Saturday, 15 December 2007


Ken Berwitz

If you have read this blog for any length of time, you know my position on homosexuality.  But for new readers (and I am happy to say there are quite a few), here it is:

-I do not believe there is anything wrong with people whose personal orientation is that they are attracted to others of the same sex. 

-I agree that such people constitute a minority.  So do geniuses.  So do murderers.  So do major league quality athletes.  Being part of a minority doesn't make something right or wrong or good or bad;  just less frequent.

-Other than those who I would try to have a relationship with, it is nobody's business what my or anyone else's sexual attractions are;. 

-I will go to my grave being amazed that there are people who think someone else's sexual orientation is their business.

That plain enough?  I hope so. 

But I have other opinions too.  And one of them is that it is wrong to censor people who disagree with my point of view. 

This leads me to the following article, which I pulled from  Take a look and see what you think about it:.

Activist 'banned for life' from criticizing homosexuality
Offending pamphlets quoted ad: 'Man seeking boys age not so relevant'

Posted: December 15, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


A lifetime ban on public criticism of homosexuality was upheld against a Catholic activist in Canada by his province's superior court.

Bill Whatcott was fined 17,500 Canadian dollars by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission in a complaint by four homosexuals who charged he "injured" their "feelings" and "self respect" in pamphlets denouncing the "gay lifestyle" as immoral and dangerous, Lifesite News reported.

Saskatchewan's Court of Queens Bench, which hears criminal and civil cases, upheld a 2006 decision Tuesday by the provincial Human Rights Commission.

"This fine is for telling the truth [that] homosexual sodomites can change their behavior and be set free from their sin and depravity through the forgiveness of sins and shed blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," Whatcott said.

A licensed practical nurse, Whatcott regularly campaigns against the political movement that is rapidly advancing homosexual rights in the Canadian legal system, LifeSiteNews said.

"Shame on the Saskatchewan Court of Queens Bench for pandering to homosexual activism and ignoring the truth," he said.

The provincial Human Rights Commission noted Whatcott was "ordered to discontinue distributing any materials that promote hatred against people because of their sexual orientation."

The tribunal held that "preventing the distribution of such materials was a reasonable limit on Whatcott's right to freedom of religion and expression as guaranteed by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Whatcott says his pamphlets used "verbatim" a text from a classified personal advertisement in a local homosexual publication that said, "Man seeking boys age not so relevant."

LifeSiteNews noted Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren criticized the tribunals as "kangaroo courts" and "star chambers" with "quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country ... in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn."

A petition to Prime Minister Stephen Harper is being circulated calling for abolishment, or at least curtailment, of the powers of the commissions.

Last month, a Canadian political party leader's posting of a WND article on homosexuality brought him before the country's Human Rights Commission to face accusations he was motivated by "hate and defamation."

Ron Gray of the Christian Heritage Party said he was told directly by an employee of the Human Rights Commission that the Canadian Human Rights Act, under which he is being accused, is "about censorship." Two of the three complaints filed by Edmonton man Rob Wells relate to the posting of an April 2002 WND story titled "Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays.'"

The third complaint against Gray is for several commentaries he wrote and distributed to party members. One, titled "Sitcom prophet," compared the current climate of debate about homosexuality in Canada to the "Cone of Silence" in the 1960s-era television comedy "Get Smart."  .

How dare they. 

No matter how much someone might disagree with Whatcott - and I disagree with him completely - does he not have a right to state his opinions and advocate for them?

It should be up to other people to agree or disagree with Whatcott.  It should not be up to a court to inform him that he has no right to express those opinions.

This makes a mockery of free speech and puts the Canadian authorities in a position of censoring people from stating their beliefs. 

Is that ok with you?  I hope not, because it sure isn't ok with me.

Let's also remember the old adage (and there was never a truer one) "what goes around, comes around".  What happens when, at some point in the future, Canadian mores change and it is the activist who supports tolerance/acceptance of homosexuals being told to shut up?  This will be the PRECEDENT for that ruling to stand.

Further, that precedent is entirely usable for every other instance in which the authorities attempt to censor a point of view.  Not just for homosexuality, but for issues like political thought, race and religion.

Freedom of speech is an irrelevancy when everyone agrees with everyone else.  It is only meaningful when people disagree.  And telling people who disgree that they have no right to speak up defines as the absence of freedom of speech. 


Ken Berwitz

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel":  Samuel Johnson

"Racism is the last refuge of at least one Black scoundrel":  Ken Berwitz.

With that, here is an item from the New York Post's "Page 6" this morning:.

