Saturday, 02 February 2008


Ken Berwitz

Mark Karlin is the man behind, one of the criterion web sites for the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade (LAMBs).

Here is his editorial, suggesting that there is a realistic possibility for Alan Keyes to become President this year.  He calls it the nutcake express. 

Read this lunatic-asylum piece and see who YOU think the nutcake is:

Will Alan Keyes Ride the Nutcake Express to the White House?


Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher,

February 1, 2008

Dearest friends, dont be falsely comforted by a Thursday night Democratic debate in Los Angeles that was civil, substantive, and even downright cordial at times. Dont think that the respectful back-and-forth between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at the Kodak Theater heralds a theme of unified Democrats, no matter who is the GOP nominee, that will ride us into a Blue State victory in November!

No, on the horizon is a forgotten candidate who may rise from the obscurity that he so richly deserves to triumph on a platform of homophobia (even though his daughter is a lesbian, but hey take a look at Dick Cheney), Jesus-o-mania, xenophobia, and positions so nutty that they make Mike Huckabee look a secular humanist.


Of course, we are talking about the irrepressible Alan Keyes. (He actually usually insists on being called Ambassador Alan Keyes, because he served at the U.N. known as hostile territory to the Busheviks under Reagan.)

Yes, BuzzFlash just received
a press release on January 31st from the Keyes "Campaign," which we had forgotten even existed.

In it, Keyes warns us, "Mitt Romney is single-handedly responsible for instituting same-sex marriage in Massachusetts."

Never mind that the betting money is on McCain being the Republican nominee now, Keyes has something important to tell us, although he is such a bloviator, it is often hard to figure out what that might be.

Anyway, in a JAccuse e-mail sent from the headquarters of the Keyes campaign in Provo, Utah, we learn, among other things:

"The failure by Romney to 'say no' to corrupt activist judges in a critical controversy over 'separation of powers,' and his willingness to take unwarranted steps that exceeded his lawful authority, reveal the kind of chief executive he would be if elected president," Keyes believes.

Romney's mishandling of the matter, said Keyes who holds a Ph.D. from Harvard in government and wrote his dissertation on constitutional theory has been ignored by conservative leaders, as well as the national media. "Romney shouldn't get a free pass on so vital a public-policy issue."

Excuse us, but doesnt that sound like Mr. we mean Ambassador Keyes is talking about Bushs illegal signing statements overriding Congressional laws and his Constitutional authority?

Oh well, watch out, the perennial candidate Mr. Keyes may yet ride into the hearts of minds and voters everywhere in a national reawakening of moron proportions.

Then again, if his last rent a candidate campaign is any guide, dont count on it. In 2004, the Illinois Republican Party was desperately looking for a candidate to run against a popular Democrat for an open U.S. Senate seat. The Republican chosen in the primary had to leave the race in the summer because of some kinky sexual behavior involving his ex-wife (a TV starlet in Hollywood, no less). No well-known member of the GOP in Illinois wanted to take on the thankless task. So, in its infinite stupidity, the Illinois Republican Party imported Alan Keyes who has no relationship to Illinois whatsoever to run for the senate.

Keyes claimed to move into an apartment in a South Chicago suburb with bars on its doors, but no member of the news media could ever find him there. The highlight of his campaign was when it was discovered that one of the condemned to Hell members of the LGBT community he was preaching or running against was his daughter, who was campaigning with him. She kept a blog, it turned out, in which she revealed how dreadful it was to be dragged around the state supporting her father who denounced lesbians, since she was one (although closeted at the time.) (The blog was originally anonymous, but the author was discovered to be Keyes poor daughter during the course of the campaign.)

In any case, the most noteworthy legacy of the campaign was that it was the first time in the history of Illinois that two blacks competed for a U.S. Senate Seat, and probably in modern American history.

Unfortunately for Mr. Uh, Ambassador Keyes, the other African-American candidate happened to be Barack Obama, who won in a blow-out (as in more than 70% of the vote.)

The rest, as they say, is history.

(Some pundits have argued that if Hillary Clinton had waited to run for the Senate in her birth state of Illinois where she was raised and went to school she would have probably won the primary that Barack Obama won in 2004 and gone on to become Dick Durbins partner in the U.S. Senate from the Land of Lincoln. That would have meant that Barack Obama might very well still be a State Senator in Illinois. Now that would have changed the dramatic campaign now underway, wouldnt it have?)

