Friday, 21 December 2007


Ken Berwitz

Remember the Rudy Giuliani expense account scandal? 

Media had a field day with those expense account costs run up by Mr. Giuliani to see his (at that time) extra-marital girlfriend Judy Nathan, who is now his wife.

Boy that was fun.  First page stuff, all of it.

The fact that Giuliani claimed every expense was legitimate and accounted for, that the practice of taking money from another area and then reimbursing it was commonplace and that there was nothing wrong with what he did?  Yeah right.  Tell it to someone who would believe your baloney.

Well, as it turns out there was no baloney at all.  Mr. Guiliani was dead on correct and telling the truth all along.  So how do these same media treat it?  I'll show you the New York Times' technique, courtesy of and

The Buried, Unquotable Exoneration

The New York Times exonerates Rudy Giuliani from charges that he moved travel expenses around through subsidiary agencies in order to hide his affair with his now-wife, Judith. People looking for that exoneration on their feedreaders will find themselves frustrated. Not only did the Times bury the story on one of its blogs, it put it in a graphic format that doesn't allow for copy-and-paste. In fact, it isn't even shown as an entry on the blog itself:

All eight of Mr. Giuliani's trips to the Hamptons in 1999 and 2000, including the period when his relationship was a secret, were charged to his own mayoral expense account, according to the records.

In fact, the amount of money transferred through those agencies represent an insignificant percentage of the total cost of those travel expenses. Furthermore, the Times found that Giuliani had started spreading the costs of travel through subsidiary agencies two years before his affair with Judith, which makes it rather obvious that the motive was not to hide his infidelity. Russ Buettner ends by concluding that Giuliani's accounting had nothing to do with his relationship to Judith.

One might believe that these conclusions might make a few headlines, given all of the attention paid to these allegations. Anderson Cooper asked Giuliani about this pseudoscandal during the nationally-televised CNN/YouTube debate, after all, and Giuliani's record as mayor might be of particular interest to a New York City newspaper. Instead, the Times seemed to go out of its way to hide this report and its exoneration of Giuliani on accusations of manipulating public records for his own personal motivations.

Of course, even a front-page report on this wouldn't unring the bell; the damage has been done, and it has been considerable. It looks like the Times wanted to make sure none of it got undone. (via Power Line) .

I know that alternative sources of news are increasingly becoming a part of how everyday people are informed.  I know that more and more of us have become aware that media regularly and blatantly manipulate us to further their agendas.

But what about the tens of millions still under the deluded belief that print and broadcast media provide them with dispassionate, even-handed news?

How many people will go merrily along "knowing" Rudy Giuliani stole from that expense account?  Certainly most New York Times readers will.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

steve schneider damage was done, his poll numbers have suffered and i'm not sure he will recover. this is very disappointing to me as he is one of my heros. the dems and press did not want rudy as the candidate and they did what had to be done. hucabee or romney will be easy fodder for them in a general election. steve (12/22/07)


Ken Berwitz

The global economy grows.  The demand for oil grows with it.  And the congress, led by leftward Democrats, does its level best to insure that we will be more and more dependent on foreign oil. 

This dependency has a deep effect on virtually every person in this country;  an effect will increase over the years and damage us more and more.  But to a segment of the population which is either too ignorant to realize it is happening or - more to the point - happy that it is happening because they "know" that we deserve it, this is the way things ought to be.

Investor's Business Daily ran an excellent editorial yesterday on our need to become less energy dependent.  I am posting it below, and wish I could put it on the breakfast table of every member of congress who has fought to keep us dependent on countries filled with people who hate us and our way of life. 

Here it is.  The bold print is mine:


Thu Dec 20, 6:28 PM ET

Energy Policy: First, Congress comes up with legislation that has no provisions for developing new sources of domestic energy. Then, the House passes a bill that cuts off a potential oil bonanza. When does rationing begin?

Earlier this week, the House passed its $515 billion 2008 omnibus appropriations bill that wisely included funding for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq, as well as the usual largess that Washington uses to return favors.

Yet it has no funds for rule changes that are needed for the commercial oil shale industry to go forward.

"Without these regulations," writes the Heritage Foundation's Nick Loris, "commercial production of oil shale is impossible."

Milking oil from shale and sand is still in an adolescent stage. But continued improvements in technology are encouraging.

In fact, the potential of oil shale to be an abundant energy source is almost breathtaking. According to estimates, more than 2 trillion barrels of oil are trapped beneath the ground in America's Big Sky country.

