Sunday, 03 February 2008


Ken Berwitz

I pulled this from  If it surprises you at all, I have to conclude that you don't pay much attention to the drift of academia these days:

Princeton's One-Party State 24 January 2008

By Michael Juel-Larsen and Josh Oppenheimer - Daily Princetonian

All Princeton faculty members who have given to 2008 presidential candidates so far have donated to Democrats, according to federal records of donations to presidential campaigns from Princeton University employees.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is the runaway favorite candidate among those donors, having received $12,050 from Princeton employees. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) drew the second-highest total contributions from Princeton faculty and staff with $5,600. Other donations have gone to candidates including former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).

In total, donors who listed the University as their employer have given $23,700 to presidential campaigns in the current election cycle. Of that, $21,900 92.4 percent has gone toward Democratic candidates.

Federal Election Commission records list any donation over $200 to a political organization or candidate and are public by law.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the only Republican candidate to receive donations from Princeton employees so far, receiving a total of $1,800 from a graduate student and a Public Safety officer.

Princeton employees overwhelmingly high support for Democratic candidates 90 percent of donors who listed the University as their employer gave to a Democrat, and no professors donated to the GOP outpaces its peers. The Harvard Crimson reported that 86 percent of Harvard professors contributions went to Democrats, while according to Georgetowns student newspaper, The Hoya, 75 percent of the donations made by the schools employees went to Democratic candidates.

The statistics of political giving at Princeton mirror larger trends at campuses across the country. Inside Higher Education reported that Obama is the clear favorite of academics, having received over $2.1 million from them.

Electrical engineering professor Stuart Schwartz, who has been on the faculty for 42 years and donated $400 to Richardson, said he doesnt think Princetons numbers are representative of the facultys usual political composition.

I just think this is an unusual year, he said. And maybe the Republican faculty are holding back and the Democrats are just so anxious to get their candidates in a good position. I dont think [the lack of support for Republican candidates] will hold up. Thats not this faculty; theres a mix. I think the majority are Democrats, but I think theres a mix.

Other professors said that donations dont often come up in faculty conversations and arent a source of tension among faculty members. To be honest, I dont talk politics on campus, said physics professor Chiara Nappi, who gave $1,000 to Edwards last September. Im too busy doing my work.

College Republicans president Andrew Malcolm 09 said that the overwhelming support for Democratic candidates came as no surprise. He said there is no reason to believe that political donations will affect professors teaching, but the leftward trend does raise some concerns about ideological diversity among the faculty, he said. I hope that all students, regardless of their political beliefs, feel comfortable expressing their views in the classroom.

Putting my money where my hopes are

Professors gave a range of reasons for their choices.

For Wilson School professor Stanley Katz, donating $250 to Obamas presidential primary campaign was a matter of putting my money where my hopes are. .

These, it should be noted, are the same bastions of academia that demand "diversity" least by their obviously narrow definition. 

Shouldn't a university present diversity of views?  Do the powers that be at Princeton, Harvard, Georgetown, etc. worry about this at all, even for one second? Or do they think "diversity" begins and ends at how many different colors of students they see on campus?

Well, you read the article.  You tell me.


Ken Berwitz

I had no idea of how important Senator John Ensign (R-NV) was to the battle over immigration until I read this editorial.  Mainstream media certainly didn't let me in on it (maybe Nevadans got the news, but not me). 

Please read today's editorial in the Las Vegas Review-Journal and see:

EDITORIAL: Ensign leads on immigration

The U.S. Senate finally appears to understand that American citizens do not want illegal immigrants rewarded for breaking the law, and Nevada Sen. John Ensign is a big reason why.

The economic stimulus bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee last week included a measure that requires tax rebate recipients and dependent children to have valid Social Security numbers. That measure was introduced by Sen. Ensign after he pointed out that the rebate legislation, if not amended, would allow illegal immigrants working under fraudulent taxpayer identification numbers to receive checks.

"I am not sure the American taxpayer would like people who are here illegally in this country to be getting a tax rebate," Sen. Ensign successfully argued.

