Thursday, 20 December 2007


Ken Berwitz

Here is my third, and last e-mail to Andrew Sullivan (unless he responds in a way that generates further discussion between us):

Twice this week I have e-mailed you with specifics regarding ron paul's appalling level of support from nazis and White supremacists.  In those e-mails, I have also detailed some pretty significant reasons why people who hate Blacks and Jews would be attracted to him.  And I have asked for some kind of explanation (either to me personally or on your blog) as to why you would support paul in the face of the facts I outlined. 
So far, at least, you have ignored this completely.
I hope it's just that you don't check your e-mail very often.  Because if you do, and you don't consider this important enough to address, then you are lost.
Ken Berwitz .
I will, of course, let you know if Mr. Sullivan responds.  Based on the first two e-mails, I'm not exactly hanging by my thumbs in anticipation.


Ken Berwitz

Who would have thought that a slick liar like Bill Clinton could learn from a clumsy one like John Kerry?

John Kerry has lied repeatedly and overtly about releasing his military records.  This includes the remarkablly bold lie that he would collect (and give to charity) the $1,000,000 T. Boone Pickens offered for anyone who could disprove anything the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth said about him during the 2004 campaign.

That was over a month ago and we have seen no proof.  Mr. Pickens has had to hand over no million dollars.  And the mainstream media, ever willing to watch over a liar like Kerry (i.e. a liar with the acceptable political positions) have buried the story.

Bill Clinton apparently took note of this and realized that, as in-your-face a liar he is, he could be even more blatant.  Here's the proof, courtesy of Josh Gerstein, writing in today's New York Sun:

2,600 Pages of Clinton Records Withheld

Staff Reporter of the Sun
December 19, 2007

 The National Archives is withholding from the public about 2,600 pages of records at President Clinton's direction, despite a public assurance by one of his top aides last month that Mr. Clinton "has not blocked the release of a single document."

The 2,600 pages, stored at Mr. Clinton's library in Arkansas, were deemed to contain "confidential advice" and, therefore, "closed" under the Presidential Records Act, an Archives spokeswoman, Susan Cooper, told The New York Sun yesterday.

An official who oversees the presidential libraries operated by the federal government, Sharon Fawcett, said in a recent interview that the records were withheld in accordance with a letter Mr. Clinton wrote in 1994 exercising his right to hold back certain types of files and another letter in 2002 about narrowing the scope of his earlier instructions. Asked by National Journal whether Mr. Clinton had "total control" over the closure of records under the confidential-advice provisions of the law, Ms. Fawcett said he did.

At a Democratic presidential debate in October, Senator Clinton was questioned about language in the 2002 letter that discussed the possibility of withholding some records about the former first lady. Mr. Clinton later called the questions "breathtakingly misleading" and complained bitterly that his wife had been sandbagged.

"Bill Clinton has not blocked the release of a single document," the former president's official representative on records issues, Bruce Lindsey, said in a written statement last month aimed at defusing criticism in the press and by one of Mrs. Clinton's rivals for the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama of Illinois. Spokesmen for Mrs. Clinton's campaign and Mr. Clinton's office did not respond to requests for comment.

Ms. Cooper said she was not aware whether any of the 2,600 pages of withheld advice records pertain to Mrs. Clinton. Asked about Mr. Lindsey's statement, Ms. Cooper said, "Not all of those pages were closed by Mr. Lindsey, in fact, the National Archives does the first set of processing. At least some of those materials were closed by our archivists."

An attorney who specializes in the Presidential Records Act, Scott Nelson of Public Citizen Litigation Group, said Mr. Lindsey's statement may have meant that neither he nor Mr. Clinton had singled out any specific document for withholding, even though Mr. Clinton's "general instruction" caused certain records to be closed. "It's possible that all the statements were made in perfect good faith, but in truth, the result is that the Archives they are withholding material and that's because of President Clinton's election in 1994," Mr. Nelson said.

Ms. Cooper said the 2,600 pages of advice are part of a total of about 24,000 pages of closed Clinton White House records. Other grounds for closure include national security and privacy concerns. The bulk of the closures likely involve records found in domestic policy and health care files that Mr. Clinton authorized for processing before the library began accepting record requests from the public in 2006. .