That sounds like a lot because, well, it is. Oil reserves in Iraq are estimated to be 112.5 billion barrels. Iran has 89.7 billion barrels in reserves. Tiny Kuwait holds 96.5 billion barrels. In the United Arab Emirates, 97.8 billion barrels are under the sand.

Even Saudi Arabia, the King of Crude, with 261.8 billion barrels in reserves, doesn't have nearly the potential found in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The Green River Formation, which runs through much of Colorado and into Utah and Wyoming, alone holds 1.2 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil.

"If full-scale production begins within five years, the U.S. could completely end its dependence on OPEC by 2020," Loris wrote Tuesday in a WebMemo.

Of course, the oil embedded in rock does not come burbling out of the ground as it does in the Middle East. Squeezing out the oil is arduous and expensive, so much so that oil shale cannot currently compete with conventionally extracted oil.

But that's today's news. Emerging technology guarantees that tomorrow's news about the prospects of oil shale will be significantly different.

"The technical groundwork may be in place for a fundamental shift in oil shale economics," says a Rand Corporation study -- published two years ago.

"Advances in thermally conductive in-situ conversion may enable shale-derived oil to be competitive with crude oil at prices below $40 per barrel," the report said. "If this becomes the case, oil shale development may soon occupy a very prominent position in the national energy agenda."

Not if the Democrats continue their special-interest-driven bias against fossil fuels and their devotion to anti-energy policies.

Despite the obvious need for new sources of oil, the Democrats refuse to allow drilling in Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off our coasts in the crude-soaked Outer Continental Shelf. They are cowed by, or in some cases aligned with, environmentalist groups, who, if they were honest, would adopt the motto: "Drill nowhere at no time."

The resistance to drilling in ANWR and the OCS is likely to be tame compared with the war the eco-left will wage against oil shale.

Oil shale has to be mined, an activity that especially gets the environmentalists worked up, then heated (emitting those hated greenhouse emissions) before it can be refined for use as a fuel. The process also generates unwanted byproducts -- as the production of anything does -- and requires large quantities of water.

It can be safely assumed that technology will minimize the environmental impact just as it will streamline and bring down costs of the entire process. But that won't be enough to temper the environmentalists' opposition; the goal of many is simply to restrict fossil fuel use, no matter what the cost to our economy and standard of living.

As long as that mind-set strongly influences public policy, we are faced with a future of declining energy supplies and growing prices. We need strong voices and leaders with conviction to start making the rational argument for more energy and push through appropriate legislation to make it possible.

Every day we wait, we move ever closer to an era in which the odd-even license plate number gasoline buying system of the 1970s will be thought of as a period of easy oil. .

Who is in the forefront of the fight to keep us dependent?

Many of them are the same people who were outraged that we didn't sign on to the kyoto protocols - which would have increased rather than lessened air pollution.  (This would occur because companies would have moved their plants to the countries which were exempted from any regulations, like China, Pakistan and India.) 

Did you know that kyoto would have forced the USA to increase the number and scope of our already-massive regulations, while telling countries which can't compete with us on an even playing field that they can pollute to their hearts' content?  Most people don't have a clue about this, courtesy of our "neutral" media.

And while they are actively working to redistribute industry away from the USA, why not toss in a greater level of energy dependency too.  Yeah, that's a great idea.  Just what the doctor ordered.  Down with shale oil.  Down with ANWR.  Down with offshore drilling (which Cuba is doing even as I write this, which means these people are not saving the environment, they are just handing the asset to Fidel Castro).

This country better wake up.  And fast.  Or there won't be a country to wake up to.


Ken Berwitz

You may or may not know who Russell Means is.  If you don't, he is what media charitably call an "Indian activist".  He is also a member of the Lakota tribe.  Here is his latest inspiration:

Freedom! Lakota Sioux Indians Declare Sovereign Nation Status

Threaten Land Liens, Contested Real Estate Over Five State Area in U.S. West

Lakota Satisfies Treaty Council Mandate of 33 Years, Drafted by 97 Indigenous Nations

Dakota Territory Reverts back to Lakota Control According to U.S., International Law

Washington D.C. Lakota Sioux Indian representatives declared sovereign nation status today in Washington D.C. following Mondays withdrawal from all previously signed treaties with the United States Government. The withdrawal, hand delivered to Daniel Turner, Deputy Director of Public Liaison at the State Department, immediately and irrevocably ends all agreements between the Lakota Sioux Nation of Indians and the United States Government outlined in the 1851 and 1868 Treaties at Fort Laramie Wyoming.

