuela's Civil Defense agency, told local Union Radio that at least eight people were injured, including one by gunfire, and that no one had been killed. Earlier, Rivero said he had been informed that one person had died in the violence.

The violence broke out after anti-Chavez demonstrators led by university students marched peacefully to the Supreme Court to protest constitutional changes that Venezuelans will consider in a December referendum.

Later, Globovision television broadcast a video of armed men riding motorcycles arriving at the university, where they entered the same building in which several of the gunmen were located. The pistol-toting men stood at the doorway one of them firing a handgun in the air as people fled the building.

Justice Minister Pedro Carreno blamed students, university authorities, opposition parties and the media for the violence.

"We want to urge the media to reflect, to stop broadcasting biased news through media manipulation, filling a part of the population with hate," Carreno said during a nationally televised address.

He did not provide details regarding the number of injured or if any suspects were arrested, saying only that angry students surrounding the building wanted to lynch those inside.

The amendments being protested would abolish presidential term limits, give the president control over the Central Bank and let him create new provinces governed by handpicked officials.

The protesters demand the referendum be suspended, saying the amendments would weaken civil liberties in one of South America's oldest democracies and give Chavez unprecedented power to declare states of emergency.

"Don't allow Venezuela to go down a path that nobody wants to cross," student leader Freddy Guevara told Globovision.

Chavez, who was first elected in 1998, denies the reforms threaten freedom. He says they would instead move Venezuela toward what he calls "21st century socialism."

The Supreme Court is unlikely to act on the students' demands, given that pro-Chavez lawmakers appointed all 32 of its justices.

Hundreds of National Guardsmen and police were posted along the march route to prevent clashes between protesters and Chavez sympathizers, but they were restricted from entering the campus. .

For the last several days, our fiercely neutral media (yes, that is a sarcasm) have been johnny-on-the-spot condemning a key ally, pervez musharraf of Pakistan, for imposing marshall law as violence continues on the streets of its cities.  Do I trust musharraf or think he is a true believer in anything but his furtherance in power?  No and no.  But at least I can find a reason for what he did other than that furtherance of power.

By contrast, hugo chavez, an enemy of the USA whom we are forced to rely on for oil, is attacking people who assembled and marched peacefully.  They marched to try to prevent chavez from removing some of the last vestiges of what used to be their Democracy - the rest of which he has already taken away since his 100% fraudulent "re-election".

To find this story, forget the front page.  Try flipping through the news section and maybe it will be there somewhere. 

Think I'm exaggerating?  Then look at today's New York Times.  Pakistan makes the front page, above the fold.  Venezuela is a small article buried at the bottom of page 14.

But all is not lost.  Maybe jimmy carter, the astoundingly inept former president who, politically, has done little since his one-term presidency other than advocate on behalf of people who hate the USA while attacking our President, can come to the rescue.

If jimmy carter went on TV and assured the assorted dupes and left wing nutcakes who still take him seriously that chavez is acting to enhance rather than destroy Venezuela's democracy, THAT would probably make the front page.


Ken Berwitz

Now that, in a truly bizarre piece of political theater, Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani's bid to become President, the weight of the religious right is coming down on Robertson.  Hard.

Read it for yourself, courtesy of

Pro-Life Advocates Blast Pat Robertson for Rudy Giuliani Endorsement

by Steven Ertelt Editor
November 8,

Washington, DC ( -- The reaction from the pro-life community to Pat Robertson's endorsement of pro-abortion ex-New York mayor Rudy Giuliani for the GOP nomination for president has been strong. Several pro-life groups and leaders issued statements Wednesday and Thursday saying Robertson has "sold out" the pro-life movement.

The evangelical leader said he backed Giuliani because of other political issues -- most particularly his leadership after the terrorist attacks and against Islamic extremism.

But pro-life advocates say Giuliani's position in favor of legalized abortion and his long record opposing any limits on the practice outweighs any other political considerations.

"Pat Robertson is leading pro-family voters astray by abandoning moral standards for government," Campaign for Children and Families president Randy Thomasson told

"This shocking news is a 180-degree turn by the founder of the Christian Coalition. Pat Robertson is casting a blind eye to Rudy Giuliani's big-time advocacy" of abortion, Thomasson said.

Phoenix attorney John Jakubczyk, the former president of Arizona Right to Life, joined in as well.

"I think a lot of people are going to abandon Pat Robertson," Jacubczyk told KTAR. "A lot of people who have in the past held him in respect are going to be questioning his judgment."

The pro-life advocate said he had problems with Giuliani not only because he supports legal abortion but because he won't put his so-called personal opposition to abortion into policy.

"If he says, personally, he's opposed to abortion, then why shouldn't he want the law to reflect protection for innocent human life?" Jacubczyk asked. "I find a certain hypocrisy not only with the liberal candidate who says `I'm personally opposed, but,' but also with the conservative candidate who says `I'm personally opposed, but.'"

Robertson said he also backed Giuliani because the ex-mayor will appoint strict constructionist judges, but Jacubczyk is not sold on that.

