Thursday, 14 February 2008


Ken Berwitz

I just saw this at  It is the ever-tactful and genteel jane fonda on the Today show this morning, describing her initial reaction to hearing about The Vagina Monologues. 

If you are offended by an extremely crude word for female genitalia, I suggest you don't click on the screen below. 

But if you  like hearing that word on morning TV, and you also like Meredith Viera smiling delightedly, then giggling approvingly, then just going on with the interview as if such language was perfectly OK, then this is, er, right up your alley:


I'd like to think Today will apologize for this.  And maybe rethink Jane Fond being a guest on the show in the future. 

I'll settle for one out of two.,  Let's not be unrealistic here.


Ken Berwitz

You may remember that, late last year, leftwing talk show host Bernie Ward was charged with possession of child pornography.  Mr. Ward did not dispute that he had been in possession of such material, but claimed it was accumulated while researching a book.

However, based on this report from ABC news in San Francisco (KGO, ironically) that excuse now appears to be null and void.  Here are its relevant excerpts:

The case against Bernie Ward began with a phone call to the Oakdale Police Department, just outside Modesto.

The woman gave police the photographs and a transcript of her online conversation with Bernie Ward.

It's Christmas week, three years ago. Ward's on his home computer using the screen name "Vincentlio." He begins the chat with "Good afternoon, mistress." The woman using the name "Sexfairy" answers, "How was your day, slave?" In explicit detail, Ward describes being humiliated sexually. At one point, he asks, "Are you going to make me feel dirty, mistress?" "Sexfairy" answers, "Yes, I am."

Ward discusses group sex he had at an infamous porn theater in San Mateo. Then, nearly an hour into the conversation, he brings up photographs, "I love trading pictures." "Sexfairy" answers, "and why haven't I gotten any pics, slave? Send me some."

Ward sends several pictures -- one of a woman and two children. Ward describes her as a mother in her late thirties, she's topless. He says the naked boy is 14, that the girl wearing clothes is 12. They're all touching in a sexual way.

"Sexfairy" writes, "brb," (be right back). A half hour later, she's on the phone with police, reporting Bernie Ward for child porn. They tell her to keep chatting with Ward.

In the days that follow, "Sexfairy" asks Ward for more pictures -- he complies. Then, police get a search warrant for Ward's AOL account. E-mail sent and received by "Vincentlio" had pictures attached.

An investigator writes, "several of the photographs depicted children engaged in or simulating sexual acts with adults or other children." The ages of the children in the pictures -- four to 17 years old.

There's so much more in the police report that we can't discuss because it's just too graphic. Federal prosecutors declined to be interviewed for this report. We've been unable so far to contact the woman known as "Sexfairy." I did reach Bernie Ward directly and he says he would like to tell his side of the story, but he has to take his attorneys' advice not to talk.

There are more new details of the case in the I-Team blog here.

Does that sound like Mr. Ward was researching a book to you?  I didn't think so.

Speaking from a personal standpoint I have to admit that, initially at least, Ward's story did have at least some level of credibility to me.  I know that in the course of writing this blog I frequently go to web sites I'd be ashamed to be associated with.  One good example is the number of times I visited the White supremacist/nazi site to confirm and reconfirm its link to the ron paul campaign. 

I certainly wasn't there because I enjoyed the site's White power and Jew-hating filth.  But if anyone claimed that was precisely my motive, how could I prove otherwise?

In the case of Ward, though, this new information pretty much puts a lid on any likelihood that he is an innocent victim.

The one issue I wonder about is why it took the police three years to arrest him (the incidents took place in 2004).  That's a very good question, one that I don't have any answer for.  I would hope the police do.

But how in the world does the timing of Bernie Ward's arrest change the nature of his behavior?

The answer is that it doesn't. 

Bye bye bernie.


Ken Berwitz

If you see what appears to be a mildly deranged middle aged woman meandering by, muttering things like "my son died in Iraq so I'm a star" and "there's GOT to be a TV camera somewhere", you just might be meeting cindy sheehan.

But if it happens today, you're in Cairo.

After becoming media's mega-darling for about two years because she hated George Bush so much, sheehan has fallen out of favor among domestic media.  Why?  Because she is challenging another media mega-darling, nancy pelosi, for Ms. pelosi's house seat. 