This is an historic day for our Lakota people, declared Russell Means, Itacan of Lakota. United States colonial rule is at its end!

Today is a historic day and our forefathers speak through us. Our Forefathers made the treaties in good faith with the sacred Canupa and with the knowledge of the Great Spirit, shared Garry Rowland from Wounded Knee. They never honored the treaties, thats the reason we are here today.

The four member Lakota delegation traveled to Washington D.C. culminating years of internal discussion among treaty representatives of the various Lakota communities. Delegation members included well known activist and actor Russell Means, Women of All Red Nations (WARN) founder Phyllis Young, Oglala Lakota Strong Heart Society leader Duane Martin Sr., and Garry Rowland, Leader Chief Big Foot Riders. Means, Rowland, Martin Sr. were all members of the 1973 Wounded Knee takeover.

In order to stop the continuous taking of our resources people, land, water and children- we have no choice but to claim our own destiny, said Phyllis Young, a former Indigenous representative to the United Nations and representative from Standing Rock.

Property ownership in the five state area of Lakota now takes center stage. Parts of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana have been illegally homesteaded for years despite knowledge of Lakota as predecessor sovereign [historic owner]. Lakota representatives say if the United States does not enter into immediate diplomatic negotiations, liens will be filed on real estate transactions in the five state region, clouding title over literally thousands of square miles of land and property.

Young added, The actions of Lakota are not intended to embarrass the United States but to simply save the lives of our people.

Following Mondays withdrawal at the State Department, the four Lakota Itacan representatives have been meeting with foreign embassy officials in order to hasten their official return to the Family of Nations.

Lakotas efforts are gaining traction as Bolivia, home to Indigenous President Evo Morales, shared they are very, very interested in the Lakota case while Venezuela received the Lakota delegation with respect and solidarity.

Our meetings have been fruitful and we hope to work with these countries for better relations, explained Garry Rowland. As a nation, we have equal status within the national community.

Education, energy and justice now take top priority in emerging Lakota. Cultural immersion education is crucial as a next step to protect our language, culture and sovereignty, said Means. Energy independence using solar, wind, geothermal, and sugar beets enables Lakota to protect our freedom and provide electricity and heating to our people.

The Lakota reservations are among the most impoverished areas in North America, a shameful legacy of broken treaties and apartheid policies. Lakota has the highest death rate in the United States and Lakota men have the lowest life expectancy of any nation on earth, excluding AIDS, at approximately 44 years. Lakota infant mortality rate is five times the United States average and teen suicide rates 150% more than national average . 97% of Lakota people live below the poverty line and unemployment hovers near 85%.

After 150 years of colonial enforcement, when you back people into a corner there is only one alternative, emphasized Duane Martin Sr. The only alternative is to bring freedom into its existence by taking it back to the love of freedom, to our lifeway.

We are the freedom loving Lakota from the Sioux Indian reservations of Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana who have suffered from cultural and physical genocide in the colonial apartheid system we have been forced to live under. We are in Washington DC to withdraw from the constitutionally mandated treaties to become a free and independent country. We are alerting the Family of Nations we have now reassumed our freedom and independence with the backing of Natural, International, and United States law. For more information, please visit our new website at

For the record (and as you probably know anyway) Lakota Indians are as much citizens of the USA as you are.  There is no gate at the entrance of any reservation with armed guards, a Lakotan can go anywhere he/she likes and live any life he/she wants, just as you can.

It is true that Sitting Bull was a great warrior.  But Russell Means ain't.  This childish PR stunt, however, will probably generate considerable interest among a media dedicated to "proving" how we took over the land from its rightful owners (where did they get it?) and members of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade who revel in any attack on the USA from anyone for any reason.

Personally I think Russell Means should take on a version of the name Sitting Bull.  And since I believe in accuracy and simplicity, all he has to do is reverse the two names and add an "h" after the S.


Ken Berwitz

Oversight has two very different meanings. 

One meaning is "scrutiny", as in you keep your eye on things via oversight.  The other, interestingly enough,  is exactly the opposite.  When you do not see what is in front of you, it is an overight.

Media, by and large, have demonstrated significant oversight when it comes to ron paul.  The bad news is that I'm talking about the second definition.

Readers of this blog know I have talked over and over about the support paul elicits from the worst people of this country -- and why they have good reasons to support him.  This week, after Andrew Sullivan wrote in support of paul on his blog, I e-mailed him with a heads-up on what paul is all about.  Three times. 