The bill sailed through the committee on a bipartisan vote.

What a difference 20 months and a grass-roots uprising can make.

In May 2006, when the Senate was hurriedly shoving "comprehensive" immigration reform down the throats of an unsupportive electorate, Sen. Ensign introduced an amendment to ensure that illegals, once granted amnesty, could not receive Social Security benefits based on their years of work under stolen or bogus taxpayer identification numbers. That amendment was hotly debated before being withdrawn from consideration on a 50-49 vote.

The lawmakers who slapped down Sen. Ensign in 2006 as some kind of xenophobe thought it was perfectly reasonable to not only forgive illegals for cutting ahead of millions of other foreigners who want to work in the United States, but to put them on a path to retirement. The resulting public outrage was unlike anything Washington had experienced in years.

Thankfully, the "comprehensive" approach is dead. Its biggest supporter back then was Arizona Sen. John McCain. Would he be the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination if hadn't repudiated his hill to die for? Certainly not.

So amid a campaign season in which candidates are sniping about who held what position when, Sen. Ensign can boast that he has consistently represented the will of the electorate in the illegal immigration debate.

Citizens want current immigration laws enforced. Citizens want America's southern border secured. Citizens do not want illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer-funded benefits, as evidenced by statewide votes in California and Arizona.

And if Congress is going to put the federal government further into debt by handing out "rebate" checks during an economic downturn, citizens don't want illegal immigrants getting back money they probably never paid in the first place.

After hanging tough in what looked like a losing battle, Sen. Ensign now has Congress falling in line behind him. He deserves voters' thanks.

This is not an easy fight.  It is much easier to just "go along" with the no-borders crowd and the left wing activists.  But here's one man who would not do it.  John Ensign showed courage where other people cowered in fear.

The editorial's last four words say it all, don't they? 

Thank you Senator Ensign.


Ken Berwitz

It will be very interested to see how the media address what has happened in just the last few days.

It seems that Barack Obama is suddenly surging against Hillary Clinton in a number of key states;  states that Ms. Clinton appeared safely ahead in just days ago.  This probably has a lot to do with the Kennedy and endorsements.  Given the "super delegate" system of the Democratic party and how it favors Ms. Clinton, this may all come to naught anyway.  But then again, if Mr. Obama wins a bunch of states on Tuesday things could fall apart  for her fast. 

And on the Republican side Mitt Romney is making a serious move against John McCain.  The reasons relate to how disenchanted conservatives (and a number of moderates) are with him.  Mr. McCain's positions on a laundry list of issues - amnesty probably highest among them right now but also the McCain-Feingold act and other perceived crimes and misdemeanors - may be doing him in big-time.

According to

REUTERSC-SPANZOGBY POLL: Obama slight lead in CA; tied NJ, MO; 20-point lead GA...

*Romney Wins Maine Caucus...
**POLL: Romney leads McCain by 37-34 in CA...

RASMUSSEN POLL:CA: Obama 45% Clinton 44%
McCain 38% Romney 38% 

GA: McCain 31% Romney 29% Huck 28%
Obama 52% Clinton 37%

Just a few days ago we were being assured by media that John McCain and Hillary Clinton had their nominations wrapped up.  But if these data are correct (and though I put little stock in the actual percentages of political polls I have a good deal more faith in their wave-to-wave trending ), that assurance no longer exists.

It is certainly possible that Senators Clinton and McCain will just sail on through to victory, just the way media have been assuring us over the past few days.  But would you bet the house on it?  Something very different may be brewing very quickly.

I don't know if the idea of a 22 state "Super Tuesday" is good or bad.  But I do know it could shape up to be one of the most exciting days in recent political history.


Ken Berwitz

Just yesterday I blogged about the chutzpah (yiddish for outrageous nerviness) of hamas, as they "considered" whether to continue getting electrical service from Israel.

