Friday, 15 February 2008


Ken Berwitz

I just saw this on www.orbusmax.,com.  And since I blogged about four Obama faintings, I thought you might want to know about 2 or 3 more:


  • VIDEO: circa Feb. 24th, 2007 - Obama in Los Angeles...
  • VIDEO: Dec. 8th, 2007 -- Obama in Iowa...

  • AUDIO: Feb. 8th, 2008 -- Encounters fainter at Key Arena speech in Seattle...
  • VIDEO: Feb. 4th, 2008 -- Obama in Hartford (START AT 6:05 MARK)...
  • VIDEO: Jan. 8th, 2008 -- Obama in Hanover, NH...
  • VIDEO: Sep. 8th, 2007 -- Obama in Santa Barbara, CA (START AT 6:29 MARK)...

    ANOTHER: Madison, Wis., Oct. 22, 2007...
    ******** JAMES TARANTO: Why do women keep fainting at Obama rallies *******
  • You have to start wondering if it's always the same person, don't you?  Stay tuned.

    What's left of Oral Roberts must be smiling broadly in his grave.

    Maybe Hillary can answer this by scaring up a series of women in her audiences who spontaneously get on their knees when she mentions Hubby Bubba.

    Steve This is the song that Obama reminds me of. Barack Obama, Superstar. Who are you, what kind of change are you are talking about? Barack Obama, Superstar, Who are you, what kind of change are you are talking about? Barack Obama, Superstar Who are you, what kind of change are you talking about? Adoph Hitler could really rally those masses, and Olde Joe Stalin could make them walk barefoot through broken glasses, And Ho Chin Minn, he could bring the crowd in, and that Po Pot he know how his words could make them hot... Now do you believe? Now Marshall Applewhite made them think that they were going to go to Heaven on a comet, and David Koresh he sent his faithful on a path to Armageddon. And of course we all know about olde Jim Jones. His people did what he told em and that Kool-aid got overflowin... Now do you believe? (the mesmerized crowd shouts back Yes we Believe) Now do you believe?(louder) Yes, we believe! Hallelujah now get that sister some water (the front row of women then faints). Barack Obama, Superstar, Who are you, what kind of change are you are talking about? Barack Obama, Superstar Who are you, what kind of change are you talking about? Now do you see yourself as as Che's Second comin... Or maybe you set yourself up on a path even higher. Perhaps you do see yourself as the new Messiah, start a new religion with you as its idol. Do you believe? Cults of personalities well they very rarely end well and with yours it could set the earth a trembling... For when you come unglued as all cult leaders in the end do, you could push that nuclear button and set the earth afire.. Barack Obama, Superstar, Who are you, what kind of change are you are talking about? Barack Obama, Superstar! Who are you, what kind of change are you talking about? Barack Obama, Superstar! Turing America into one big Manson Family Barack Obama, Superstar! Turning America into one big Manson Family (02/17/08)


    Ken Berwitz

    Israel must be getting tired of denying it had a hand in the deaths of high ranking terrorists with histories of attacks against them.

    Sort of the way you'd be tired after winning $1,000,000 at blackjack.

    Here are the particulars, courtesy of

    Who Is Killing All Of The Great Jihadis Of The Ummah?

    First Umad Mughniyeh takes the 72-virgin ride with a Bashar Assad Special. Now Ayman Atallah Fayed gets blasted in the most literal sense of the word. Both men were high-ranking members of terrorist groups arrayed against Israel. Coincidence?

    A powerful blast went off in the house of a senior Islamic Jihad activist Friday, killing him, his wife and daughter, along with three neighbors, medics and an Islamic Jihad spokesman said.

    Islamic Jihad claimed Israeli warplanes struck the home of Ayman Atallah Fayed. Israel denied it had launched any airstrike in the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza where Fayed lived. Hamas police said the cause of the blast was not clear.

    Witnesses reported seeing fragments of what looked like locally produced rockets at the scene, suggesting the house may have been used to store arms


    Of course, the explosion could have something to do with the fact that Fayed had his family living on a pile of bombs. Perhaps someone was tinkering with one in the house and connected the right wire at the wrong time. That also could have created the huge scope of the blast. With a lot of ordnance inside, a single explosion could have been amplified greatly through the secondary explosions of the other rockets.

