Friday, 25 January 2008


Ken Berwitz


"I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago".: 

The above quote is Hillary Clinton attacking Barack Obama in the South Carolina debate earlier this week.


The above picture is Hillary Clinton, and Hubby Bill, smiling along with Tony Rezko.   Isn't he that Chicago slumlord guy? 

Eight more years of these two bottom-dwelling amoral liars?  God help us.


Ken Berwitz

Here is a genuinely terrific editorial in today's National Post of Canada.  It tells readers why the UN's next "World Conference Against Racism" should be shunned. 

The National Post is dead-on right.  Please read every word and see why:

Shun Durban II

National Post  Published: Friday, January 25, 2008

We are tempted to compare the first World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) -- organized by the United Nations in Durban, South Africa in 2001 -- to a circus. But that would be unfair to circuses. Far from a forum promoting tolerance among peoples and nations, as it was billed, the WCAR became a festival for hateful screeds against Israel and the West by some of the most repressive regimes in the world, cheered on by NGOs from Europe and North America.

Now the UN is planning a second WCAR for 2009. Reports from the planning meetings suggest Durban II, as it is being called, will be worse than the first. Thankfully, rather than lend Canada's credibility to the whole shabby exercise, Canada's Conservative government appears set to become the first major government to walk away from the pre-conference meetings and arrangements. To do so will demonstrate once again the moral and policy clarity Stephen Harper's government has practised on international affairs.

At Durban I, Yasser Arafat, the terrorist and Palestinian strongman (who has since died) claimed Israel was guilty of a "supremacist mentality, a mentality of racial discrimination" and that "the Israeli occupation is a new and advanced type of apartheid."

African dictators used calls for slavery reparations from the U.S. to distract internal critics from their brutal and hapless governments. Non-governmental organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, refused to demand that calls for violence against Israeli and Western targets be removed from a common NGO communique. They felt violence was sometimes "justified if against apartheid or on behalf of the intifada."

Most Western leaders and foreign ministers refused to attend. Canada dispatched only then-multiculturalism minister Hedy Fry. Halfway through the conference, the U.S. and Israel withdrew their delegations. Canada's stayed -- though it did issue a strong statement condemning the proceedings.

Durban I took place just before 9/11. Since then, the war on terror has begun, Iraq and Afghanistan have been invaded, Arafat's intifada has run its course, Israel has built a security fence between its citizens and the Palestinians, Hamas has taken over the Gaza Strip, Israel and Hezbollah have clashed in Southern Lebanon and George Bush will have been President for eight years. And so it is easy to imagine how shrill the charges and rhetoric will be next year. For instance, Arab states are said to be asking for an agenda item that would halt the terror war by labelling it "Islamophobic" and insisting it is nothing more than a plot to demolish their religion.

Canada should have no part in this charade. Participating in Durban I cost Canada $2-million. If fighting racism is the goal, it would be far better to spend that money on earnest national advertisements urging tolerance. Those ads would be useless, of course. But at least they wouldn't be dangerous.

That, folks, is what it means to "let the UN do its work".

How proud I would be if the USA and Canada joined in boycotting this pathetic, hate-filled, illegitimate fraud and telling the UN to stuff it where the sun never shines. 


Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest installment detailing how our world will operate if radical Islam makes good on its threat to take over the world and end western civiliation.  It comes to us from Compass Direct News (

Lead story - Thursday January 24, 2008


Set to be baptized in February, 70-year-old suffers burns on 70 percent of body.

DHAKA, Bangladesh, January 24 (Compass Direct News) Unknown attackers tried to burn a 70-year-old woman to death on January 7 after learning that she would be baptized as a Christian next month.

Rahima Beoa, who was planning to be baptized on February 13 in Muslim-majority Rangpur district, 248 kilometers (154miles) northwest of the capital city of Dhaka, suffered burns on 70 percent of her body.

The unknown people wanted to burn alive the elderly woman because they came to know that she would be a Christian in the next month, said Khaled Mintu, a regional supervisor of the Rangpur district of the Isha-E-Jamat Bangladesh denomination. It was a devilish conspiracy to stop her being a Christian.

Beoa is the mother-in-law of Ashraful Islam, who along with his wife became a Christian two years ago. Close relatives and neighbors were said to be angry with the couple for their conversion from Islam.

The 40-year-old Islam lives in Cinatuly village, located on silty land on Bangladeshs major Tista river, with his three children and mother-in-law.

Generally local people become baptized going to the capital city, Dhaka, so that nobody knows anything about the new believers, said Mintu. Beoa is so geriatric that it was not very easy to bring her to Dhaka for baptism. Otherwise she would have been baptized long ago.

Roads from the silty village to Dhaka are rough, and leaving the area means villagers must walk miles to catch a bus.

On the night of the attack, Islam went to the Isha-E-Jamat church with his wife and two smallest children, a service that usually takes place at night as all the villagers are day laborers or vendors.