But back to Keyes, you can view information about his momentum-building campaign at his website. In it, youll learn alarming breaking news, such as Iowa GOP refuses to report Keyes votes and Alan Keyes launches Texas swing.

Look, we havent had a chance to laugh a lot -- given the passions that this Dem primary is provoking -- but we thank Keyes for giving us a humor break.

And should you doubt his credentials, just rest assured that he wants you to know that hes a Reagan Statesman.

Line up with the rest of them, Alan, they all claim to be Reagan Statesmen.

Now go out and win one for the Gipper!

How's that for a classic, textbook example of  LAMBspeak. 

Alan Keyes has slightly less of a chance to win the presidency this year than Hillary Clinton has of replacing Phyllis Schlafly at the Eagle Forum.  But this genius is warning you to watch out!  watch out!  It could happen!

Mr. Karlin and people like him is why I invented the term LAMB.  The funny part is, I have no doubt he would wear that title proudly.

Anyone wanna bet on who he's supporting this year?  Helloooooooooo Barack.


Ken Berwitz

The conventional wisdom - or, at any rate, the wisdom of enough mainstream media to convince much of the country - is that we are either in a recession or about to be.

But how certain is this? 

Well, here is yesterday's Investors Business Daily's editorial, which argues the opposite side.  See what you think of it:

Recession? Not Yet

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, February 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Economy: Recent poor data, including Friday's drop in payroll jobs, have prompted a number of economists to pronounce the U.S. is in a recession. But how can we really know for sure?

An old rule of thumb used by Wall Street and business alike is that two straight quarters of declining GDP is how a recession is defined. By that gauge, we're not there yet. Nor were we in 2001, when a recession was declared even though GDP fell for only one quarter.

How can this be? Wall Street doesn't decide when a recession begins. That job is done by a rather obscure think tank called the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Here's how the NBER defines it: "A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production and wholesale-retail sales."

That's a lot to look at. Timing, as they say, is everything.

If the economy isn't slipping into a recession, it makes no sense to "stimulate" anything. Problem is, the NBER isn't exactly prompt in declaring a downturn. By its own admission, it takes six to 18 months after a recession has begun to declare that one has started. Way too long, in other words, to craft a meaningful policy response.

Some shortcuts, however, can be used to tell if we've entered a recession. The best is to look at key monthly data. Friday's jobs report, for example, showed payrolls shrank 17,000 in January, the first drop in 53 months. Though the jobless rate dipped to 4.9% from 5%, the longer-term trend appears to be up. Worse, the aggregate hours index a very good coincident indicator for the economy fell sharply.

Based on these nasty developments along with soaring oil prices, crashing housing markets and gloomy consumers many are convinced we already are in a recession or soon will be. They include former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, ex-Fed chief Alan Greenspan and a number of influential Wall Street investment houses. As we've noted before, the futures market puts the likelihood of a recession this year at over 60%.

Case closed? Maybe not.

Congress' Joint Economic Committee, leaning heavily on the work of economists Marcelle Chauvet and Jim Hamilton, recently created an Employment Recession Probability Index that uses changes in jobless claims and the unemployment rate. It has predicted every recession since World War II.

What's it show today? Believe it or not, the likelihood the U.S. was in recession in January was 6% down from 35.5% in December.

So, yes, we've hit a slow patch. But no, despite the bleatings of a media establishment eager for "change" in Washington, we're not in a recession yet.


I don't know if IBD is right.  I'm hardly what you'd call an economist.  But that looks like a pretty good argument to me. 

From a political perspective, I can't help thinking back to 2000, President Clinton's last year in office, when the bubble burst (March 22 was the end).  Suddenly we went from what, on paper, was an amazingly successful economy which Bill Clinton took full credit for, to an economy in free-fall which Bill Clinton blamed entirely on George Bush. 

You might be wondering how that could be, since Mr. Bush had not yet become President or spent even one day in that office.  The argument Mr. Clinton made - backed up by our wonderfully "neutral" mainstream media - was that he "talked down" the economy and worried everyone into the bad times.  Un frigging believable. 