The media and the left (often one and the same) loved cindy --- until she turned her sights on one of their own, you see.  Now she's last week's crabcake.

With this in mind, please read this report  from Egypt, which details Ms. sheehan's latest quest for media coverage.  Here are the key excerpts:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan joined a protest Wednesday seeking the support of Egypt's first lady in ending a military trial of members of the country's largest Islamic organization.

Under the watchful eyes of dozens of black-clad and helmeted anti-riot police, some 50 heavily veiled wives and children of 40 senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood detained for the past year, gathered in front of the headquarters of first lady Suzanne Mubarak's National Council Women carrying banners calling for their release.

"I am here to protest the trial of civilians in front of a military tribunal as this is a violation to international law," said Sheehan, who gained fame in the U.S. for her sit-in outside President Bush's Texas ranch following the death of her son in Iraq.

"As a mother of a son who was killed in the war, I presented a letter to Ms. Suzanne Mubarak to realize how those women and children are suffering."

That's our cindy.  Now, instead of sunning herself on the side of the road in Crawford, Texas she's marching on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.  FYI, the Muslim Brotherhood is a sunni Muslim group with a grotesquely violent history that wants to take over Egypt for Allah, turning it into a theocracy bound strictly to shari'a law.

Ms. sheehan doesn't come out looking very good here, as you can see. But, as bad as it is, I consider the incessant invoking of her dead son Casey to be far more objectionable than this or anything else she does.

Casey Sheehan was a patriot.  He enlisted in the army and honorably served a full term of duty.  cindy sheehan explains this away by claiming he was fooled into enlisting by army recruiters (hey, maybe if she can't unseat pelosi there's a place for her on the Berkeley city council). 

But when Casey's tour of duty was up and the war in Iraq was imminent?  He re-enlisted.  Who "fooled" him that time?

Obviously, Casey's re-enlistment put the lie to sheehan's claim that he was duped into service.  But it also meant that he rejected his mother's views about the army and the war in Iraq.

Therefore, to exploit the corpse of Casey Sheehan as cindy sheehan relentlessly does is depraved.  He would not be on the marches she is on.  He was against what she rants for. 

Casey Sheehan's dead body is a publicity prop for his mother and little else.  She didn't even buy a HEADSTONE for him until over a year after he died.  She used his insurance money to buy a piece of land she used for her protests - a use that Casey would have found despicable.  cindy sheehan is a pig.

On the other hand, look what doing this has gotten her.  Because Casey Sheehan was a patriot who sacrificed his life for his country, mommy dearest cindy has fame and money.  She also has the love of USA haters, Israel haters, terrorists and fundamentalists (not much mutual exclusivity, is there?).  So you can't say the exploitation didn't work out.

Besides, now that she is in Egypt showing her solidarity with the Muslim Brotherhood, there's a terrific opportunity to milk some more publicity for her, maybe get USA media interested again.

I suggest a few publicity stills, with sheehan posing next to Egypt's greatest treasure.  The caption could read:   "Sphinx and stinx"


Ken Berwitz

Here is a story you won't see on CNN - and you won't see on other mainstream media either in all likelihood, because it hits too close to home.  It comes to us from

Thursday Feb 14, 2008

With A Healthy Dose Of Not-So-Thinly Veiled Condescension, CNN Sort Of Apologizes (Not Really)

Remember back in the day when we told you that Citizens United was threatening legal action against CNN for how its program, "Broken Government," depicted the organization? And then CNN largely brushed off the complaints, declaring:

    "These claims are baseless. CNN stands behind the program and the reporters involved."

Well, CNN has budged slightly (but not much). In a note from David Vigilante, vice president and associate general counsel for Turner broadcasting, to Bill Crispin, who's representing Citizens United in this matter, Vigilante doesn't really say "we're sorry," but does say that -- unless you're an idiot -- you should have known that we meant no harm by it. Again, unless you're an idiot.