    It does seem more than a little coincidental, though. Leading members of two of Israel's biggest enemies getting their martyrdom visas stamped within days of each other would be awfully lucky for the Israelis. Unless, of course, the Israelis were the ones stamping those visas in the first place.

    I love that title, don't you?  It is a great pun on "Who is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe".  And the 72 virgin ride is a terrific turn of phrase.  Ed Morrissey is a first-rate writer.

    But the best part?  That this subhuman scumbag and his bomb factory are gone. 

    Yeah, I know he'll be replaced.  There seems to be no shortage of lunatic murdering islamic Jew-hating scum.  Even so, it's nice to see one of the worst of them get his.


    Ken Berwitz

    Have you ever wondered why a relatively moderate to conservative congressional district in Pennsylvania keeps electing the corrupt, often semi-coherent defeatist weasel john murtha in his congressional seat?  Want to see the answer in one sentence?  Okay, Im happy to oblige.  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.  That's your sentence.

    The following report, from a local TV station in murtha's district, offers an excellent example of what I'm talking about:

    The following is a transcript of a report by Paul Van Osdol that first aired Feb. 15, 2008, on WTAE Channel 4 Action News at 5 p.m.

    A Team 4 investigation found millions of your tax dollars going to a local government agency that many in Washington, including President George W. Bush, believe is a waste.

    But a powerful local congressman has kept the money flowing.

    In July 1977, a flood devastated Johnstown, killing 80 people and destroying the downtown. Many businesses never recovered, including the Penn-Traffic department store.

    But in the early 1990s, U.S. Rep. John Murtha persuaded Washington to move a new federal agency, the National Drug Intelligence Center, into the old department store.

    Now, more than 300 people work there, and it's one of Johnstown's biggest employers.

    "Our payroll represents several million dollars a year to the Johnstown economy," said Michael Walther of the NDIC.

    That's good for Johnstown, but critics said the NDIC has not been good for taxpayers.

    Team 4's Paul Van Osdol talked to a former top administrator at the federal Drug Enforcement Agency who helped create the intelligence center in the early 1990s. He had serious concerns about its effectiveness back then, and he said nothing has changed.

    There's no question that all the senior people in law enforcement, federal law enforcement, saw really no reason for it," said former DEA deputy Jim Milford.

    "We don't tell the police which doors to kick in or which cars to search, but what we do is we look at the big picture," said Walther.

    They also do something called document exploitation, which is analyzing records seized in drug raids.

    Critics of the intelligence center said it's an important function, but it makes no sense for agents working along the Mexican border to haul those records to Johnstown.

    "It would be better if there was a document exploitation computer forensics group in each field division of the FBI and DEA," said Milford.

    Sen. Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma, has been a persistent critic of the center.

    "When you talk to the justice department, when you talk to the military, when you talk to everybody that's been involved in this, very rarely do you get a supportive statement about what happens at NDIC," said Coburn.

    In fact, for the past three years, Bush has tried to eliminate the $40 million-per-year center by taking it out of the budget.

    But Murtha, one of the most powerful members of Congress, has made sure the money stayed in the budget. It's called earmarking, and Murtha has used it to funnel millions of dollars into local projects, making him, according to the New York Times, the "King of Pork."

    Van Osdol: "Where would you guys be without (John) Murtha?"

    Walther: "Well, he has been very good to us."

    Murtha declined Team 4's request for an interview. But Van Osdol caught up with him in Washington where he was speaking to a group of Pentagon contractors.

    Van Osdol: "Congressman, what about the National Drug Intelligence Center?"

    Murtha: "You're from WTAE?"

    Van Osdol: "Yes sir."

    Murtha: "Nice to see you."

    Van Osdol: "What are you going to do to secure funding for that, sir?"

    When Van Osdol tried to keep asking questions, one of Murtha's men tried to block the camera.

    Van Osdol: "Congressman, can you respond to the criticism that people say NDIC is just a pork barrel program?"

    Murtha: "No comment. How's that?"

    Van Osdol: "Why don't you want to talk about that program, sir?"

    Murtha: "Just talk to them about it. Talk to NDIC."

    Van Osdol: "We've talked to NDIC."

    Murtha: "What did they tell you?"

    Van Osdol: "They say you are the man who keeps it going."

