Friday, 14 March 2008


Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I put up two videos of Barack Obama's most important religious confidant, spiritual advisor and now political advisor, jeremiah wright.  In them he was preaching his messages of hate from the pulpit of the Trinity United Church of Christ. 

Today I find that both videos cannot be utilized.  I get a message saying that they are no longer available. 

I wonder how that happened.  Well, in whose interest is it that nobody see the man Obama is umbilically tied to in action?  You got it.

But here is another source -  Let's hope this one isn't censored too:

The ABC News report to which AP linked earlier talked about it, but watching it makes it come a little closer to home. Eyeblast picks up the ABC report on this and merges it with a portion of Wrights speech from the video we posted yesterday:

If Hillary Clinton had to repudiate Geraldine Ferraro for her clumsy and foolish identity-politics rhetoric, then Obama surely has to provide a better response to Wright than comparing him to a crazy uncle in the attic. Wright has a largely ceremonial position in the Obama campaign, but an obvious influence on Obama, as he named his book after a theme from Wrights sermon.

Also, does it surprise anyone that these sermons have just now begun surfacing? It looks like someone finally began doing some research into Reverend Wright I wonder who that could be?

Watch it fast.  There are people who DO NOT want you to see the man Mr. Obama reveres.


Ken Berwitz

Here's a line I'll bet the (Obama-loving) New York Times wishes it never published.

It comes from an article on April 30 of last year.  It is jeremiah wright TELLING us that Obama is going to have to pretend the two of them are not as close as they actually are:

If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me, Mr. Wright said with a shrug. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.

In other words, "No big deal, we'll put one over on them and it'll be easy". 

Not surprisingly, this article was uncovered by - again - You can read it in its entirety by clicking here.  Believe me, there is plenty more to chew on than just this quote.

Simply stated, Barack Obama is a balloon ready to burst.  And jeremiah wright is his aneurysm.

Here, by the way, is the picture of Mr. Obama and wright from that article.  Do they look distanced from each other to you?


Ken Berwitz

What else is new? 

The sun rises in the east, the tide comes in and out, there is death, there are taxes and Hillary Clinton lies.

Leave it to (god I love this web site) to locate the proof - this time via a combination of the London Telegraph and Hillary Clinton's own book. 

Here it is (their bold print, not mine):

Hillary: I Was Instrumental To N Irish Peace

March 14th, 2008

From the UKs Telegraph:

Mrs. Clinton holds the historic teapot she received at a photo op during her husbands visit to Belfast Northern Ireland.

Hillary Clinton: I was instrumental in Northern Ireland peace process

By Toby Harnden in Washington
March 14, 2008

Hillary Clinton, accused last week by a Nobel Peace Prize winner of exaggerating her claims of having helped bring peace to Northern Ireland, has raised the stakes by stating she was instrumental in doing so.

The former First Lady laughed and dismissed criticisms she had inflated her foreign policy experience in Northern Ireland and Bosnia as nitpicking on Thursday.

When asked by National Public Radio whether she had been in the centre of the room during North Ireland peace talks, she said: What I was was part of a team and that team included obviously the principal negotiators under the direct authority of my husband.

I wasnt sitting at the negotiating table but the role I played was instrumental. I guess it was in December when Ian Paisley [Democratic Unionist Party leader] and Martin McGuinness [Sinn Fein leader] came to the United States.

I think they met with the leadership of Congress, with the President and with me and they thanked me publicly for the role I had played.

Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with John Hume of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party in 1998, told The Daily Telegraph last week that Mrs Clintons claims were a wee bit silly.

This month, Terry McAuliffe, Mrs Clintons campaign chairman, told CNN: We would not have peace today had it not for Hillarys hard work in Northern Ireland.

Both Unionist and Nationalist negotiators told this newspaper that while Mrs Clintons work with womens groups was positive her overall role was peripheral and she played no part in the gruelling negotiations that took years

Greg Craig, a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama who served in President Bill Clintons administration at the time of the talks, said the inflated claim called into question Mrs Clintons judgement.