We've obtained the text of the letter and reprint it here:

    This letter follows our recent telephone conversation. You sought additional clarification of CNN's position with respect to coverage of your client in the above program. I would reiterate that CNN's characterization of Citizens United as one of the "fringe militia" groups is a metaphor and is permissible and protected speech under the First Amendment. Throughout the program military language was used as a metaphorical, stylistic device and it is obvious to any reasonable viewer that CNN was by no means suggesting that Citizens United or any other group actually engages in military maneuvers or physical attacks. CNN regrets if anyone misunderstood this metaphor and took it literally, and we hope it is clear to any reasonable viewer that CNN did not intend to create this impression.

    Very truly yours,

    David Vigilante

And yes: We, like you, find it very funny that in a debate over the use of the word "militia," the last name of CNN's lawyer is "Vigilante."

Now that you've seen CNN's weaselly response, let me show you Citizens United's mission statement.  See how much militia activity you can find in it:

About Citizens United

Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.

American Sovereignty Project

American Sovereignty Project ("ASP") is the grassroots lobbying arm of Citizens United that works to protect American sovereignty and security. ASP's major objectives include complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations, defeat of the treaty to establish a permanent U.N.-controlled International Criminal Court, and rejection of one-world government.

Citizens United for the Bush Agenda

Citizens United for the Bush Agenda is the project through which Citizens United members work to enact key elements of President Bush's conservative legislative and policy agenda, including across the board tax cuts, complete elimination of the death tax, a strong national defense, deployment of a missile defense system, educational choice, and a reduction in government regulation and red tape..

The mission statement tells you everything you need to know about Citizens United. 

And the weaselly response above it tells you everything you need to know about CNN.


Ken Berwitz

Today's New York Times has a feature article by Adam Nagourney on the difficulty Hillary Clinton faces in trying to overcome Barack Obama's lead and become the Democratic presidential nominee.

This isn't what you'd call surprising news.  Neither is the excerpt I'm posting below -- but I am posting it because it coincides so well with what I've been telling you for over two months:

With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clintons advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clintons count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.

Mrs. Clinton won more votes than Mr. Obama in both states, though both candidates technically abided by pledges not to campaign actively there.

Mr. Obamas aides reiterated their opposition to allowing Mrs. Clinton to claim a proportional share of the delegates from the voting in those states. The prospect of a fight over seating the Florida and Michigan delegations has already exposed deep divisions within the party.

A reminder:  The Florida and Michigan delegations are, at least as of now, not going to be seated because they defied the DNC by moving up their primaries.  Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton pledged not to campaign in either state for this reason. 

Mr. Obama upheld his end of the bargain.  But Ms. Clinton did not.  She left her name on the ballot in Michigan (Obama removed his) and campaigned in Florida just before the primary. 

What Nagourney means when he says "both candidates technically abided by" their pledges not to do so?  That's anyone's guess.  After all, this is Adam Nagourney and he is writing for the New York Times. 

Look, the bottom line here is that Hillary Clinton is losing.  Not just the delegate count (that's bad enough, but it still is very close).  She is losing in support, in momentum and (arrgghh!!!) in money. 

We have talked a number of times already about what a Clinton will do in this situation.  Nagourney says she is prepared to take "a number of potentially incendiary steps".  Not just one. 

The seating of Florida and Michigan, in my expectation is small potatoes compared to what she is actually prepared to do.  And, let's be honest, she's got plenty to work with.

Barack Obama has been kissy-faced by media for months.  The love shown to Mr. Obama, with barely a negative word, has probably been the single most important reason for his rise. 

But there is a very different reality here.  Obama has huge negatives and weaknesses.  They include (but are not restricted to)

-His absolute lack of any experience which qualifies him to be president;

-His lack of any accomplishment in the US Senate other than using it as a basis for his presidential run;

-His membership in a racist, separatist, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish church (illustratively, the church magazine named Louis Farrakhan it's "Man of the Year" for 2007);

-His refusal to wear an American Flag pin or (it is reported) to put his hand on his heart during the pledge of allegiance;

-His willingness to allow a Houston campaign office to prominently hang a Cuban flag, with a picture of ernesto "che" guevara surpimposed on it and his unwillingness to demand, or even ask, that it be taken down;

-His support of legal drivers' licenses to illegal aliens;

-Etc. etc. etc. etc.****

And this is before we get to his possible Muslim background, the fact that his middle name is Hussein and the fact that he is a Black candidate.