    Murtha: "That's right. You got that right."

    But Murtha had plenty to say when Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers tried to take the Intelligence Center out of the budget last year.

    Murtha allegedly told him, "I hope you don't have any earmarks in the Defense Appropriation Bill, because they are gone, and you will not get any earmarks now and forever."

    An attempt to reprimand Murtha over that statement failed to get enough votes.

    Sen. Coburn said the Intelligence Center symbolizes all that is wrong with Washington.

    "We can't continue to have members of Congress on a whim because they want to help somebody throw $500 million at a problem without expecting legitimate, measurable results," said Colburn.

    But the center's director expects the flow of money to continue.

    "Everybody knows in their heart of hearts at the end of the day, we're not going anyplace," said Walther.

    Milford said he's semi-surprised the center still exists.

    "I'm surprised form a standpoint of the resources that are available to law enforcement today, that people continue to push a center such as that, that, frankly, as far as I'm concerned, has never been effective," said Milford.

    A study by the group Taxpayers for Common Sense found Murtha led all house members in earmarks this year with $176 million in local projects. Congress passed 12,000 earmarks, costing $18 billion.

    In his State of the Union speech, Bush proposed eliminating earmarks, but political experts said there is little chance of that happening.

    In fact, Murtha's committee has already set up a link on its Web site for congressmen to make earmark requests.


    john murth is arrogant.  He is abusive.  He thinks he is above having to answer for his actions. 

    murtha is a political bully who threatens fellow congresspeople with retribution if they dare to question the useless porkbarrel money that he relentlessly thows into his district (he had to publicly apologize for the incident you just read about, by the way). 

    But as long as murtha greases his district with $$$$$$$, regardless of whether there is any value received for it, he is going to continue being re-elected. 

    Remember how many attacks there were on Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska because of his proposed "bridge to nowhere"?  He deserved every one of those attacks.  The bridge would have cost almost $400 million dollars.

    Well, here is a boondoggle to nothing from john murtha.  It has cost $500 million dollars.  Not "would have cost", but DID cost.  And I'm betting that this is the first you've ever read about it.

    When it comes to media, folks, that is the difference between having an R or a D after your name.


    Ken Berwitz

    As a kid growing up in the '50's. I remember looking forward to watching Oral Roberts on Sunday morning.  I couldn't wait.

    No, I was not an evangelical Christian at the time.  I was a Jewish kid growing up in Queens.  But that segment where he appeared to magically heal sick people was great!  After confirming some old lady's faith in the lord, he would put his hand on her forehead, scream HEAL!  HEAL! and that would do the trick.  Every week, just like clockwork.

    Politically, it appears that Barack Obama may now be doing something very similar.  Except he doesn't put his hand on a woman's head and scream HEAL!  HEAL!  Instead, the woman stands up in a very conspicuous place in the audience and goes FAINT!  FAINT!

    Here, let me show you, courtesy of  Hang onto your hat, you're not going to believe it (if you have any trouble linking to the video, just click here:

    Tuesday, February 12, 2008

    Oh Obamaaaaaa! (Insert Fainting Now)

    Update: Coincidence?: Our morning show host Ray Dunaway pointed this out after sifting through DU. A little research and this is what I came up with. Coincidence? The Obama version of "crying"? Or am I just cynical (hard not to be these days)? There seems to be a trend at Obama rallies ... women fainting. And interestingly enough the Senator responds the same way every time, almost as if ... naah, couldn't be.

    It happened here in
    Hartford ....
    Throughout the speech, Obama kept a close eye on the crowd. Upon hearing a small group begin chanting We cant wait a phrase Obama had just used he pointed them out with an outstretched arm, and within seconds the entire arena was chanting the phrase in unison.
    And when a woman appeared to faint in the standing-only VIP section in front of the podium, Obama paused his speech for over a minute as he directed the crowd to make way for an EMT team and tossed a bottle of water from the stage.

    but also
    here in New Hampshire ...

    oh yeah ...
    and here ... in Seattle
    Climate change, the Iraq war and Obama tossing a bottle of water to a woman about to faint all received big cheers. As Obama told the crowd to part so that the woman in question could leave and called for help, a young girl in the crowd shouted out, "What a man!"