"What he (Giuliani) has told all the social conservatives is that `you can trust me to tell the truth because I will appoint conservative judges and that's what it's all about,'" Jacubczyk said. "From my perspective, it's more than that. It's about having a candidate who has a consistent respect for human life across the board.".

Personally, I can't begin to figure this one out.

Rudy Giuliani has always been "pro-choice".  He has never shrunk from this position, right up to the present. 

How Pat Robertson, with his political and religious views, could support Giuliani, is beyond my ability to understand.  Nor am I sure that this is going to help Mr. Giuliani in the long run. 

I do think that a good many pro-lifers would vote for Giuliani if he were running against, say, Hillary Clinton, because as distasteful as Giuliani's position on abortion is, Clinton's is worse - and Giuliani is going to be seen as far better on other positions.  And some, I am certain are going to reject him and go third-party.  

But I find it hard to believe that many hardline pro-lifers are going to come running to a Giuliani candidacy because Pat Robertson said they should. 

On the other side of the coin, I wonder how many Giuliani supporters are now going to think twice about him because of the Robertson endorsement.  Does this mean he's about to flip, partially or wholly, on abortion?  It certainly is something to consider.

I know that, as a long time Giuliani fan, I'm going to be watching this one very closely.  If Mr. Giuliani starts waffling on abortion, I am going to have to think some more about how trustworthy he is.

Boy do I hope that isn't what happens.


Ken Berwitz

What can anyone do about Charles Rangel, the loopy Democratic congressperson form New York?

Rangel is a Black Democrat representing Harlem.  This means that he gets a minimum of 85% of the vote in his district, but if he dies during the campaign his corpse only gets 65 - 70%.

There is a list of ridiculous, maybe even deranged comments Mr. Rangel has made over the years far too long to put on this blog.  But, sadly, there is also a list of things he has done which would have gotten most other congresspeople reprimanded, censured or bounced out altogether. 

Not for Charles Rangel, though.  Democrats are scared excrementless of doing anything about him because of his iconic status among Black voters, the same way they are scared excrementless of doing anything about al sharpton's influence within the party. 

Here is a piece by Ed Morrissey of that lays out the latest Rangel outrage.  Please read it and think about what would happen to, say, a Republican from Nebraska, if he/she behaved the same way:.

Charlie's Monument To His Donors

Charlie Rangel recently cost the American taxpayer $3 million in earmarks for his Monument to Me, a series of proposals to fund programs at CCNY that use his name as titles. Rangel may cost American taxpayers billions with his latest tax schemes, one of which benefits those nearest and dearest to his campaign coffers -- including a donor already undergoing an IRS audit:

The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has proposed legislation that would effectively halt some current tax audits of people who get a tax break for living and operating a business in the United States Virgin Islands.

Many beneficiaries of the tax break are campaign contributors to the lawmaker, Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, according to data collected by CQ MoneyLine, which tracks political contributions.

At least one of them, Richard G. Vento, is currently under audit, according to court filings. Mr. Vento gave $4,400 last year to the Baucus-Rangel Leadership Fund, which supports Mr. Rangel and Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who heads the Senate Finance Committee.

Beneficiaries of the tax break including Michael W. Masters and Richard H. Driehaus, money managers, accounted for more than half the $51,900 that individuals in the Virgin Islands gave last year to Rangel for Congress, the chairmans campaign organization. Mr. Rangel raised almost three times as much from such donors last year as in any other year in the MoneyLine database.

Mr. Rangel says his measure is simply an effort to address a discrepancy between the Internal Revenue Services treatment of Americans living in the Virgin Islands and its treatment of their mainland counterparts. Except in cases of fraud, the agency has three years to cite errors in a mainland residents tax payments. But since 2006, under I.R.S. rulings stemming from the agencys efforts to crack down on abuse of the tax break, it has faced no such time limit in auditing Virgin Islands residents.

I seem to recall a presidential election not too long ago when people like Vento came under specific fire for their off-shore activities. Democrats talked about hiking taxes and eliminating shelters for investors in the same class as Masters and Dreihaus, who put their cash out of the reach of the IRS. John Kerry campaigned on the notion that closing loopholes that drove investors to the Virgin Islands would recoup enough cash to fund some of the social projects that he proposed to start as President.

My, how times have changed! Now having donors from Virgin Island investors has become the fashion -- as has treating them with deference and expanded tax shelters. Rangel wants to protect his donors by essentially interfering with IRS audits already in progress, while at the same time sticking Americans with new taxes that will hammer their own investment opportunities.

Rangel's manipulation of laws for the benefit of his donors should gain the widest possible exposure. Will Democrats who demagogued on the offshore-investor issue sit quietly while rangel runs interference for the same class of presumed villains with the IRS? Or will they put an end to the obvious payoff that Rangel attempted to deliver for their financial support? .

See that last part, the one I put in bold print?  The answer is yes to the first question and no to the second.  You know it and I know it.

This man chairs the house ways and means committee.  If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.  He is a national embarrassment and it is time to remove him from this chair.  But I have a feeling that it will never happen unless nancy pelosi can replace him with William Jefferson or Alan Mollahan.

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!!