We are told that no papers are being held back.  We are told that Bill Clinton has the final word on whether or not this is true.  And we find out from the Sun (not the Times, not the network news) that he's holding back thousands of pages of them.

You don't do this unless you assume out of hand that most media will let you get away with it.  And that is precisely what Clinton does.

Further, I'd bet a lot of those pages contain nothing incriminating at all.  That's how a talented liar would operate.  He would say "Ok, ok, I'll show you I'm on the square here, I'm going to give you MOST of the papers and, for reasons of (you can fill in your own BS here) I'll only hold back this small number of them.

Then the talented liar would make the majority of those papers - i.e. 100% of the ones he didn't give a damn about you seeing - available to the public.  Then his hopelessly gullible supporters could say "See, you were wrong.  He gave you 2,000 of the papers and there is NOTHING embarrassing or incriminating on them.  He only held back the ones he had to hold back.  Now for god sake stop picking on him.  You people are always picking on poor Bill"

Hey, maybe Mr. Kerry still has plenty to learn from Mr. Clinton after all.


Ken Berwitz

I talk a lot in here about anti-semitism.  Truth be told, however, I suppress a lot of newsworthy material too - not because I'm trying to cut anti-semites any slack, but because I don't want to overload on one issue. 

The story below, however, has to be talked about.  First please read the details, which comes to us from the Associated Press by way of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz:

American Zionist group slams U.S. gov't on campus anti-Semitism
By Haaretz Service and The Associated Press
The Zionist Organization of America condemned the U.S. government's Office for Civil Rights on Wednesday for failing to protect Jewish students it says have been subject to a series of anti-Semitic provocations on the campus of the University of California, Irvine.

The ZOA alleged that Muslim students on campus have given anti-Semitic speeches, distributed Judeophobic literature, and used intimidation tactics against Jewish students. The university's failure to take disciplinary action constitutes discrimination against Jewish students, the ZOA charges.

The Office of Civil Rights, which operates under the auspices of the Department of Education, said in a report released last week that some Muslim student activities were offensive to Jewish students.
But the report concludes the speeches, marches and other activities were based on opposition to Israeli policies, not the national origin of Jewish students.

"In its decision, OCR disregarded the fact that a Holocaust memorial was destroyed; that swastikas repeatedly defaced property on the campus; that a rock was thrown at a Jewish student; and that other Jewish students were harassed and verbally threatened with such statements as 'slaughter the Jews,' 'dirty Jew,' 'go back to Russia,' 'burn in hell,' and 'f_ _king Jew,'" the ZOA said in a press release.

In October 2004, the ZOA filed a complaint against the university under a federal statute which requires any body which receives government funding, including colleges and universities, make every effort to purge all forms of discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity from its programs and activities.

"OCR has sent a devastating message to Jews - that we don't care about your legitimate fears or your psychological and physical well-being," said ZOA chief Morton Klein, who called the decision "a disgrace."

First things first:  Have you seen this story anywhere else?  It is an Associated Press article, which means that virtually every print and broadcast medium in America had access to it.  So where was it in your newspaper?  On the newscast?  Anywhere?

Second point:  Much of the California higher education system is a cesspool of hatred and balkanization.  This has been going on for years, and there seems to be little interest (or courage) to do a thing about it.

Thirs point:  It would be bad enough if every group had equal opportunity to bash every other group.  But in addition, there are "winners" and "losers".  And, baby, you better believe that Jews are losers.  They are subjected to ongoing disparagement and hatred, very often at the hands of Muslim groups who, as you can see in this article, appear to have free reign to do what they please on campus. 

You cannot offend Muslims without consequences (and rightly so).  But you can pretty much do whatever you care to against Jews, and a rationale will be found to make it acceptable. 

Read that article again.  Read what is being whisked right under the rug.  And then think about how little press coverage the story got in the USA, let alone the Office for Civil Rights' outrageous decision. 

Simply stated, the OCR has declared open season on Jews.


Ken Berwitz

Do you appreciate wry humor?  As in a female news anchor delivering double entendre copy about a bizarre, sexually oriented story?

If so, then go to this link....

... and be prepared to laugh out loud.  I assure you I did.


Ken Berwitz

This piece was written by Rick Moran of The American Thinker. 