    and In LA ... maybe this one started it all.
    He spoke for about 20 minutes, hitting his core themes of optimism and accountability."What's called for is a level of responsibility and seriousness that we haven't seen in a very long time," he told the cheering crowd, which included college students in short sundresses and big sunglasses and older couples in peace symbols.A woman standing in front of the stage appeared to faint as Obama spoke about Iraq. The candidate paused and asked the crowd to make way for firefighters.One supporter shouted, "You're a good man," leaving Obama momentarily at a loss for words."Well, I'm not the only one stopping to help her," he said, sounding almost embarrassed.

    and wait ...
    here too in Madison ... and that was before he even got there.
    Obama exited to an exuberant crowd shouting, fired up! and ready to go! Before the senator arrived, students were tossing around an inflatable cow above the crowd. Three people fainted in the midst of all the enthusiasm.

    This could be a really swell game ... count the number of people on the campaign overcome by the "vapas". OK ... one more time ... it has to be hypnosis.

    Thanks to Jim Geraghty at National Review for giving us a link. Thanks Jim!.
    Now let's be fair.  This could just be a coincidence.  A regularly scheduled, once-a-month-or-so-like-clockwork coincidence.
    Or maybe Obama's message of "change" is, in reality a message of "the more things change the more things remain the same".


    Ken Berwitz

    So you think that Barack Obama is the new politics and Hillary Clinton is the old?  Better think again.

    Mr. Obama, a veteran of Chicago Democratic politics (which should already disabuse you of that thought) is about as "old politics" as it gets.

    Want proof?  Read this article from Capitol Eye, an arm of  the Center for Responsive Politics, and see for yourself.  I'll show you a couple of the key excerpts below:

    February 14, 2008 | At this summer's Democratic National Convention, nearly 800 members of Congress, state governors and Democratic Party leaders could be the tiebreakers in the intense contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If neither candidate can earn the support of at least 2,025 delegates in the primary voting process, the decision of who will represent the Democrats in November's presidential election will fall not to the will of the people but to these "superdelegates"the candidates' friends, colleagues and even financial beneficiaries. Both contenders will be calling in favors.

    And while it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

    Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 81 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 34, or 40 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $228,000. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.

    Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $195,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.

    And t isn't that Hillary can't play the game either, I assure you.  It is just that Barack is playing it longer and more extravagantly.

    You may like and prefer to vote for Barack Obama.  If so, that's fine with me.  It is 100% your right to do so.

    But if your preference is in any way based on the belief that Mr. Obama's message of "change" applies to politics as usual, then you maybe should think some more.


    Ken Berwitz

    In my previous blog I implored you to read the links which detail how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have quietly been conducting meetings with assad, Syria's terrorist, murdering head of state.  I pointed out that this is being done with almost total cover from mainstream media and questioned why that would be the case.

    Well, here's one link you won't have to click on.  I've decided to put up the New York Sun's editorial on this subject so you will have no doubt about what is going on here.

    Read every word.  Then you can wonder, along with me, why the New York Times and/or Washington Post and/or LA Times and/or other major dailies and/or network news shows are ignoring it:

    'Realism' in Syria

    New York Sun Editorial
    February 15, 2008

    What in the world are advisers to both Senators Obama and Clinton doing in Syria in the middle of a presidential campaign and why are the two campaigns so unforthcoming about the details of the visits? The same week that a terrorist mastermind harbored by the Baathist regime in Damascus was assassinated by a car bomb, both one of Mr. Obama's foreign policy counselors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a long-time critic of Israel, and one of Mrs. Clinton's national finance chairs, Hassan Nemazee, were meeting with President Assad.

    Mr. Brzezinski himself issued a statement to the Baathist controlled press in Damascus, where he was quoted by the official Sana News Agency as saying that the "talks dealt with recent regional developments, affirming that both sides have a common desire to achieve stability in the region, which would benefit both its people and the United States." There was no indication in respect of whether Mr. Brzezinski queried the Syrian regime, officially listed by our own State Department as a terrorist-sponsoring state, about the assassination of Hezbollah's Imadh Mugniyah, who was slain by a car-bomb as, according to the Lebanese Broadcasting Channel, he was leaving a ceremony at an Iranian school in Damascus.