Did the Irish have anything to do with this?Im not aware she solved any of the many, many thorny problems that had to be resolved, whether it was disarmament or whatever.

He cited accounts of the Northern Ireland talks by George Mitchell, who chaired them, and Madeleine Albright, then US Secretary of State, that hardly featured Mrs Clinton.

If you look at the books that deal with the American side she doesnt figure in any significant way, certainly not instrumental.

Mrs. Clinton doesnt seem to be able to stop herself.

As we have previously documented, her contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process consists entirely of having attended a photo op at a safe house where Catholic and Protestant Irish women had been meeting for nearly ten years.

But dont take our word for her lack of importance to the negotiations. Here is Mr. Clintons account of their history-changing visit to Belfast from his ghostwritten autobiography, My Life, p 618:

The next day I flew to Belfast as the first American President ever to visit Northern Ireland. It was the beginning of two of the best days of my presidency. On the road in from the airport, there were people waving American flags and thanking me for working for peace. When I got to Belfast, I made a stop on the Shankill Road, the center of Protestant Unionism, where ten people had been killed by an IRA bomb in 1993. The only thing most of the Protestants knew about me was the Adams visa. I wanted them to know I was working for a peace that was fair to them, too. As I bought some flowers, apples, and oranges from a local shop, I talked to people and shook a few hands.

In the morning I spoke to the employees and other attendees at Mackie International, a textile machine manufacturer that employed both Catholics and Protestants. After being introduced by two children who wanted peace, one Protestant, the other Catholic, I asked the audience to listen to the kids: Only you can decide between division and unity, between hard lives and high hopes. The IRAs slogan was Our day will come. I urged the Irish to say to those who still clung to violence, You are the past, your day is over.

Afterward, I stopped on the Falls Road, the heart of Belfasts Catholic community. I visited a bakery and began to shake hands with a quickly growing crowd of citizens. One of them was Gerry Adams. I told him that I was reading The Street, his book of short stories about the Falls, and that it gave me a better feel for what the Catholics had been through. It was our first public appearance together, and it signaled the importance of his commitment to the peace process. The enthusiastic crowd that quickly gathered was obviously pleased at the way things were going.

In the afternoon Hillary and I helicoptered to Derry, the most Catholic city in Northern Ireland and John Humes hometown. Twenty-five thousand cheering people filled the Guildhall Square and the streets leading to it. After Hume introduced me, I asked the crowd a simple question: Are you going to be someone who defines yourself in terms of what you are against or what you are for? Will you be someone who defines yourself in terms of who you arent or who you are? The time has come for the peacemakers to triumph in Northern Ireland, and the United States will support them as they do.

Hillary and I ended our day by returning to Belfast for the official lighting of the citys Christmas tree just outside city hall, before a crowd of about fifty thousand people, which was fired up by the singing of Northern Irelands own Van Morrison: Oh, my mama told me therell be days like this. We both spoke; she talked about the thousands of letters we had received from schoolchildren expressing their hopes for peace, and I quoted from one written by a fourteen-year-old girl from County Armagh: Both sides have been hurt. Both sides must forgive. Then I ended my remarks by saying that for Jesus, whose birth we celebrated, no words more important than these: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the earth.

After the tree lighting, we attended a reception, to which all the party leaders were invited. Even the Reverend Ian Paisley, the fiery leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, came. Though he wouldnt shake hands with the Catholic leaders, he was only too happy to lecture me on the error of my ways. After a few minutes of his hectoring, I decided the Catholic leaders had gotten the better end of the deal.

Hillary and I left the reception for our night at the Europa Hotel. On that first trip to Ireland, even our choice of lodging carried great symbolism. The Europa had been bombed on more than one occasion during the Troubles; now it was safe for the President of the United States to stay there.

It was the end of a perfect day

Note that Mr. Clinton did not even bother to mention Hillarys meeting with the local women for tea.

And that is simply because it and she did nothing whatsoever to forward the peace negotiations.