If it were a Republican saying that, media would have decimated him -- after it collectively stopped belly laughing at how idiotic the claim was.  But the President in 2000 was Bill Clinton, baby.  Thus it had to be the god's honest truth, right up there with "I never had sex with that woman, Miss Lewin..."  er, never mind.

Now it is 2008.  Maybe we are moving towards recession and maybe not.  But does any Democrat have a problem about "talking down the economy"?  Like every day in every way they can think of?

Maybe IBD is right and there won't be a recession after all.  Then the Democratic candidate (there should be just one by then) can assure you it was his/her talking it down that turned it around. 

Hey, who is going to dispute the claim?  Mainstream media????

Now I'm the one belly laughing.


Ken Berwitz, the most visible and most influential branch of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade, has endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president. And he has enthusiastically accepted its endorsement.  Here is the meat of moveon's press release:

MoveOn Endorsement Throws Progressive Weight
Behind Barack Obama

3.2 Million Members Nationwide Mobilize to Get Out the Progressive Vote for Senator Obama

Group Has Over 1.7 Million Members In Super Tuesday States

In a resounding vote today, Political Action's members nationwide voted to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President. The group, with 3.2 million members nationwide and over 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states, will immediately begin to mobilize on behalf of Senator Obama. The vote favored Senator Obama to Senator Clinton by 70.4% to 29.6%.

Senator Obama accepted the endorsement stating:

"In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. From their principled opposition to the Iraq war - a war I also opposed from the start - to their strong support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows what Americans can achieve when we come together in a grassroots movement for change. I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead."

Eli Pariser,'s Executive Director, issued the following statement on the group's endorsement:

"Our members' endorsement of Senator Obama is a clear call for a new America at this critical moment in history. Seven years of the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration have left the country desperate for change. We need a President who will bring to bear the strong leadership and vision required to end the war in Iraq, provide health care to every American, deal with our climate crisis, and restore America's standing in the world. The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country, and someone who will be willing to change business as usual in Washington. Senator Barack Obama has proved he can and will be that President.

"With 3.2 million members nationwide and over 1.7 million members in states that vote next Tuesday, we'll be able to immediately jump into action in support of Senator Obama's candidacy. We've learned that the key to achieving change in Washington without compromising core values is having a galvanized electorate to back you up. And Barack Obama has our members 'fired up and ready to go' on that front.

"We congratulate Sens. Clinton, Dodd and Biden, former Senator Edwards, Governor Richardson, Congressman Kucinich and former Senator Gravel on running tremendous campaigns. We thank them for their contributions to the important debate that has gripped our nation and for their ongoing engagement with our members. We're looking forward to working together to bring progressive values to the nation's capitol and to end this disastrous war in Iraq. MoveOn members are committed to putting a Democrat in the White House in 2008 and ushering in a new era of progressive values no matter who wins the nomination."


What does this mean? 

-First of all it means that Obama has picked up what arguably is the single most important endorsement a Democrat can get, when it comes to getting out the primary vote.  I don't know how accurate's claim to millions of members is, but I do know that they are loaded with money, loaded with activists and media have no problem at all passing along what they put out.  That is huge.

-Secondly, it means that whatever poll data you have seen showing Hillary Clinton comfortably ahead of Obama in major states is now meaningless.  She may win some or all of those states, but every one is in play now.  Again, it is hard to overstate the value of's endorsement among Democrats (and among Republicans too, but for very, very different reasons).

-Next we have the opportunity it affords Senator Clinton - and the danger which comes along with it.  This is Hillary's chance to become a "moderate", by using the moveon endorsement to prove she is more centrist, has more of a potential voter base and therefore is more electable than Mr. Obama. 

Now the truth is that Clinton's senate voting record is so identical to Obama's that if you look at them side by side you won't know which is which.  But this is Hillary Clinton campaigning and she would tell you she was from Mars if it would get her votes, so why not pretend to be a centrist?  Maybe it will work.

But Ms. Clinton's danger is that if she positions Obama as too far left and not as electable for accepting's endorsement, what happens if she wins the nomination?  What will do about her candidacy?  Will she have to apologize to get it?  Will they endorse a third party candidacy?  Will they just sit on their hands for the 2008 election and hope she loses?

Don't dismiss that third possibility.  If were to endorse Hillary Clinton under these circumstances, it will look like what it rails against -- a group that only cares about winning the election, even if it is with the wrong candidate. 