    When our Eli Lake, telephoned the Obama campaign to see what it had to say about its adviser's doings in Syria, a spokesman said it was the first they had heard about it. Mr. Nemazee's office would not say anything about the trip, nor would Mrs. Clinton's campaign. When Mr. Lake rang the Four Seasons Hotel in Damascus, he was informed that Mr. Nemazee had left with the delegation yesterday.

    Where is the sense of reality about who President Assad is and what his regime is all about? To suggest, as the Syrians report Mr. Brzezinski said, that they share some kind of common interest in respect of "stability" is disingenuous. Mugniyah, whom the Syrians had been harboring, has been among the FBI's most-wanted terrorists since 1983, when he authorized the attack on the American Marine barracks in Beirut. Mr. Assad runs a police state. Dictatorships can only thrive if the population is in constant terror and convinced the state itself is all knowing.

    This has lead some to speculate that the Syrian regime itself might have been complicit in the killing of Mugniyah. We wouldn't gainsay the possibility entirely. Terrorists like drug dealers and mafiosos fight over turf all the time. What we would gainsay is that a benign construction could be put onto the role of the Assad family's Baathist regime in Syria. If the assassination of Mugniyah is a sign of anything, it is most likely that the Baathist regime is itself losing its grip on power. After all Mugniyah was a valuable asset for Mr. Assad, who relied on his capabilities to continue to threaten the prospect of a stable Lebanon.

    * * *

    So where's the "realism" on the part of Mr. Brzezinski and other so-called foreign policy "realists," who have accused President Bush of foreign policy malpractice for downgrading relations with Syria after the Syrians threw in with the Iranians to sabotage Iraq? Why are advisers to Senators Clinton and Obama in the Syrian capital at a time like this? Are they pressing for a separate peace with the regime? It is something on which Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton will be challenged in the coming campaign, we have little doubt. Where do they stand in respect of Syria and why can't they bring themselves to explain what their advisers are doing in the capital of one of the countries most hostile to America and Israel?


    Ken Berwitz

    I have no idea if what you are about to read in the following two articles is true.  I want to be 100% clear about this up front.

    But if it is?  Goodbye Barack Obama.  End of campaign.

    I do know that Robert Novak wrote what is referenced in the first piece.  I read it myself at that time....and made nothing of it because there were no specific names mentioned.

    The second piece details charges that have been filed against Senator Barack Obama and implicate him in drug usage and gay sex.  This is entirely new to me and, as mentioned at the beginning, I do not know if there is any validity to the story.  But I am posting it for you to make up your own mind:.


    Monday November 19th, 2007 9:10 AM by BHDC Staff  
    Filed under:
    Scandals, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Robert Novak

    oabam.jpgRobert Novak revealed this weekend that the long rumored sitting Democratic senator with a devastating scandal in his background is presidential candidate Barack Obama.

    Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the partys presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it, Novak reported. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.

    The Clinton campaign has denied it has such information, but, still, tongues are wagging. Could Obama have cheated on his wife, Michelle, which is the most likely scandalous scenario? Or is something even more sinister involved?

    For his part, Obama was quick to strike back, calling the Novak article slime politics.


    Thursday February 14th, 2008 2:47 PM by BHDC Staff  
    Filed under:
    Sex, Scandals, Barack Obama, Drugs, Larry Sinclair, David Axelrod

    Larry Sinclair filed suit in Minnesota District Court on Monday against Barack Obama, along with Obamas campaign strategist David Axelrod and others, regarding issues stemming from Sinclairs allegations that he used cocaine and performed a sexual act with Obama in 1999. Abbreviated excerpt:

    This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1981, 18 U.S.C. 241 and the First Amendment of the United States Constitutions right to Freedom of Speech. Defendants have and continue to conspire against the rights of citizens in that they are actively engaged in ongoing internet intimidation, claim to be conducting illegal investigations into plaintiffs personal life, actively involved in preventing allegations of illegal drug use and sexual activity involving Defendant Obama from becoming public knowledge.

    Plaintiff states that he personally engaged in sexual activity and personally used illegal drugs in November 1999 with U.S. Senator Barack Obama on two separate occasions. Plaintiff states that he attempted to contact defendant Obama in the fall of 2007 to advise defendant Obama to make his 1999 use of illegal drugs public himself and that if he did not do so then plaintiff would have no choice but to come forward as defendants actions were relevant to his running for President of the United States. Defendant Obama ignored plaintiffs attempts to allow defendant Obama to reveal this information on his own.