Obviously some of the above negatives/weaknesses are more important than others.  Some are more reasonable than others.  But they all exist.  And who knows how many more there are?

If Hillary Clinton cannnot get the presidential nomination without using whatever there is to use against Obama, she will use it.  All of it.

You certainly know the Clintons well enough to know that.


****I am excluding Obama's cut and run pledge for Iraq.  While it can hurt him in a general election, I'm saddened to say that it probably works for him in the Democratic nominating process.


Ken Berwitz

Earlier today I blogged about jane fonda's use of the "c" word on this morning's Today show. 

I understand from the following article which I found at that fonda's interviewer, Meredith Viera, who seemed to enjoy hearing it at the time (see the video in my previous post) subsequently apologized to viewers for this language. 

But how sincere is the apology when the whole focus of the segment seemed to be how many times they could say vagina on-air?  Let me show you:

TODAY apologizes for Jane Fonda gaffe

Show says sorry after actor-feminist utters a vulgarity on the air
By Bob Considine contributor
updated 12:22 p.m. ET, Thurs., Feb. 14, 2008

Its almost impossible to discuss The Vagina Monologues without using the clinical word for the female body part. But when actor-feminist Jane Fonda uttered a substitute that you just cant say over the public airwaves Thursday on the TODAY Show, it caught everyone by surprise.

TODAY co-host Meredith Vieira apologized to viewers on behalf of Fonda and the program a few minutes later in the broadcast.

We were talking about The Vagina Monologues and Jane Fonda inadvertently said a word from the play that you don't say on television, Vieira said. It was a slip and obviously she apologizes, and so do we. We would do nothing to offend the audience. So please accept that apology.

The Oscar winner joined playwright Eve Ensler to commemorate the 10th anniversary of V-Day, an organization combating violence against women that was spun off from Enslers popular play The Vagina Monologues.

Fonda used the vulgarity which NBC omitted from its rebroadcasts in other time zones, as well as a clip of the segment on when she uttered part of the title of one of the sections of the play.

The 70-year-old was describing how she was originally reluctant to even see a play with such a controversial title, but also added that it changed her life once she had seen Enslers production.

I was theoretically a feminist, Fonda told Vieira. I knew that women have a right to our humanity and bodily integrity. I didnt always live it behind closed doors.

But when I saw The Vagina Monologues, I never laughed or cried so hard in the theater. I think it was while I was laughing that something happened and I kind of slipped into my body and I really changed.

The word and the show
The Vagina Monologues ran at the off-Broadway Westside Theatre in 1996. Ensler read all of the different narratives of women in the original production before it was recast with monologists.

Its all incredibly shocking and wonderful, Ensler said. I think at the beginning, my most pressing concern was surviving and getting the word out of my mouth in a little theater way downtown.

She said one of the biggest struggles of the show was incorporating using the V-word.

We werent allowed to say vagina on television. And CNN did a 10-minute piece on The Vagina Monologues and never mentioned the word, which was really a feat, Ensler said.

Fonda has starred in the play in productions all over the world including Israel, Mexico, India and the United States. Fonda even contributed $1 million to stage the play at Madison Square Garden in 2001.

The most moving thing is after the play watching the women come up to Eve and talk of their life experience, Fonda said.

Ensler said the play was originally crafted to celebrate womens sexuality, but she has been inundated with many sad stories of abuse from women after shows.

She coined the term femi-cide to describe a global pattern that is systematically undermining, undoing and desecrating women.

V-Days growth
In 1998, Ensler launched V-Day, a global nonprofit that has raised more than $50 million for local anti-violence groups and rape crisis centers.

The money, in part, is raised by staged benefit performances of the show worldwide between Feb. 1 and March 8, which is International Womens Day.

The 10-year anniversary of V-Day will be celebrated with the biggest production of The Vagina Monologues in its history. It will take place over two days at the New Orleans Arena and Louisiana Superdome on April 11-12.

Contributors to this adaptation will include Fonda, Salma Hayek, Oprah Winfrey, Jessica Alba, Jennifer Hudson, Glenn Close, Julia Stiles, Ali Larter, Sally Field, Marisa Tomei, Calpernia Addams, Rosario Dawson, Kerry Washington, and musicians Common, Eve and Charmaine Neville.