It certainly got me to thinking.  Maybe it will do the same for you:

AL-Qaeda Spiritual Leader Recants

Rick Moran

A senior al-Qaeda theologian has changed his tune and is calling on al-Qaeda members to put down their arms:

In a serialized manifesto written from prison in Egypt, Sayyed Imam al-Sharif is blasting Osama bin Laden for deceiving the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, and for insulting the Prophet Muhammad by comparing the September 11 attacks to the early raids of the Ansar warriors. The lapsed jihadist even calls for the formation of a special Islamic court to try Osama bin Laden and his old comrade Ayman al-Zawahri.

The disclosures from Mr. Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl and Abd al-Qadir ibn Abd al-Aziz, have already opened a rift at the highest levels of Al Qaeda. The group's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, a former associate of the defecting theologian in Egypt, personally mocked him last month in a video, remarking that he was unaware Egyptian prisons had fax machines. Meanwhile, leading Western analysts are saying the defection of Mr. Sharif indicates the beginning of the end for Al Qaeda.

The author of "Inside Al Qaeda," Rohan Gunaratna said in an interview this week, "There is nothing more important than a former jihadist as important as Dr. Fadl criticizing the jihadist vanguard." Mr. Gunaratna, who acts at times as a consultant for American and Western intelligence, described the reformed theologian as "both an ideologue and operational leader, but he was primarily an ideologue."

Al-Qaeda's destruction in Iraq must have really unnerved the leadership. Along with Zawahri's unreal pronouncement last week that the British "fled" Iraq and that the jihadis were winning there (a view shared by perhaps no one else in the world except Harry Reid), it appears that the organization is losing it.

What effect this will have on al-Qaeda rank and file is uncertain. But it is a sign that whatever we're doing to combat the terrorists is working.

I don't know that those last two paragraphs are accurate.  But I know that I hope they are. 

And I loved that sarcasm about harry reid.


Ken Berwitz


Earlier today I blogged about a free-for-all brawl among parents at an elementary school Christmas program, and Santa getting clobbered by an object apparently thrown at him.

The first is disgraceful behavior and the second is a combination of disgraceful behavior and mindless vandalism.  Both involved spontaneous actions that, I would hope, the participants wish they could go back in time and reverse.

But here's a third, and this one is entirely premeditated.  The writer is Ed Morrissey of  Read it and see what "free speech" means to drew edmundson, the Attorney General of Oklahoma:

Oklahoma Cancels Christmas

This decision comes from the same fine folks who had Paul Jacob arrested and who will prosecute him for assisting in a referendum. Now Oklahoma AG Drew Edmundson has decided to ban any mention of Christmas from the halls of Southwestern Oklahoma State University, by any state employee, in oral or written form. Mark Tapscott has the details:

Oklahoma attorney general Drew Edmondson drew national scorn earlier this year when he arrested Paul Jacob of the Sam Adams Alliance and two colleagues on trumped-up charges that they violated a discredited state law requiring all circulators of initiative petititons in Sooner Land to be residents.

Now the Okie Napoleon is banning Christmas!

I am not making this up (in part because I am from Oklahoma and this guy is an embarrassment).

The Liberty Counsel explained the scope of the order:

John Misak, the Director of Human Resources, recently visited various university departments and employee groups and informed everyone that any decorations featuring the word 'Christmas' in any work or public areas of the university must be immediately removed. He also instructed everyone to discontinue the use of the term 'Christmas' in their speech while on the job. This censorship specifically includes exchanging greetings of 'Merry Christmas' among employees or with non-employees, whether initiated by a non-university employee or not. Christmas remains a legal holiday for state employees, including those at SWOSU. The directive does not include any other legal holidays such as Thanksgiving or New Years.

Normally, I'm inclined to dismiss the idea of a "war on Christmas". I see the real war on Christmas more in the incessant commercialization of the holiday. It seems very strange to obsess over gift lists and run up credit-card debt to celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, who came to free us of worldly concerns. I'd classify this more as a martinet run amuck, imposing a general sort of political correctness rather than an animus towards Christmas or Christians -- exactly what he did with the Paul Jacob case, too.. .

I have no problem with the separation of church and state.  But I do have a problem with the banning of any reference to a church or the simple, positive holiday wish to people who are within the church.

That is does not protect free speech, it disallows it. 

If this nutcake actually made such demands, Oklahomans would do well to remove him from office the first chance they get. 

People deserve who they vote for.