December 15, 2007 -- WESLEY Snipes, who's charged with eight counts of tax fraud, is playing the race card. The star tells Entertainment Weekly, "It was easy for people to jump on the 'Wesley's the bad guy' bandwagon. That's where I think the systematic racism comes in. We're conditioned in this country to believe that if there's a problem, the black man is the culprit." As for being in Namibia when federal prosecutors were looking for him, Snipes said, "They positioned it like, 'He's irresponsible, dangerous, guilty, this is why he's in Africa' . . . All these things, they play into our stereotypes . . . They think I'm an evil dude." Snipes even blames racism for the failure of his 2004 movie, "Blade: Trinity," saying, "There are so few guys who do action and do it well. Even fewer who are African-American. Even fewer who have classical-theater training. So a cat like me coming in, I'm bringing all of that to an action movie. Since there are so few people that do this and have that pedigree, people disregard their contribution." Snipes' case is scheduled to go to trial next month in Florida. .

Is there real racism?  You bet there is. 

Is real racism pervasive in our society?  You bet it is. 

Is Wesley Snipes' whining excuse for his tax problems and the failure of one of his movies racism?  Yeah, right.  And Jerrold Nadler has had a lifelong battle with anorexia.


Ken Berwitz

Some time ago I blogged about articles in the (Bush hating, reliably liberal/leftward) New York Times which attacked Hillary Clinton, and hypothesized that the paper might be ready to toss Ms. Clintron overboard.

This morning there is a small teaser in which says the following:.

NYT Plans Sunday Exclusive on Questionable Clinton Library Donors... Reporter Don Van Natta... Developing.

I get the New York Times every day.  Needless to say, I will be looking for this article tomorrow.  I promise to report a) whether Drudge's teaser is correct and b) if so, what the article actually says. 

I also read that Bill Clinton now says it will be "a miracle" if his wife wins the Iowa primary.  That is what you do when a campaign has developed significant problems and you need to lower expectations.  It is not what you do when you are selling inevitability, which was Ms. Clinton's greatest asset not so very long ago.

There is still time to fix things and make them better.  But it will be exceptionally hard, given how much of Ms. Clinton's suppport has been, in my opinion, second-nature.  Put another way, this forces even the Democrats who just rolled along supporting Ms.Clinton because they had no doubt she would be the next president, to rethink their support. 

And when your supporters rethink, the only direction that support can go is downward.


Ken Berwitz

The Lunatic-Left And Mega-moonbat Brigades (LAMBs) are in a major twist over Democrats in congress.  And this time I don't blame them.

It seems that yesterday, Friday being a slow news day under most circumstances but particularly so late in the Christmas shopping season, the Democratic controlled congress caved in and, almost unanimously in the senate, voted to approve a military spending bill President Bush will happily sign.

It is hard not to think that pelosi and reid picked this time so that as few of their supporters as possible would see the story.  But that doesn't work with LAMBs, because most are political junkies who dilligently check to make sure their party is toeing the leftward line. 

Not at all surprisingly, therefore, the LAMBs are outraged.  And they are being anything but silent about it. 

Here, from MSNBC, are the particulars:.

War funding bill heads to Bush

Defense authorization bill sent to Bush without timetables
updated 6:08 p.m. ET, Fri., Dec. 14, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Democratic-led Congress authorized more Iraq war spending on Friday, sending President Bush a defense bill requiring no change in strategy after failing again to impose a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals.

The defense policy bill, approved 90-3 by the Senate, also expanded the size of the U.S. Army and set conditions on the Bush administrations plan to build a missile defense system in Europe.

The measure already had passed the House and now goes to Bush, who is expected to sign it into law. It authorizes Pentagon programs expected to cost $506.9 billion during fiscal 2008, which began in October.

The bill authorized another $189.4 billion for the Iraq and Afghan wars, for which Congress has already approved some $600 billion. But it does not deliver the new money. That is done by appropriations legislation at the center of a big dispute on Capitol Hill..

Now, direct from the "Think Progress" website, whose regular commenters are frequently in the LAMB contingent, is a sampling of what they are saying about this cave-in. 

Please note that I chose "Think Progress" randomly and assume out of hand that I would find similar or worse at,, or some of the other usual suspects:.

-WTF? When we finally store the capital with torches and pirchfors the Dems will not be spared either.

-The Democrats are insane. Im honestly considering voting for a Thug for the first time in my life. If were trying to destroy the country, why play politics with it? Just let the Republicans handle it. Jesus H. Christ. Un. Freekin. Be. Lieveable.