Discussing the New Orleans production, Ensler said the location is an appropriate venue.

New Orleans is the vagina of America, Ensler said.

Fonda grabbed the baton from her friend and ran with it, avoiding a repeat of the vulgarity she used earlier on the show, but nonetheless managing to continue to be provocative.

Think about it, she said. It's moist, it's a wetland, it's a place where people come for fun. And when things go south, forget about it.

Am I supposed to be impressed that, among the 2,854 or so times that the word "vagina" was happily, even gleefully intoned, the one time someone slipped and said "cunt" it was apologized for --- not even by the person who said it?

Look, I don't object to the the word vagina or a play about vaginas or how some women feel about their vaginas or how they feel about other women's vaginas.  This is the USA, and people are free to spend money hearing about vaginas non-stop if that's what they want to spend their money on.  But I can't help thinking that the Today show could find something just a tad more useful to talk about. 

Maybe, for example, Today could do a feature on the Barack Obama campaign headquarters in Houston that proudly hangs the Cuban flag with terrorist murderer "che" guevara superimposed on it.  

But, then, I guess I'm just a hopeless dreamer.  Obviously it is much more important for Today viewers to learn all about what jane fonda and eve ensler and Meredith Viera think about vaginas.

Personally I think these women are using their vaginas as a crotch.


Ken Berwitz

I read this jaw-dropping story  after reading about it at (where, it should be noted, I'm one of the contributors).  If these excerpts don't make you sick you have a cast-iron stomach:

It's Us WHo Pay

By Matthew Acton

UNEMPLOYED scrounger Mohammed Salim is getting the state to pay for him, his wife and their ELEVEN kidsbecause he can't be bothered to go to work.

He quit his 27,000 job teaching maths and science three years ago and is BETTER OFF claiming 29,096 a year in benefits.  And he has much more time to devote to his Islamic political party which ATTACKS the British government, even though this country gives his family their food, clothes and house for free.

Mohammed is also busy planning his TWELFTH baby with wife Noreen, 35, but has no plans to get a job.

He grinned: "For many years I worked in Derby as a teacher, earning 27,000 a year, and Noreen would be at home with the kids.  "I would come home at weekends. Then I moved back to work in Manchester and took a pay cut to 24,000. It was a load of c***.

"I was teaching at a college and I'd be up at 5.30am with the kids then have to go to work.  "I just couldn't be a***d with sitting in traffic. I'd be sat in traffic for hours and I felt like I'd done a day's work by the time I got there, I was so stressed."

The family we're all supporting live in a comfy five-bedroom house on a quiet street in Rochdale, Gtr Manchester. They get 19,000 a year Jobseeker's Allowance, 6,600 Child Benefit, 2,496 free school meals and 1,000 Council Tax Relief.

They have a minibus to swan around in, two TVs and a computer, plus a garden full of brightly-coloured toys. Noreen has never worked since marrying Mohammedwho is her cousinwhen she was 16.

As she sits on the sofa nursing their latest additionan as yet unnamed two-week-old girlMohammed explains: "I can't stand condoms.


"I used a condom once. It was awful. Never again, it's nothing like the real thing. It's up to God whether we have any more kids."  He chortles: "It says in the Bible and the Koran to go forth and multiply, and that's what we'll do. It's Noreen, she finds me irresistible!

But Mohammed worries about how he will send them to university because it is not free.

He said: "I think it's important for them to enjoy themselves and I make sure they have a good education.  "I don't know how we'd afford to send them to university.

"It's a shame really, because when I went it was free but you have to pay now. But it's in God's hands."

Mohammed moved to Britain from Pakistan in 1966, when he was eight. He went on to university and qualified as a teacher. He then taught computer studies, maths and science at primary and high schools and a higher education college in Manchester and Derbyshire until three years ago.

Soon afterwards he stood as a candidate in the Rochdale constituency in the 2005 General Election, using an anti-war message.   But he only got 361 votesless then one per cent of the total cast. Mohammed said: "It goes to show that we are not living in a democracy, because a democracy is supposed to reflect the opinions and the interests of the majority.