    Both of these come from the web site  I don't know a thing about this website and cannot vouch for (or against) its credibility.

    But, just for a moment, think about how many times you'd already have read about it if the person in question was a Republican....I don't know, maybe a Mark Foley or a Larry Craig for example.  Would media be waiting for proof positive before running with the allegations?  DID they in the case of Foley (never charged with even one count of anything) or Craig?

    Is it possible that this is Hillary's nuclear option? 

    If so, and there is any credible evidence (there certainly would have to be more that what I just posted), you'll have Ms. Clinton on the ballot in November.  Because this would summarily end Mr. Obama's campaign run and possibly his entire political career.

    steve schneider ah, the lovely clintons who so adamently are against the politics of personal destruction....if this has legs obama is done. steve (02/16/08)


    Ken Berwitz

    I hate that Mike Gallagher wrote this before I did.  I hate that I didn't post my exact same opinion - the one I railed about to my wife this morning - before reading Mr. Gallagher's column.  I fully intended to do so.

    But I am nothing if not honest.  He wrote it first, and his version was so good that I am conceding defeat and just putting it in front of you.

    I am, however, using the above title, which I came up with after my wife rolled her eyes and left the room. 

    You can read Mr. Gallagher's entire piece right here.  The key part, however,  is shown below:

    Congress Should Worry About Its Own Business Not Baseball's
    By Mike Gallagher
    Friday, February 15, 2008

    The headline in my morning paper was the height of mediocrity: A Standoff Over Steroids.

    Edward R. Murrow would be proud.

    Watching Congressman Henry Waxman interrogate baseballs Roger Clemens this week was maddening. In the middle of a war, while the right to intercept electronic messages by our terrorist enemies is being thwarted by anti-war Democrats, as the economy lumbers down some shaky railroad tracks, and illegal immigrants continue to stream across the border siphoning social services from our local communities, a bunch of grandstanding Congressmen have decided to grind Washington, D.C. to a halt and decide if some pampered, spoiled millionaire baseball player is telling the truth when he denies having Human Growth Hormone injected into his butt.

    In the grand scheme of life, I wonder how many taxpayers are on the edge of their seats wondering if some trainer named Brian McNamee is being truthful when he testified that Clemens is lying about his use of steroids and HGH.

    It ranks right up there with concern about what Brittney Spears is going to do next in her train wreck of a life.

    Id like to believe that most of us have full enough lives that the personal habits of baseball players or pop divas dont even register as a blip on our collective radar.

    Its one thing to see paparazzi (what a stupid word) stalk Hollywood celebrities like a bunch of crazed vultures and realize what a ridiculous environment could lead to such a debacle in la-la land.

    Its quite another to recognize that our tax dollars have funded this baseball/steroid three ring circus, a giant waste of government resources if there ever was one.

    Wait, there's more:  Today's New York Times sports section has an article headlined "Waxman Regrets Hearing Was Held".  Incredibly, he is quoted as saying:

    Im sorry we had the hearing. I regret that we had the hearing. And the only reason we had the hearing was because Roger Clemens and his lawyers insisted on it.

    You can't say Waxman doesn't have chutzpah.  Here is a man on a life-mission to "investigate" anything and everything that allows him to sit in a big chair and wield a big gavel.  He realizes after the fact what a jerk he looked like yesterday.  So who does he blame?  Roger Clemens. 

    Yeah, that's the ticket.  Roger Clemens and his lawers FORCED the congress of the United States to hold this hearing.  Roger is always doing things like that.  Why just last year he prevented the Democratic congress from doing just about everything on every issue too.  DAMN that Roger Clemens.  If it weren't for him the country would be on the move again.

    Like the title says.  A little man with a big gavel.  And, apparently, an even bigger propensity for making imbecilic statements to cover his little ass.

    steve schneider we had the exact discussion and opinion at work today. it was the first time that i can remember when democrats and republicans fully agreed, these hearings were a total waste of time and money, especially considering the important things that congress should be working on. steve (02/15/08)


    Ken Berwitz

    I don't know how Michael Savage got his hands on Bernie Ward's arrest report, but he did.  And he put it on his website.  All 23 pages.