Sullivan has answered none of my e-mails.  But suddenly his blog is referring to support of paul as a "protest" of some kind, which leads me to believe he may be setting the stage for a face-saving change of mind.  We'll see.

If the information I sent is significant enough to make Andrew Sullivan rethink his support, does it not stand to reason that if the general public knew the same information many of them would rethink their support as well? 

It is a travesty and a disservice that media do not provide them with this information.

For this reason, I am putting it up one more time, in the form of a letter to anyone who supports ron paul.  There is copious reference for what you are about to read, which you can find by scrolling back to my previous blogs on this subject:

Do you support ron paul?  Congratulations.  So does a voluminous list of nazis and White supremacists, including (but not limited to) david duke, hal turner, don black, jamie kelso, hutton gibson (Mel's looney-tune holocaust denying father) and those wonderful folks at, whose home page provides you with a convenient link to donate to the paul campaign.  


ron paul has never disavowed one penny from or said he would refuse it.  Are you comfortable with this?  Is this the candidate you would support?


Did you know that, last year, paul voted against re-authorizing the 1965 voting rights act?  Did you know that he also voted against the house resolution condemning hezbollah?  


Did you know that, at one time, paul published a newsletter which contained overtly racist material which, among other things,called 95% of all Blacks in Washington DC criminals and advocated trying 13 year old Black children as adults? 


Years later, paul claimed he wasn't the writer of that material, someone else wrote it.  But that doesn't wash; the newsletter was all of 8 pages long and went out under his own name.  Even if he didn't write the words themselves he allowed them to be published under his name. 


You know better than to think ron paul wasn't aware of the content of an 8 page document he'd be responsible for.  Personally, I assume he wrote the racist garbage himself.


paul also had columns published in "American Free Press" which is put out by willis carto.  Do yourself a favor;  google the name "willis carto" and see who he is.  If you have any decency at all, you'll be sick to your stomach. While it can be argued that carto was able to publish ron paul's material without his ok, it is also true that paul could have publicly disavowed its presence in "American Free Press".  To my knowledge, he has never done so.


Bottom line:  There are good reasons for nazis and White supremacists to flock to ron paul.  When you support him you also support them and their reasons.  That's how they'll position it, and they have a point.


If all this is ok with you, congratulations again.  If not, I suggest you think harder about ron paul.


Ken Berwitz

jim moran, the congressperson from Virginia, has a history of  idiotic comments, many of them tinged with anti-semitism.  For example, moran is one of the Democratic geniuses (not the only one) who claims that we went to war in Iraq on behalf of Israel. 

There are many, many more such idiocies and slanders from this "man" -- none of which the general public knows, because he's got a D instead of an R after his name and is therefore protected by much of the media.

Here is his latest, courtesy of an article by Tom Blumer at  Mr. Blumer was nice enough to show some of the other slanders which emanate from the Democratic looney-tune bloc -- and which also are barely reported by the media, if at all:

Jim Moran's 'Ethnically Cleansed' House Floor Comment Ignored by Media

By Tom Blumer | December 21, 2007 - 09:00 ET

The improving situation in Iraq is driving certain congressmen and congresswomen to rhetorical depths I don't recall ever seeing.

Though there have almost surely been other instances of offensive excess on the House Floor over the Iraq War, we've recently been treated to at least the following:

  • Pete Stark (D-CA), October -- "You don't have money to fund the war or children,'' Stark said. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." Star, under intense pressure from Nancy, later tearfully apologized.
  • David Obey (D-WI), November -- Insurgents are running out of people to kill, and There are fewer targets of opportunity. I do not believe that Obey has backed off of his remarks.
  • Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), December -- "They (Republicans) like this war. They want this war to continue." Pelosi later "clarified," saying she meant to say "support" instead of "like."

The latest example, courtesy of Virginia Congressman Jim Moran on Wednesday, may, despite the strong competition noted, take the prize for greatest smear of our president, his administration, and/or our troops -- ever.

It all depends on what the definition of "we" is (link is to "full" YouTube video; HT Weapons of Mass Discussion, which has a 13-second clip).

Here is a transcript of the short clip:

..... good schoolgirls having to go to school wearing their veils? A repressive society, what will become a Shiite theocracy?

Sure, there's less violence, but that's because we've ethnically cleansed most of Baghdad.

As to who "we" is, I would suggest, in the context of the full video, that the answer is "all of the above."