It turns out that the story described above is untrue.  Here is Ed Morrissey's retraction, with my apologies as well:

UPDATE: I'm putting this at the top because early callers to the AG's office claims this isn't true, and they are wishing people a Merry Christmas when greeting callers. So I called there myself, and spoke with Emily Lang, spokesperson for the AG. Ms Lang confirms that they are greeting callers with "Merry Christmas" as a means of refuting this story. AG Edmundson did not issue this order, she insists; they are checking with assistant AGs to see if the advisory ever existed at all. At any rate, the AG does not believe state workers should refrain from Christmas greetings.

Ms. Lang wants people to know that they have a Christmas tree in the office, and hopes everyone has a Merry Christmas.

And yes, I consider this sloppy work on my part. My apologies to readers and the Oklahoma AG's office.


Ken Berwitz

Is it just me or is this a particularly edgy Christmas season?

Read this Associated Press report and see what I mean:

Thrown Object Knocks Out Santa
Dec 19 12:31 PM US/Eastern
SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) - A man dressed as Santa Claus was knocked unconscious by a thrown object that hit his face while he was riding on the back of a truck decorated as a sleigh.

Kevin Smith says he never saw what hit him Saturday. Whatever it was, it broke his nose and gave him a concussion and two black eyes.

"One second I was up there waving to people, and the next minute I wasn't," Smith said.

He was taking part in Santa Run, sponsored by the firefighters union, which features off-duty firefighters who dress up as Santa and ride through residential areas handing out candy to children.

Other volunteers realized something was wrong after they hadn't heard from Smith for a few minutes. They stopped the truck and found him lying unconscious.

"It pretty much cold-cocked him," fire Lt. Scott Himelspach said.

Smith awoke in the back of the sleigh.

"They thought I'd spilled my hot chocolate, but then they realized it was blood," Smith said. "The rest of the night was kind of hazy."

Smith, a firefighter for eight years, said he hoped to return to work on Christmas Day.

Assistant Fire Chief Brian Schaeffer said an assault report was filed with police but that no witnesses have come forward. .

It could be vandals. 

Or maybe Rudolph was ticked that the Christmas eve forecast is for clear skies (which means he's shut out this year), spent a little too much time consoling himself with straight egg nogs (that explains the red nose) and decided to vent his frustrations on the big boss man.

Frozen reindeer droppings can do a lot of damage.......

What's next?  The three wise men failing a pop quiz?


Ken Berwitz

L. Brent Bozell is a writer.  He also heads the conservative Media Research Center, which means he generally drives the left nuts; especially members of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade (The LAMBs).

Here is Mr. Bozell's year-end report on the most LAMB-like pronouncements of 2007 from various media figures.  If you are not either laughing at the idiocy of these comments, shaking your head in amazement or both, you're probably one of them:

2007: A Loony-Left Year

by L. Brent Bozell III
December 18, 2007

The end of 2007 doesnt seem half as depressing to the conservative faithful as it was in the beginning. Democrats captured the Congress, sure. But now its their approval ratings that are in the toilet, and worst still, their rabid leftist base has turned on them for not being rabidly leftist enough. The presidential front-runners are no longer inevitable, not even Hillary Clintons buy one-get-one-free ticket. The economy is fairly strong, regardless of the pessimistic media coverage. Weve had another year without America being successfully attacked by terrorists. The surge is working.

All this good news is driving the Left nuts, and nowhere is this more evident than in the national media, which is making no attempt to shake off their collective gloom-and-doom tone.. As the good news began emanating from Iraq this fall, the McClatchy News Service, lauded by media leftists like Bill Moyers as having the smart reporters who always thought the Iraq War was a fight without a point, ran this headline:

As Violence Falls in Iraq, Cemetery Workers Feel the Pinch.

The story underneath was datelined Najaf, Iraq. Reporters Jay Price and Qasim Zein explained how business isnt good for Shiite gravediggers: A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi-al-Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and thats cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds. In other words, when the bad news turns good, we at McClatchy will spin it as bad news all over again.

That quote won Quote of the Year in the Media Research Centers Best Notable Quotables of 2007, the annual awards for the years most outrageous media pronouncements.