After reading this article about La Raza, I have to say they are giving hamas a run for their money.  Sit down before're not going to believe it:

Cable news blamed for rise in Latino 'hate crimes'
'La Raza' targets guests who call illegals 'invaders,' blame them

Posted: February 2, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern


The fierce debate over illegal immigration on cable news channels could be the cause of a purported increase in hate crimes against Latinos, charges the radical Hispanic rights group National Council of La Raza.

The group, which says it's launching a campaign against vilification of immigrants and Hispanic Americans, wants to meet executives of the Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN and press them to stop "handing hate a microphone" on their programs, the Dallas Morning News reported.

"This surge of hate is being driven by a relatively small but vocal and extreme segment of our society," said Janet Murguia, La Raza's president and chief executive.

Murguia claims a 25-percent increase in hate crimes against Latinos between 2004 and 2006, according to FBI statistics the group compiled.

The group, the Dallas paper reported, has called on Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to renounce his endorsement by Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist, an opponent of open borders who frequently appears on cable news shows.

Gilchrist responded to the Morning News, calling La Raza a racial supremacy group that "dwarfs the combination of Black Panthers, KKK, American Indian Movement and Asian gangs."

As WND reported, La Raza, which means "The Race," was condemned in 2006 by Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."

The Dallas paper said a variety of civil rights organizations have monitored the rise of code words or phrases to describe illegal immigrants, such as an "invading force," "a massive horde" or "swarm." The groups also object to illegals being accused of "bringing crime and disease" to America, including "gang warfare," and of being part of a conspiracy of "reconquista" or "Atzlan" the taking back of lands in the southwestern U.S.

The Morning News said CNN Worldwide's CEO agreed to meet with the group, and Murguia will be interviewed Monday night by host Lou Dobbs, a strong opponent of illegal immigration.

Fox News declined comment, and MSNBC officials said they look forward to receiving NCLR's letter, according to the paper.

Murguia said her group wants to solve the problem amicably, but indicated the growing Hispanic community might use its economic clout and put pressure on the advertisers if the networks don't respond.

She also warned that anyone running for political office who embraces the same rhetoric risks defeat.

WND reported in November that La Raza issued a report calling for the release of any illegal aliens who are arrested, if they happen to be parents.

In May, WND reported La Raza had virtual veto power over the immigration bill promoted by the White House that failed amid charges it granted "amnesty" for millions of people who came to the U.S. illegally. < .

Is that incredible enough for you?

According to La Raza:

-If you debate illegal immigration you are causing attacks on illegal immigrants. The solution, of course is not to debate it, just let them stream in at will.  Maybe throw a party for them, have a welcome wagon.

-When cable news shows discuss and debate illegal immigration, they are committing HATE CRIMES.  I don't even know how to make a joke over that one.

-The anti-illegal people are against Hispanics and immigrants.  That is a lie.  Flat-out.  It is a debate over ILLEGALS.  Not Hispanic Americans and not immigrants. No one is demanding Hispanic Americans leave the country if they are here legally.  No one is demanding that immigrants leave the country if they are here legally.

Can we be bluntly honest here? This is what happens when people who have no legal right in this country are given "rights" and "privileges there is no legal or logical basis to give them.  It does not engender thankfulness;  it engenders contempt and demands for more. 

This is the welfare debate all over again, isn't it?  The more you simply give people as if they are owed it, the more they consider these things to be entitlements. 

The answer to La Raza - a group that demands no borders exist and, effectively, no Unites States of America - is to tell it nicely and diplomatically to go eff itself. 

If people want to emigrate to the USA, they either do it legally or they get deported.  Period.


Ken Berwitz

Wow.  What a game!

Eli Manning was unconscious:  9 for 14 in the fourth quarter with two touchdowns.  David Tyree was great. Steve Smith was great.  Armani Toomer was great.  Plaxico Burress caught the winning touchdown. 

And the Giant defense was spectacular for almost the entire game.

Congratulations to Tom Coughlin and his amazing team, which won four postseason games from the visiting lockerroom.

Now.....when do the pitchers and catchers report?

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!!