Mrs. Clintons lies arent fooling anyone except those who want to be duped. (Such as the NPR audience.)

Between the flyweight Obama and the lieweight Clinton, John McCain must be the luckiest man in the USA.


Ken Berwitz

For a week we have heard that the Pentagon definitively determined there was no linkage between saddam hussein and al qaeda. 

Is that true?  Read this report from Paul Mirengoff of , and you decide:

The connection, take 54

The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes is the man who wrote the book on The Connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. He also wrote the Standard article on "The connection."

The Bush administration long ago gave up trying to tell the truth about the issue, as it has on so many others where it has been beaten into submission by the elite media. And so when the Pentagon recently released its 59-page report confirming Hayes's reportage, the media have been left free to misrepresent it with impunity, as McClatchy's Warren Strobel does here, as the New York Times blog does here, and as the ABC blog does here.

Steve has now obtained and reviewed the report in its entirety. In a post previewing his article in the forthcoming issue of the Standard, Steve writes:

A new Pentagon report on Iraq and Terrorism has the news media buzzing. An item on the New York Times blog snarks, "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link." The ABC News story that previews the full report concludes, "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda."

How, then, to explain this sentence about Iraq and al Qaeda from the report's abstract: "At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust"? And how to explain the "considerable overlap" between their activities which led not only to the appearances of ties but to a "de facto link between the organizations"? (See the entire abstract below.)

And what about this revelation from page 34? "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." (The example given in the report is the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain, a group the Iraqi Intelligence Service describes as "under the wings of bin Laden.")

And there is this line from page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

Really? Saddam Hussein "supported" a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda's #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work?

Anyone interested in the "strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism" -- that language comes from this report, too -- should read the entire thing for themselves, here.

Steve quotes the report's abstract:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddams use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

Steve adds in an update:

Just to be clear, the confusion is not entirely the fault of the news organizations. The executive summary says that the evidence did not reveal a "smoking gun (direct connection)" between Iraq and al Qaeda. But, as noted, the report itself offers much evidence that the opposite is true.

If you have only learned of the report via reportage such as the items linked above, take a look at the report with your own eyes before drawing any conclusions about it.

Mainstream media reports it and, sad to say, many of us just hove to, accepting their version (note that I did not say the news, I said their version) without reservations. 

Maybe more of us should have reservations.

Horatio Nelson The connections between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein aren't the critical question. What should be further investigated is who actually planned, supported, funded, coordinated, and activated the 26 Feb 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Al Queda was barely operational at this time but Saddam was obsessed in retaliating with a strategic attack on the US after the humiliating defeat he suffered in Desert Storm just two years earlier. The timing is perfect, he had the motive, and he had the resources (Iraqi Intelligence Service Department 13) who were highly experienced in this type of action. (03/15/08)


Ken Berwitz

Just how committed is the New York Times to Barack Obama?

Well, let's examine today's edition and see:

-On the front page we have an article titled "The Free Spirit Wanderer Who Shaped Obama's Path" which jumps to a full page more within the news section.  This is a droolingly positive feature on how wonderful Mr. Obama's mother is and how worldly a view she has provided him.  The front page also has a picture of mom and son when he was a toddler.  The image is so warm and fuzzy that if Ebenezer Scrooge saw it, he would dump Tiny Tim out of his will and replace him with Baby Barack.

-Then, inside the paper, we have an article titled "Obama Lists His Earmarks, Asking Clinton for Hers".  That seems like a very positive piece for Mr. Obama, doesn't it?  He's open and honest while Hillary Clinton is secretive and who knows what she is hiding. 

Except for one thing:  Buried within the article are a $1 million dollar earmark for the hospital Michelle Obama works for and an $8 million dollar, request for a defense contractor Mr. Obama is tied to through a member of its board of directors, who also just happens to be one of his top supporters/fundraisers.

The Chicago Tribune thought this was important enough to characterize prominently in today's paper, saying:

Among the pork-barrel spending requests Barack Obama has made since arriving in the U.S. Senate is $1 million for the hospital where his wife worked at the time and $8 million for weapons technology made by a big defense contractor with close ties to a major fundraiser.