On the other hand, if moveon sits by and allows a Republican to win, the group can "prove" that it truly does own Democratic party in a way that would make any candidate come running for its support in 2012.  

This leads to the issue of whether Hillary Clinton could possibly bring her party together if she wins the nomination.  Obama might be able to.  But for Ms. Clinton it would be next to impossible.

-Now, what if Senator Obama wins the Democratic nomination? 

Yes, he will have on board, which means untold money and untold numbers of dedicated workers around the country.  But it also means that Obama can be positioned by Republicans as too marginalized, too far leftward to be a viable President.  The Republican candidate will use Hillary Clinton's words against him every day. 

And will Ms. Clinton support an Obama candidacy?  Outwardly the answer is, of course, yes.  She has to.  But if Mr. Obama wins he will almost certainly run for re-election in 2012, and that effectively ends Ms. Clinton's chance to ever be president.  In 2016 she would be a 68 year old senator, 16 years out of the White House and whatever "magic" she has now will be long gone.

Therefore, from the standpoint of personal ambition, it is in Ms. Cinton's interest for Mr. Obama to lose this election.  That would put another run four rather than eight years away.  It would also give her those four years to attack the Republican incumbent and, in effect, say "I told you I should have been the nominee, look what we got instead.  Hillary in 2012!".  I don't know if this could work, but without a 2008 candidacy it appears to be her only chance.

Finally, what is Hubby Bill going to do about this?  Do you seriously think he'll just sit on the sidelines watching, as it all goes away?  Me neither.

For bettor or worse, this is the single most interesting nominating process I have ever seen.

ONE LAST THING:  If The Kennedy clan and are endorsing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, what does that tell you about the "regard" the Democratic party hierarchy has for Ms. Clinton?  Or, for that matter, hubby Bill?  It looks to me like they may finally have had it with this pair.


Ken Berwitz

If you ever wondered what the yiddish word "chutzpah" means, please read the following article that comes to us courtesy of

Saturday, February 2, 2008
Hamas considering economic disengagement from Israel

In interview with London paper, senior advisor to Hamas leader states that organization seeks economic unity with Egypt, which would supply Gaza with fuel, electricity

Roee Nahmias YNET Published: 02.02.08, 16:47 / Israel News,7340,L-3501759,00.html

Hamas is seriously contemplating severing the Gaza Strip's economic ties with Israel, said Ahmed Yousef, a senior advisor to Palestinian Prime Minister and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, in a Saturday interview with the London-based newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat

Yousef furthermore stated that Hamas has already generated plans and proposals to unite economically with Egypt instead of Israel. According to Hamas, Egypt can serve as 'Gaza's gateway' to the Arab and Muslim world and as its in-depth strategic partner.

The organization has already generated plans, likely presented to the Egyptian government during a Hamas delegation visit to Cairo last week, whereupon Egypt can supply the Gaza Strip with fuel and electricity, as well as opening the Rafah Crossing for commerce with Gaza.

"Several Arab countries have already expressed marked willingness to trade with Gaza and to fund energy export projects should Egypt prove willing," said Yousef, noting that Hamas wants to bolster Gaza's economy by ending its nearly absolute economic reliance on Israel.

When asked whether Hamas is also considering abandoning the use of Israeli currency in the Strip, Yousef indicated that this "might be possible in the future. Residents of Gaza can always trade in American Dollars, Jordanian Dinars or Egyptian Pounds at a later point."

Egyptain reaction unclear, Fatah objects

It is still unclear how Egypt plans to respond to this Hamas proposal, since this economic disengagement is by no means a quick or simple feat, especially as the Palestinian Authority has signed several binding economic accords with Israel.

The Fatah movement's reaction to this Hamas proposal, however, was far more emphatic, and decidedly negative. A spokesman for the Fatah movement, Fahmi Al-Za'areer, stated that "Hamas' proposal to lean on Egypt economically via the Rafah Crossing is a decided disaster, and allows Israel to sever the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, thereby dividing the (Palestinian) state as Israel has always longed to do."

Al-Sharq al-Awsat also reported Saturday that senior Palestinian Authority officials blamed Syria for breaching the border fence between Gaza and Egypt in retaliation for Egyptian involvement in Lebanon. "What Hamas has done goes hand in hand with and the marked role that Egypt plays in Lebanon," stated the Palestinian officials.