The service went late into the night as the pastor taught on baptism. News that Beoa and others would be baptized in February was said to have reached the entire village.

While Islams mother-in-law and 9-year-old son were sleeping at home, the attackers set their bamboo and wood home ablaze. There were two head of cattle in one corner of the house, which was built with a mansard roof of corrugated tin.

The boy managed to escape the fire, Mintu said. But the elderly woman was injured and got 70 percent burnt on her body, and the cattle and other stuff of the house were incinerated.

No relatives or neighbors came to put out the fire, he added.

A quack doctor treated the elderly womans burns in another house, he said, because the family cannot afford treatment in a hospital.

We did not file any case in the police station against anyone, because we could not trace anyone for that arson attack, Mintu said.

In 2006, he said, more than 7,000 local Muslims came to vandalize the houses of area Christians. They wanted to evict us because are Christian, Mintu said. With the help of the local government officials and police, we manage to live in this land against the strong opposition of the majority Muslims.

There are 50 Christian families within two miles in that area, he said, most of them of Muslim upbringing.

over their enemies, for He is the Strong and Omnipotent.


Take a good look.  Because this is what will replace western civilization if we allow it to.  And it will be the way YOU live.

If we fight against radical islam we may win and we may lose.  If we do not fight, we will most assuredly lose because, either way, they will continue fighting.  And if they win, our culture and our civilization is over, to be replaced by what?  A society in which Christian homes are routinely vandalized.  In which a 70 year old woman, living in destitute poverty with her family and meager belongings, is horribly burned (the attempt being to burn her to death altogether) for the "crime" of attempting to convert to Christianity -- with relatives and neighbors not lifting a finger to do anything about it BECAUSE she is converting to Christianity?

God help the people who want to live this way.  I know I'm not one of them.  Are you?

We play political games with this lunacy at our own peril.


Ken Berwitz

Over the past year I have periodically cited the vile, hate-filled commenters who frequent sites like,, and other repositories of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade.

I'm sorry to say that a large contingent of these LAMBs has latched onto the Washington Post's comments area.  Some of them make the looney-tunes at those other sites look like rank amateurs by comparison.

And which individual writer do they reserve their gloppiest dollop of hatred for?  Pulitzer prize winner Charles Krauthammer.

Krauthammer, you see, is a political conservative.  And that is absolutely intolerable to this bunch.  So much so that they have no problem whatsoever demonstrating their vile hatred toward him.

If you think I'm exaggerating in any way, I will call your attention to the comments regarding today's column, in which Mr. Krauthammer details the hypocrisy of John Edwards.  Characteristically, he does so with a raft of facts.  The column is excellent.

However, if you are a LAMB and you hate all opinions but the ones that completely coincide with your own, facts don't count.  All that counts are vicious personal attacks on whomever is presenting them.

With that, I commend you to Mr. Krauthammer's article, which you can find at  Please read it, note how well referenced it is, then look to the right side of the page within the "comments" box and click on "view all comments". 

What a treat you're in for.


Ken Berwitz

One of the most irritating and exasperating aspects of how the political campaigns are being covered is that media treat political polls as facts.  They are NOT facts, they are polls.  And they are usually wrong. 

Let's understand something before going any further:  When I say political polls are usually wrong, I don't mean to imply that they don't usually get the winner right.  But wait, before you say something like "well, that's all that's important anyway so what is Berwitz talking about?", please keep reading.

It is easy to get a great many political results correctly.  I can do it without polls.  And I don't say this out of arrogance or overconfidence.  You can do it as easily as I can.  Let me show you.

Here's a great example:  I will now give you the winners of the 2008 congressional contests with about 80% accuracy.  Right now.  Today. 

Who do I pick?  In every congressional race where there is an incumbent, I pick the incumbent (whoever he or she may be) to win.  Based on results from election after election after election, I'm going to be right roughly 80% of the time. 

So, am I a genius?  Or is it just a slam dunk that incumbents win re-election a vast majority of the time?  You know the answer.

Here's another example:  I know that Mike Huckabee will get higher vote totals in deep south states.  No issue about it.  Why? Because he is southern Baptist, that's why.  Just as I know Barack Obama is going to get higher vote totals in a state like Georgia, because it has a very large Black population.  I also know that Hillary Clinton will do especially well in California because of her strong ties to the entertainment industry.  And so on and so on and so on.

See, it isn't hard to determine results, or the direction of results, even if you DON'T have political polling to back it up.  The value of political polling, therefore, is to give you direction when the vote is close and to give you an idea of what actual percentage of the vote a candidate gets, both generically and compared to his/her opponent.

It is in that area where political polls have a lousy record.  And that's why they shouldn't be relied on for "factual" information. 

Now if you've been reading this blog over the past several weeks, you know that I have shown, again and again, how different the results of primaries are from the polling data.  If not, all you have to do is scroll back through January and read the retrospectives after each primary.