But, in the New York Times?  This same information is buried in another of their isn't-he-just-wonderful stories about the senator from Illinois.

-And last, but not least, we come to jeremiah wright.

As anyone who reads this blog certainly knows, wright is Barack Obama's pastor, his "spiritual mentor", the inspiration for the title of Obama's first book, the man who married him, who baptized his children and the man who currently holds a key advisory position in the Obama campaign.  I doubt that you can find anyone outside of the immediate family who is closer to Barack Obama than Jeremiah Wright.

Yesterday, all over both cable AND (for a refreshing change) non-cable networks we saw footage of wright screaming out his hate-filled, racist, pro-palestinian and intensely anti-USA "sermons".  He did so to a cheering, deliriously enthusiastic congregation - which means that Barack Obama, as a regular churchgoer (or so he says) has been privy to this vile filth and how well it is received among his fellow congregants all these years.

Obviously, the explanation by Mr. Obama - I don't agree with a lot of pastor wright's comments...ok, next question - doesn't cut it. 

How could wright be so important and infuential in Mr. Obama's life if everything he says is so profoundly wrong?  This is a disaster in the making for Obama, and certainly a cause for major investigative reporting by any credible news organization.

So how did the Times "report" it?  On page A18, bottom right, in a tiny little squib titled "Pastor's Words Still Draw Fire".  The placement of the article insures few people will read it and the title insures people who see it at all will not know that it has any relationship to Barack Obama.  Plus, NOT ONE QUOTE of wright's to show the kind of bilious vomit he spewed.

This is how you report something that you don't want anyone to see.  This is how you report something so that you can say "hey, we published it", with as little damage to the the person in the article as possible;

-Oh yeah, and one other thing:  The Times is back to not reporting the Tony Rezko trial again.

At the beginning of this blog I asked just how committed The New York Times is to Barack Obama. 

Now you know.  Still think it's a newspaper?   


Ken Berwitz

You don't need a word of commentary from me on this one. 

Here it is:

Obama and the Minister

March 14, 2008; Page A19

In a sermon delivered at Howard University, Barack Obama's longtime minister, friend and adviser blamed America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs and creating a racist society that would never elect a black candidate president.

The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor of Mr. Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, gave the sermon at the school's Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel in Washington on Jan. 15, 2006.

[Obama and the Minister]
Trinity United Church of Christ/Religion News Service
Sen. Barack Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright

"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he began. "Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."

Mr. Wright thundered on: "America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

His voice rising, Mr. Wright said, "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . ."

Concluding, Mr. Wright said: "We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."

Considering this view of America, it's not surprising that in December Mr. Wright's church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for lifetime achievement. In the church magazine, Trumpet, Mr. Wright spoke glowingly of the Nation of Islam leader. "His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening," Mr. Wright said of Mr. Farrakhan. "He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest."

After Newsmax broke the story of the award to Farrakhan on Jan. 14, Mr. Obama issued a statement. However, Mr. Obama ignored the main point: that his minister and friend had spoken adoringly of Mr. Farrakhan, and that Mr. Wright's church was behind the award to the Nation of Islam leader.

Instead, Mr. Obama said, "I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree." Trumpet is owned and produced by Mr. Wright's church out of the church's offices, and Mr. Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor.

Meeting with Jewish leaders in Cleveland on Feb. 24, Mr. Obama described Mr. Wright as being like "an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with." He rarely mentions the points of disagreement.

Mr. Obama went on to explain Mr. Wright's anti-Zionist statements as being rooted in his anger over the Jewish state's support for South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. As with his previous claim that his church gave the award to Mr. Farrakhan because of his work with ex-offenders, Mr. Obama appears to have made that up.

Neither the presentation of the award nor the Trumpet article about the award mentions ex-offenders, and Mr. Wright's statements denouncing Israel have not been qualified in any way. Mr. Obama nonetheless told the Jewish leaders that the award to Mr. Farrakhan "showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community." That is an understatement.