That emblematic headline and story narrowly beat out the years greatest absurdity from MSNBCs Keith Olbermann which by itself speaks volumes. In an interview with Playboy magazine, Olbermann claimed Fox News is more dangerous than al-Qaeda. Give it thirty seconds of thought. On one side, al-Qaeda slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11. On the other side, Fox News, well, theyre dangerous because some of their pundits are...rude to liberal Democrats?

Heres Olbermanns actual outpouring of idiocy: Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda, worse for our society. Its as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was. This is not an outburst that erupted on TV or the radio. He sat down with Playboy and spelled this out for transcription and editing. He did not add, Just kidding! Hey, did someone spike my coffee?

Speaking of wacky comparisons between Americans and murderous tyrants, a man named Peter Mehlman, a former Washington Post sports reporters and Seinfeld script writer, took to the leftist Huffington Post blog to argue that Adolf Hitler was morally superior to President Bush. He said the president came into office by rejecting any notion of the public good, seeking only the good of his rich friends. By contrast, You could argue that even the worlds fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought [they] were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, et cetera.

On HBO, Bill Maher was upset that his friend Arianna Huffington removed commenters on that blog of hers who were lamenting that an attempt on Vice President Cheneys life in Afghanistan was foiled. Im just saying that if he did die, other people, more people would live. Thats a fact.

Left-wing lunacy was pretty common in 2007. Rosie ODonnell talked her way off ABCs The View by spewing 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists? Rosie had company on that set. Her co-host Joy Behar seriously claimed that Democratic Sen. Tim Johnsons brain hemorrhage could be a Republican conspiracy: Is there such a thing as a man-made stroke?...I know what this party is capable of.

But at least there were still Democrats who made the media elites hearts pitter-patter with delight. MSNBCs Chris Matthews stood out for hailing Barack Obama, since he sounds like Bobby Kennedy. It sounds like the sixties at its absolute best. After watching the funeral of Coretta Scott King, Matthews was even more over the moon at Bill Clintons performance: There are times when he sounds like Jesus in the temple. CBS morning anchor Harry Smith was so eager to press Al Gore into running for president he held a Gore for President button in front of Gores jacket after an interview and waxed, save that in a freeze frame.

The elections in 2008 might look like a toss-up, but there remains absolutely no doubt which corner of the boxing ring the media elite has chosen. .


Please feel free to laugh and/or shake your head all you want.  Then do the people being quoted a favor and try to forget they ever said what you read.

The only part of this column worth retaining is its last paragraph.  But you already knew that, didn't you?


Ken Berwitz

The word "consensus" is in quotations because it is anything but.

Here is the beginning of a report far too long to put on this blog, detailing just how extensive the dissent is regarding global warming and how scared-excrementless many scientists are to voice their dissent in the face of massive media support for the Goreosians:

U.S.Senate Report:  Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"


Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.  


The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committees office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. 

Even some in the establishment media now appears to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears bites the dust. (LINK) 


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation.  It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new consensus busters report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

 Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media, Paldor wrote.  [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ] .


You can read the entire report at  I urge you in strongest terms to do so, or at least to scan through the voluminous list of climatologists, research scientists, etc, along with their qualifications, who do not buy into Al Goreism.


Then I urge you to think long and hard about why they are so afraid to say so, and what it means about the chicken-little scare tactics being used to sell the general public on global warming.


Ken Berwitz

Peace on earth and goodwill toward men took a major bruising two nights ago in High Point, North Carolina.  Here are the details from Fox's affiliate station:

Chairs Thrown During Parents' Fight at School Christmas Program

No one was seriously hurt in the fight?  This is a joke, right? 

A ten minute profanity-filled brawl with fists swinging and chairs being thrown in front of children 5 - 8 years old, including their own parents, and no one was seriously hurt?  I wonder what the definition of  "seriously hurt" is to whichever genius wrote about it for Fox.

The song I drew this blog's title from was written by Hugh Martin for the wonderful movie "Meet Me In Saint Louis".  In the movie, Judy Garland sings it to cheer up her sister, who was played by a then-7 year old Margaret O'Brien (Happily, Ms. O'Brien is now 70 and, from what I've read, is in perfect health). 

How incongruous the innocence and sweetness of that movie is to the behavior of these parents.  And how sad that someone could possibly think the behavior described above did not result in anyone being seriously hurt.

Hurt is not just physical.  Mental hurt usually is worse - and far longer lasting.

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!!