    This is obviously far, far too long for me to post in a single blog.  So if you want to see it - complete with Ward's actual chat comments (which I assure you are both graphic and perverse), just click here

    Make sure you have antacid and a barf bag - a big one - close by.

    I see a combination of irony and justice in the fact that Michael Savage has made this report public.  

    The ironic part is how similar Savage and Ward are as radio personalities.  Michael Savage is the right wing answer to Ward - a hardline, extremely blunt, sarcastic and offensive advocate for his side of things and against the other side.  In this respect Savage and Ward are two peas in a pod (albeit at opposite ends of the pod).

    But I'm sure that, as Savage sees it, there is an element of justice in what is happening to Ward.  Savage, you see, has for months been under siege by CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) because of his aggressive comments about radical Islam. 

    I have no doubt that Savage considers CAIR a terrorist-supporting front group posing as an Islamic civil rights and charitable organization.  If so, he certainly has good reasons, since several of CAIR's leaders have been directly associated with anti-USA and/or terrorist groups.  And I'm sure that Mr. Savage believes media have bent over backwards to allow this attack to continue smoothly, without a hitch, while giving all sorts of slack to Bernie Ward:

    -Media initially reported Bernie Ward's arrest, with most venues happy to present Ward's side of the story as well.  That's certainly fair enough.  But those same media have buried this story ever since, including the surfacing of the absolutely dead-to-rights report I have given you the link to above.

    -By contrast, media have not only reported only sporadically about the ties between CAIR's leaders and terrorist groups, but have allowed CAIR to go after Savage with virtually no mention at all of who they are and what their motives could be.

    I'm guessing that Mr. Savage feels this is a double standard.  A big double standard.  An 800 lb gorilla in the middle of the road double standard.  And his way is not to go into defensive mode, but rather to attack even harder. 

    Personally I am no fan of Michael Savage's at all.  But given who he is up against, I wish him every success in his fight.

    One other thing about Ward - which I mean literally, not sarcastically at all:  If I were someone who cared about him (and he does have a wife, children and plenty of sympathizers if what I've read on line is any indication), I would keep a special suicide-watch eye on him. 

    Now that the verbatim narrative of what Ward talked about and the description of pictures he passed along (child sex featured among them) are available to the public, his shame and humiliation might very well be at a level where he would consider the possibility.


    Ken Berwitz

    Do you care at all about Israel?  Do you want it to survive?  Do you want the USA to remain its staunch ally and not give away the store to its enemies - enemies that we ourselves define as terrorist states?

    If so, I beg you to read every link in the following story from Scott Johnson of

    Not serious about foreign policy either

    Yesterday I noted Eli Lake's New York Sun story on Zbigniew Brzezinski's trip to Damascus. In Damascus Brzezinski met with Assad and senior officials of his regime, whose security he seeks to promote. This at the same time that the world was reminded of the Syrian sancturary of terrorist mass murderer Imad Mugniyeh. On Wednesday Brzezinski issued a statement affirming that both Syria and the United States have a common desire to achieve stability in the region. Zbigniew Brzezinski is the kind of "realist" who can't see what's in front of his nose.

    Today Lake returns to report that one of Hillary Clinton's national finance chairmen for Ms. Hillary's presidential campaign -- Hassan Nemazee -- left Damascus last night after a visit there as part of the same RAND Corp. delegation that Brzezinski headed. The Clinton campaign offered Lake no comment on Nemazee's Syrian visit last night. The New York Sun is more forthcoming in its editorial on the subject.

    A Google News search on "Brzezinski Damascus" reveals again today that the Obama/Clinton delegation to Syria remains a deep secret confined to readers of the New York Sun, Power Line and Martin Peretz..

    I have little doubt that you did not know about this until now.  The reason is that, as a hopeless news junkie who works at getting dramatically more information of this type than the average guy, I didn't know about this until now.

    Explain to me, if you can, why mainstream media are burying the dealings of both Obama and Clinton with the terrorist state of Syria? 

    Can it simply be that they hate Republicans so much that it is ok to suppress the possibility of both Democratic candidates backstabbing Israel?  Do they figure that ignorance of these dealings will help the eventual nominee with supporters of Israel -- especially Jewish voters who, if they knew about it, might have to think harder about supporting the Democrat?

    Or is it that they are that much against Israel?

    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!!