But to make things easy for you, I'm going to take one example from this morning.   During a discussion of the debate, talk turned as it inevitably does to the latest polls,. And one of them was the Mason-Dixon poll.  Someone, I forget who, cited it as being among the more accurate ones this year (by the way, doesn't that comment, in and of itself, tell you that they KNOW how inaccurate some polls are)?

Well, let's look at the Mason-Dixon poll for the last two primaries, which were held in Nevada and South Carolina:

-In Nevada, the last Mason-Dixon Democratic poll showed Hillary Clilnton with 41%, Barack Obama with 32% and John Edwards with 14%.  The actual vote was Clinton 51%, Obama 45% and Edwards 4%.  Every percentage was wrong by far more than the statistical margin of error.

-Also in Nevada, Mason-Dixon showed Romney winning the Republican caucuses with 34%, McCain at 19% and ron paul at The actual vote was Romney 51%, paul 14% and McCain 13%.  Romney won by more than TRIPLE the margin of error.

Now we come to the South Carolina Republican primary (Democrats vote there tomorrow).  Mason-Dixon had McCain at 27% Huckabee at 25%, Romney at 15% and Thompson at 13%.  In reality, however, McCain was at 33%, Huckabee at 31% and Romney at 15%.

Hey hey hey.  On South Carolina, Mason-Dixon did very well.  They understated both McCain and Huckabee's vote total, but called the result correctly in a close race.  And they got Romney's votes right on the nose.  That's great.

But two things should be noted:  1) taking the margin of error into account, they'd have been statistically right even if Huckabee beat McCain by a few percentage points and b) in any event, if they're right on one primary and wrong on another how do you know which to believe?

At this point I would like to apologize to the Mason-Dixon poll.  I only singled it out because it was the one mentioned this morning.  There is nothing personal;  I could have done this with every other political poll.  Mason-Dixon is a fine, reputable organization.

But neither Mason-Dixon nor any other poll provides facts.  Nor do they claim to .  Polling organizations provide general information and trends from wave to wave of polling.  The end. 

It is the so-called media experts who take this general information and artificially elevate it to the status of immutable truth.  And you are supposed to buy into it. 

Do yourself a favor and don't.


Ken Berwitz

I have to confess, I didn't watch most of last night's debate.  I was spending quality time with my wife (who somehow moved the wrong way the day before and pulled something in her back.  In my world, being a caring husband is more important than watching a debate).

But I did catch some of the retrospectives this morning.

I gather that Mitt Romney did very well.  Everyone seems to agree. John McCain's performance generated mixed reviews, with a couple of people saying he did very well and others (the majority, I think) feeling he was not on top of his game.

There was a particularly interesting vignette in which McCain strongly complimented Rudy Giuliani on how he handled 9/11:

-It certainly could have been taken as it was offered; i.e. a sincere tribute to the herculean job Mayor Giuliani turned in. 

-But the idea was also advanced that Giuliani may be out of the running in Florida (something I sincerely doubt), and if McCain pumps up his vote total it will come out of Mitt Romney's hide, not McCain's. 

Based on the little I saw of this debate, both Romney and McCain appeared to be comfortable, conversational and appealing. 

Rudy Giuliani never comes across that way, except when he is smiling broadly (improbably, he has a very sweet, almost childlike smile).  

Unfortunately for Mr. Giuliani, the combination of his thin lips and the upturn in his upper lip when he talks comes across as looking like a perpetual sneer.  Add in his slight but noticable speech impediment and Giuliani can't compete with Romney or McCain when it comes to overall demeanor.

Should this matter when we are electing a President who will have to be brilliant, hardnosed and intuitive - one who will be asked to make major decisions and almost certainly will have to react to perilous events around the world?  Frankly no.  But people are people, and I have no doubt that some of them will veer away from Giuliani because he isn't good looking or congenial sounding enough.  Is that lamentable and ridiculous?  Sure, but it's also the way things usually are.   

That said, however, Giuliani is in no way out of this.  First of all, he is a proven vote-getter when he campaigns hard (this is the first state in which he has done so).  How else could a Republican - a real one, not like Mike Bloomberg - win in hardline-Democratic New York City and then win re-election by a landslide?

Secondly, and this is a genuine wild card in the Florida primary, something like 20 - 25% of the entire primary vote has already been cast. And the earlier those votes came in, the better Giuliani was doing compared to his opponents.  That could represent a major advantage for him.

If Giuliani finishes a poor third and Romney wins, I have to say that it will be very difficult for him to come back.  On the other hand, if Giuliani wins, or finishes a strong second, or even if he is third but McCain and Romney are so close that there is no clear winner between them, Giuliani can still be in the hunt.

Huckabee got nowhere last night, and isn't going to come close to winning Florida.  His shooting star seems to have begun and ended in the rural areas of Iowa.  And ron paul?  Maybe he can partner with Dennis Kukucinich and do a Mary Matalin/James Carville sideshow.

Bottom line?  There is no clear winner going into this primary vote and three guys have a chance.  This should be interesting.

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!!