-The Dems roll over and play deadagain.

-The Repturds lie, cheat and steal and the Spineless Dems just roll over and play dead. Thats about the size of it. Its time for the people to take control back of our government and country. We surely cant count on any dems to do it for us.

-In fact, if Hillary, Barak, and Edwards dont get back to filibuster the intel immunity, then they will be penalized by the voters in 08.

I can see it clearly now: The Repturds are criminals and the Dems are complicit. Whos the ONLY man who has the ability to clean up this disaster within? Al Gore!

-What was the #1 mandate of the people overhwelmingly when they put their faith and trust in these democrats to give them the majority?? END THE WAR IN IRAQ! What are they doing? Funding it even further with OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS against our own wishes. This amount to stealing this money from the people outright.


-...If they dont have the guts to stand up for the people, then what the hell are they doing wasting their time and ours in this ridiculous campaign bull$hit? Can you tell that Im totally disgusted? Im outraged....

-Just another freakie Friday in bushworld..Of course I agree with all of you and have been totaly disgusted for a long time, weary alsoIm still going with Kucenich and hes the only dem. I will vote for, in fact will write him in if he does not make it through this sherade of a campaign, you all do as you choose..Please let me know when and where we will load the buss and march with pitch forks, I would like a window seat..Blessings (note, in case the "blessings" surprises you, be aware that the commenter's name is "Witch1"

-Everyone should be used to this by now.  Weve all seen it for years.
They kill their own people by the thousands while plunging their country into unheard of debt and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, women and children while devastating our environment, laughing at our laws, shredding the Constitution and destroying our standing across the world.  How does that song go ? . . . We keep waiting for the world to change ? . .There is only one way home for us . . . death . . . or victory.

Had enough?  Believe me there are many, many more where that came from. 

As mainstream media talks incessantly about the religious right and its influence on the Republican party, this goes on right under their noses. 

Trust me on this one:  The Republican party can far more afford to put up a candidate that the religious right dislikes (like Giuliani for example) than the Democratic party can afford to put up a candidate that the LAMBs dislike.

And you can take that to the voting booth.


Ken Berwitz

You don't need any analysis from me about this editorial.  It speaks for itself.

What is needed is for other media stop ignoring Pelosi's lunatic fringe comments and thoroughly inept performance.

Maybe they can look at it this way:  if Pelosi were in any way competent, she would be putting her hard-left agenda into play. 

Given the positions some of those media take, that might spur them to report about her out of frustration with what they'd see as a wasted opportunity:.

Pelosi hits bottom

December 15, 2007

Just when you think the dominant left wing of the Democratic Party has hit rock-bottom, one of their partisans reaches new depths in slandering people who have an honest difference with them on policy. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hit the gutter on Thursday, when she tried to explain why Democrats are losing the budget war to President Bush. Mrs. Pelosi (who says she hopes to be able to practice a more civil approach next year) said she had misjudged Republican resolve particularly on the war against jihadists in Iraq.

"They like this war," Mrs. Pelosi said. "They want this war to continue. That was a revelation to me. I had thought they would listen to their constituents and change their position." She later tried to clarify things by saying she had meant to say that Republicans like Mr. Bush's strategy not that they "like" the war. But the damage was done and the slur was uttered, and it will be approvingly repeated time and again in the next few months throughout the left-wing blogosphere.

This is not a happy time for congressional Democrats. As we went to press, they seemed to be gradually moving in the direction of yielding to Mr. Bush's threat to veto any appropriations measures containing an Iraq surrender date. In the House, Mrs. Pelosi's fellow Democrats are cutting their spending proposals down to levels demanded by Mr. Bush and have been bickering among themselves over what to fund. On Thursday, she complained about the Senate's filibuster rules and talked about a happier future without a Republican in the White House.

But right now, thanks to the obstructionism of Mrs. Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid when it comes to funding the troops, trouble is on the horizon at the Pentagon, which has yet to receive an appropriations bill to continue funding the war. On Thursday, Defense Department officials said furlough letters would hit 100,000 civilian military employees next week in an attempt to free up money for combat troops. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England sent letters to senior Democrats, among them Mrs. Pelosi and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, warning that the pending layoffs "will affect the critical support our civilian employees provide to our war-fighters support which is key to our current operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq." Notices also went out to all Army command facilities in the United States and abroad with civilian employees and contractors, and to U.S. Marine Corps commanders as well, warning them of potential civilian layoffs at their bases.

If the furloughs begin next week, these fine men and women will have Mrs. Pelosi and her fellow Democrats to thank.

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!!