"The so-called democratic process has let down the Rochdale people, just as it let down the people of the entire country when the Blair government went to war in Iraq."

Previously, Mohammed staged a hunger strike in protest at the publication of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verseswhich some Muslims claimed was blasphemous.   He said: "The hunger strike was successful in that people saw I was prepared to make a sacrifice for what I believed in."


Now he spends his time running his political party, Islam Zinda Badd, whose name means Long Live Islam'.   He said: "I set it up to protest about the war in Iraq and the NHS, and we want to show that all Muslims are not terrorists.

"We use the Koran for guidance. We are not radical.  We believe that we should look after each other, especially children and the elderly, and that wealth should be shared.

"That is what is great about Britain. In Pakistan the government does not look after you like in England. The government here is so supportive.

"It will help people out of work and it has a good welfare state. Islam teaches sharing of wealth. The people who put money in might complain, but the people who can earn need to look after those who can't. The only people I object to are people who abuse the system."

We know just what you mean, Mohammed.

And he has no plans to go back to Pakistan despite his party's anger at British policy. He said: "I did want to move back at one point but now it is so unstableand I don't think we would be able to have the quality of life we have here." .

The absolute nerve!  The outrage!  I'm fit to be tied!  How DARE the government not pay for salim's 11 (soon to be 12) children to go to university!  How can they tease this poor unfortunate man by paying him more to sit home than he would get to go to work, and then denying his children an advanced degree too?  Is there no humanity left?

Now for some reality:  This human (?) sponge sits on his ass all day - when he's not sexing his wife without a condom or protesting how unjust the UK is, of course - and COMPLAINS about his treatment.

He's not a radical islamist, but he staged a hunger strike over the fact that Salman Rushdie wrote a book (an amazingly boring one, by the way, which I had trouble wading through even part of) that didn't kowtow to Allah. 

And he thinks he is owed the fruits of his voluntarily non-productive life because:

 Islam teaches sharing of wealth. The people who put money in might complain, but the people who can earn need to look after those who can't. The only people I object to are people who abuse the system."

In other words salim, an educated man perfectly capable of teaching math and science who decided not to bother, feels "the people who can earn need to look after those who can't", and he objects to "people who abuse the system"?

Take a good, long, hard, close look at Mohammed Salim, folks.  And then think about the United States of America.  Think about what non-productive people get here and what additional perks and benefits the left (Hillary and Barack included) demand for them.  Then factor in the health care and tuition beneifts among many other things) being demanded for illegal aliens.

Suddenly this article is starting to look more and more familiar, isn't it?


Ken Berwitz

Here is the key excerpt of an Associated Press story on how hezbollah's "chief", the coward hassan nasrallah, reacted to the February 12th assassination of imad mughniyah, its most prolific international terrorist, apparently by Israeli forces (though Israel denies it):

In a videotaped eulogy broadcast on a giant screen to thousands attending the south Beirut funeral for Mughniyeh, Nasrallah said Israel had taken the fight outside the "natural battlefield" of Israel and Lebanon.

"You have crossed the borders," he said. "With this murder, its timing, location and method Zionists, if you want this kind of open war, let the whole world listen: Let this war be open."

How interesting. 

In other words hezbollah, which operates without any legal standing in Lebanon and rains bombs on Israel every day from its civilian areas, is miffed that Israel is not fighting back fairly.  It is not fair, you see, that Israel goes after hezbollah's murdering terrorists when they have been squirreled away in another place (like nasrallah the coward was during Israel's attack on hezbollah last year).

Further, it is an outrage that Israel has "crossed the border" to kill a terrorist......whose rsum includes, among other things, bombing a Jewish community center in Argentina which killed almost 100 Jews there, bombing the Israeli embasssy in Buenos Aires and involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing which killed dozens of US military and civilian family members in Saudi Arabia.

Then the topper of them all:  "Zionists, if you want this kind of open war...etc"  Yep, Israel is the one making this international all right.

If Israel took out the terrorist murderer mughniyah, I salute them.  I applaud them.  I thank them.

And if the coward nasrallah doesn't like it, let him be on the front lines of the "open war" he is threatening.  Not hiding while the saps who listen him are doing the dying.

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!!