I love it.  hamas is "considering" disengaging itself from Israel, the country that it simultaneously gets its electricity and currency from and tries to obliterate?

They are "considering" it? 

What the hell is this?  Why is Israel giving Gaza ANY electricity or facilitating the Gazan economy with ANY of its currency?  This is an enemy camp specifically dedicated to ending Israel and killing every Jew there.  Not one other country in the world would be supplying its enemy anything remotely like this.

But hamas is "considering" the end of its dependency on the enemy it wishes death to?  As if Gaza has an option on the right to it? 

Now THAT is the meaning of chutzpah.

I have a great idea:  Why doesn't Israel "consider" obliging them right now.  On Israel's terms, not hamas'.

Then maybe some of the money Gazans spend on weapons, and for teachers to tell children that Jews are the spawn of monkeys and pigs, would then have to be used to keep the lights on.  Wouldn't that be a hardship!



Ken Berwitz

If you ever wondered just how money grubbing Bill Clinton is and just how far media have gone to protect him and his wife Hillary, read this piece by Scott Johnson at (and by all means click on the IBD editorial it links to):

Financial learnings of Clinton for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Clinton

This week the New York Times published an eye-opening article by Jo Becker and Don Van Natta on Bill Clinton's deal-making prowess, fundraising wizardry, and related mendacity. The story involves the rights to the uranium mining concession in Kazakhstan, won by Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra with an assist from Bill Clinton.

After the deal became final, Clintons Giustra contributed $31.3 million to Clinton's charitable foundation. Giustra's has add another $100 million in his largesse to the Clinton foundation. The Times found the parties engaged in the recognizable modus operandi in several respects, as for example this:

Mr. Giustra was invited to accompany the former president to Almaty just as the financier was trying to seal a deal he had been negotiating for months.

In separate written responses, both men said Mr. Giustra traveled with Mr. Clinton to Kazakhstan, India and China to see first-hand the philanthropic work done by his foundation.

A spokesman for Mr. Clinton said the former president knew that Mr. Giustra had mining interests in Kazakhstan but was unaware of any particular efforts and did nothing to help. Mr. Giustra said he was there as an observer only and there was no discussion of the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev or Mr. Clinton.

But Moukhtar Dzhakishev, president of Kazatomprom, said in an interview that Mr. Giustra did discuss it, directly with the Kazakh president, and that his friendship with Mr. Clinton of course made an impression. Mr. Dzhakishev added that Kazatomprom chose to form a partnership with Mr. Giustras company based solely on the merits of its offer.

After The Times told Mr. Giustra that others said he had discussed the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev, Mr. Giustra responded that he may well have mentioned my general interest in the Kazakhstan mining business to him, but I did not discuss the ongoing efforts.

And this:

Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred. Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton. Wednesday, after The Times told them that others said a meeting, in Mr. Clintons home, had in fact taken place, both men acknowledged it.

There is much more, all worthy of comment. Investor's Business Daily rises to the occasion in the editorial "Clinton's filthy lucre."

Where, incidentally, is Borat when you really need him? .

Is that clear enough for media to understand?  If not, it is all over the internet. did a great piece on this two days ago, in which they showes us the New York Times' technique of putting up an article on the subject but minimizing its negative impact - something Democrats can rely on from the Times. (read it at

If this were Laura Bush, or Mr. Romney or Senator McCain's spouse, you would be seeing so much about it that Britney Spears would be an afterthought. 

But this is Bill Clinton.  Hey, he's SUPPOSED to do this right?  Besides he's great and everybody's just picking on him because of Monical Lewinsky.

The plain and obvious fact is that this is a scandal of major proportions that goes right to the Clintons.  Unless you think that Hillary and Bill are completely separated from one another and he has nothing to do with her presidential run, it is on her doorstep as much as his.

Now, where are the media?  Why is this a one day and out story for the same nice folks who spent years trying to "prove" that George Bush missed a few national guard meetings 35 years ago? 

I guess a $131.3 million dollar quid pro quo to the "co-presidents" is far less important than that.


Ken Berwitz

Incredibly, there are still people who think that it just a coincidence that ron paul attracts nazis and White supremacists the way excrement attracts flies.