Vets For Freedom ( has responded, apparently via e-mail. Here are the opening paragraphs (the full text is at Weapons of Mass Discussion; bolds are mine):

(Washington, DC) Vets for Freedom condemns the recent comments by Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) on the floor of the House of Representatives in which he stated that American troops ethnically cleansed Baghdad. The United Nations, along with the rest of the civilized world, commonly refers to ethnic cleansing as genocide.

Once again, Congressman Moran demonstrates how far from reality he has fallen, said Executive Director of Vets for Freedom and Iraq Army veteran, Pete Hegseth. Jim Moran has a long history of putting his foot in his mouth, but this time he has gone too far. The men and women who make up our nations military are decent and honorable citizens who bravely serve to fight our enemies who threaten our national security. Insinuating that they are war criminals is outright despicable.

Old Media coverage is nil. This Google News search on "Moran ethnically" (not in quotes) has one item, a blog post at Michelle Malkin's Hot Air.

The fact that these outrageous insults continue to spew forth from Congress, and continue to go either unreported or underreported, tells you all you need to know about where Old Media's sympathies lie..

If this were some college leftist group talking, it would be pretty much de rigeuer for them and I'd shrug it off.  If this were Yugo chavez (intentional misspelling) or ahmedinejad of Iran, I would expect it.

But this is a USA congressperson, a member of the house of representatives.  Someone who holds office at the pleasure of his constituents.

The people in Virginia who elect this scumbucket every two years are either ignorant or disgraceful.  I hope it is ignorant...because then I might believe (or at any rate hope) that they vote for moran because media have kept them unaware of who and what he is. 

But if they do know what moran says and they vote for him anyway?  They are disgraceful.


Ken Berwitz

"Charlie Wilson's War" is a new movie starring two-time oscar winner and prominent Hollywood liberal, Tom Hanks.  It was co-written by West Wing creator and prominent Hollywood LAMB, Aaron Sorkin. 

Do I have to tell you how this movie spins political events?

Actually, I don't have to.  Here are the details, from Bill Gertz of the Washington Times:

Inside the Ring
December 21, 2007

By Bill Gertz - Charlie's movie

Conservative officials who served in the Reagan administration are upset by the left-wing slant of the new movie about the covert action program that helped Afghan guerrillas defeat the Soviet army during the 1980s.

"Charlie Wilson's War," out today, is based on a book about former Rep. Charles Wilson, Texas Democrat known widely on Capitol Hill during his tenure as "Good Time Charlie" who helped fund the semi-secret war that ultimately helped fell the Soviet Union.

The Reagan-era officials said the movie promotes the left-wing myth that the CIA-led operation funded Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and ultimately produced the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Bin Laden, the officials said, never got CIA funding or weapons, and was not directly involved in Islamist extremist activities until years after the Afghan operation ended after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989.

That anti-American aspect of the film, namely that the Afghan operation ultimately caused the September 11 attacks, reportedly was altered after protests from Mr. Wilson and his former fiancee, Joanne Herring.

The movie also erred by showing Mr. Wilson and his CIA collaborator, Gust Avrakotos, as enthusiastic backers of supplying advanced U.S. Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to the Afghan rebels.

Fred Ikle, the undersecretary of defense in the Reagan administration, said the CIA initially fought against sending Stingers, while Mr. Wilson was lukewarm on the matter. Both later supported the plan once rebels began downing Soviet gunships with them.

"Senior people in the Reagan administration, the president, [CIA Director] Bill Casey, [Defense Secretary Caspar] Weinberger and their aides deserve credit for the successful Afghan covert action program, not just Charlie Wilson," Mr. Ikle said in an interview.

The officials blamed the anti-Reagan slant of the film on the movie's screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin, the Hollywood liberal who regularly attacked conservatives on his television drama "The West Wing," also known as "The Left Wing" because of its liberal bias. 

Can it be?  Is it possible that Hanks and Sorkin have taken a true story and contorted it to indoctrinate viewers with as many of their pet leftwing/conspiracy theories as they could fit into it?

Well, Bill Gertz seems to think so.  And he seems to have a lot of ammunition to support his position. 

It would be nice to see Hanks and Sorkin show what they have, other than the standard-issue animus from Hollywood against Republicans and anything the USA does in its national interest.   But I'm not expecting much.

The claim has been that there are no supportive movies about the war in Iraq because "after all, we should never have gone in there".  But a) even when support for the war in Iraq was at its highest there were no such movies and b) most people (even today) support our entry into Afghanistan but there are no such movies from Hollywood about that either.

Is there a repository at every road leading to Hollywood where otherwise intelligent people leave part of their brain?

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!!