As for Mr. Wright's repeated comments blaming America for the 9/11 attacks because of what Mr. Wright calls its racist and violent policies, Mr. Obama has said it sounds as if the minister was trying to be "provocative."

Hearing Mr. Wright's venomous and paranoid denunciations of this country, the vast majority of Americans would walk out. Instead, Mr. Obama and his wife Michelle have presumably sat through numerous similar sermons by Mr. Wright.

Indeed, Mr. Obama has described Mr. Wright as his "sounding board" during the two decades he has known him. Mr. Obama has said he found religion through the minister in the 1980s. He joined the church in 1991 and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith.

The title of Mr. Obama's bestseller "The Audacity of Hope" comes from one of Wright's sermons. Mr. Wright is one of the first people Mr. Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004. Mr. Obama consulted Mr. Wright before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Mr. Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.

Mr. Obama obviously would not choose to belong to Mr. Wright's church and seek his advice unless he agreed with at least some of his views. In light of Mr. Wright's perspective, Michelle Obama's comment that she feels proud of America for the first time in her adult life makes perfect sense.

Much as most of us would appreciate the symbolism of a black man ascending to the presidency, what we have in Barack Obama is a politician whose closeness to Mr. Wright underscores his radical record.

The media have largely ignored Mr. Obama's close association with Mr. Wright. This raises legitimate questions about Mr. Obama's fundamental beliefs about his country. Those questions deserve a clearer answer than Mr. Obama has provided so far.

Mr. Kessler, a former Wall Street Journal and Washington Post reporter, is chief Washington correspondent of and the author of "The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack" (Crown Forum, 2007).



Ken Berwitz

No, I'm not talking about the Yale University campus.  Levin is good.  But he's not THAT good.

I'm talking about the insane case of Michael Sheridan, as described by the American Spectator below:

Give props to legal eagle and radio host Mark Levin. At the opening of his show Wednesday, he highlighted the plight of New Haven, Conn., eighth grader Michael Sheridan, an honor student and school vice president who was suspended and stripped of his honors for buying a bag of Skittles candies from a classmate.

Levin gave out the phone number of the spokesperson for the New Haven school district, but asked his listeners to be civilized about the calling. The civilized part was easy. Getting through was another matter. Within ten minutes of the number's being given out, the New Haven school district's phone system crashed, as did its

Within an hour of that, the wheels were already in motion to clear Sheridan's name and restore his and the other student's good standing.

This is what it has devolved to in our public schools.  An honor student is suspended with his honors removed (which is a death sentence for the colleges he probably would be trying to get into).  For what? For buying an effing bag of candy from another student, that's what.

Was Levin overzealous in giving out the phone number of the flak-catcher who announced this insanity?  Technically I suppose he was.  Now:  are you DAMN GLAD he gave it out?  Me too. 

And people wonder why home schooling is on the rise?  Don't wonder.


Ken Berwitz

I admit that it probably won't do any good, but I am posting this in the hope that a few Al Gore fans see it.  The information is from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

March 13, 2008

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAAs National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms, bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West, produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

A complete analysis is available online.

U.S. Winter Temperature Highlights

In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2F (0.6C), which was 0.2F (0.1C) above the 20th century average yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.

  • Winter temperatures were warmer than average from Texas to the Southeast and along the Eastern Seaboard, while cooler-than-average temperatures stretched from much of the upper Midwest to the West Coast.
  • With higher-than-average temperatures in the Northeast and South, the contiguous U.S. winter temperature-related energy demand was approximately 1.7 percent lower than average, based on NOAAs Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index.

Hmm.  Coolest average winter temperature since 2001.  54th coolest out of 113 years, which means 76 years were warmer. 

I wonder of any of the Goreosians are paying attention.  Frankly I doubt it.  But there are the data.  

Russ You just KNOW that the the Global Warming crowd blame the cold weather on Global Warming. It is so amazing how these people have successfully made the weather a political issue. Next, they will figure out ways to tax people based upon prognostications. (03/14/08)

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!!