I certainly hope you are not one of them.  But if you are, please read this piece by David Benzion of about Mr. paul's latest staff addition and think about it some more:

Who has the ear of Ron Paul?

by David Benzion | 02/01/2008 3:38 pm | Alert moderator

In other Ron Paul related news, former CIA officer Phillip Giraldi has joined the campaign as a policy adviser. Congratulations to them both.

Why would Paul want to listen to Giraldi?

What attracted Giraldi to the Paul camp?

While we await an official answer, here are some excerpts from a column by Giraldi that appeared last June on The Huffington Post, long known as a bastion of Republican intellectual ferment.

Ive highlighted in bold a few lines that strike me as particularly noteworthy.

All of the leading president-aspirants from both the Democratic and Republican parties have embraced a fictional feel-good vision of the United States and its role in the world that is positively dangerous because it is so wrong. The story goes something like this: there is a gleaming city on a hill that is called the United States. The United States never does anything bad and is not to blame for anything that happens anywhere at any time. The U.S. has been targeted by evil doers called Islamofascists who hate Americas freedoms and who attack our cities for absolutely no reason. Islamofascists also hate Israel, which is a splendid little democracy that the United States has a moral obligation to defend. The war in Iraq is a necessary struggle to keep the evildoers from coming over to the United States to carry out their attacks. If one criticizes the war at all, it is in the context of it being a poorly executed diversion of resources that is impeding the real struggle against the selfsame Islamofascists, which is going on everywhere all the time. Islamofascists have no rights. Torturing them is okay, as long as you dont call it torture and only if it produces information that saves lives. The United States, already exceeding the rest of the world in military expenditures, must spend even more and build a bigger Army and Marine Corps to be truly safe. And then there is Iran. Manifestly evil and something like Nazi Germany. All options are on the table, goes and mantra, including pre-emptive war and the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Bin Laden and the rest of the world are aware, even if the presidential candidates are not, that the United States has used its post-World War Two primacy to invade more countries than all other nations combined. The fact is that in only five years George Bushs go-it-alone America has become one of the most disliked countries in the world, universally reviled as a leading threat to peace. Everyone but Americas politicians is seemingly aware that the United States supports corrupt, dictatorial regimes worldwide while at the same time talking hypocritically about promoting democracy. When democracy does occur and the result is unpalatable, as has occurred in Palestine and Lebanon, the U.S. pulls the plug.

And then there is Iran, which is really about Israel because Iran does not actually threaten the United States. The Iran agenda includes pre-emptive military action if necessary and the implicit deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Tehrans alleged weapons program, both issues that should make even the most hardened politician pause. But all the leading candidates have unflinchingly completed their obligatory obeisance to Israel and its principal lobby AIPAC. All have sworn to defend Israel to the last dead American soldier if that should become necessary though not a single one has bothered to make a coherent argument why that should be so beyond the usual assertions about terrorism, which, incidentally, have themselves been carefully crafted by Israel and its lobby to justify the special relationship. The rest of the world sees it all somewhat differently. Israel is engaged in a brutal occupation that is clearly visible on satellite television nightly. Its repression of the Palestinians is enabled by the United States. If the candidates actually believe that the United States should go to war for Israel no matter what Israel does, perhaps they should say so unambiguously. Ignorance of the negative consequences of the U.S.s writing of a blank check for Israel, which fuels much anti-American sentiment and terrorism, should not be acceptable.

And then there is the support of all the leading presidential candidates for a larger army. Why on earth would the U.S. need more soldiers? To fight more wars, obviously. The wearing down of the armed services due to never-ending involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted from a series of bad decisions, not because the worlds most competent military was inadequate. More bad decisions to invade other places with a bigger army would not constitute a solution and increased resources only invite the politicians to engage in more mischief. Far better a lean and hungry Pentagon. The rest of the world is not confused by the patriotic rhetoric and crocodile-tear concern expressed by the candidates for our troops. It is simply following the presidential debates to learn Whos next? on the Pentagon hit list.

Lovely. .

For months I have detailed ron paul's sordid connections with the most vile elements of the hate crowd in this country.  You can read them at:


And now, just in case you didn't get the message clearly enough, he hires this delightful fellow as a policy advisor.  

Read giraldi's ideas carefully and see how you feel about his thoughts on "policy".

ron paul makes me sick.  I felt that way before, and after reading about giraldi I feel that way even more today.

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!!