Wednesday, 26 March 2008


Ken Berwitz

Venezuela has a dictator named hugo chavez.

I call him a dictator because it is clear that at least one of his "elections", which he "won" with a 59% - 41% margin when exit polls showed his opponent winning by about that margin, was an obvious fraud.

I also refer to him as yugo chavez rather than hugo, because of how similarly he and the car perform.

In any event, chavez has gone public with his preference for the 2008 USA presidential election.  Here is the story, courtesy of excerpts from the Reuters article (which you can read in its entirety by clicking here):

Chavez says U.S. relations could worsen with McCain

Tue Mar 25, 2008
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a socialist and fierce U.S. critic, warned on Tuesday that relations with Washington could worsen if Republican candidate John McCain wins this year's presidential election.

"Sometimes one says, 'worse than Bush is impossible,' but we don't know," Chavez told foreign correspondents. "McCain also seems to be a man of war."

Chavez -- who has called Bush "the devil", "a donkey" and 'Mr Danger" -- accuses the United States of having imperial designs in Latin America and says the White House has plotted his overthrow.

McCain calls Chavez a dictator who wants to emulate retired Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

He said on Tuesday that he had better communication with the administration of former U.S. President Bill Clinton.

"Independently of who wins the elections, we are hopeful and it is within our plans to enter an era of better relations with the U.S. government," he said. "At the least one would hope for the level of relations we had with ex-President Clinton."

yugo chavez, of course, is the international laughingstock from Venezuela, who King Juan Carlos of Spain publicly told to just "shut up" because of what an abrasive fool he was making of himself  - which made the king an instant celebrity. 

chavez has taken a fragile democracy and turned it into a virtual socialist state, an imitation of Cuba, whose dictator he has revered for so many years.

Despite the huge revenues from Venezuelan oil, poverty and misery remain rampant there. But the grinning thug keeps smiling anyway.  This is a game to him.

We can only hope that time is running out for chavez and for his pal fidel (and brother raul) in Cuba.  Meanwhile, we know he is rooting against John McCain for President.

Whatever else you think of Mr. McCain, this is one good reason to root for him.


Ken Berwitz

CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) is, in my opinion, a domestic terror organization.

How many people in its hierarchy have to consort with terrorists before before it becomes self-evident?  Here, courtesy of is the latest example:

Another Former CAIR Official Indicted

Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:11:32 pm PST

The former head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American Islamic Relations has been charged with working as a spy for the Saddam Hussein government.

An Iraqi-American from Michigan who worked for a Southfield charity has been accused of working as a spy for the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein, according to a federal indictment unsealed today in U.S. District Court in Detroit.

Muthanna Al-Hanooti was charged with several counts, including conspiracy to work on behalf of a foreign government and making false statements to the FBI. Al-Hanooti used to work for Life for Relief and Development, a Muslim charity based in Southfield that works in Iraq and other countries. That charity was raided by federal agents in Sept. 2006.

According to the indictment, Al-Hanooti would travel to Iraq and meet with conspirators of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The indictment says that Al-Hanooti was rewarded with 2 million barrels of oil for his work.

The indictment also alleges that Iraqi intelligence officials used an intermediary in Michigan to help fund a trip to Iraq taken by U.S. members of Congress in 2002.

Al-Hanooti was active in other local groups. He was former head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American Islamic Relations and the president of Focus on American and Arab Interests and Relations.

Is this anecdotal?  Is Al-Hanooti just one rogue member of the organization? 

It sure doesn't look that way.  Here is the relevant wikipedia entry for CAIR (I assure you that this information is easily found elsewhere too, but it is summarized very nicely by wikipedia):

Critics have accused CAIR of having ties to terrorist organizations, and of "pursuing an extreme Islamist political agenda".[3][33] It has been asserted that four former CAIR officials have been charged with terrorism-related offenses. However, this assertion is disputed by CAIR, which notes that only one of the individuals mentioned was ever employed by CAIR, and his arrest was on a weapons charge, not a terrorism charge, and took place after the period of his employment by CAIR.[34]

Critics of CAIR say that at least five figures with ties to the group or its leadership have either been convicted or deported for links to what the United States government calls terrorist groups.[3]

Critics claim CAIRs credibility as a community relations agency promoting justice and mutual understanding is tainted because it is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, which is a front group for Hamas and associated with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.[35]

The United States states that CAIR was founded with funding from the alleged "Hamas group" Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.[36] The Holy Land Foundation was later closed as a money-laundering scheme for terrorist support, but in 2007 the case ended in a mistrial. The United States Department of State identifies Hamas as a "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization".[37]. CAIR disputes allegations that it was started with "seed money" from the Holy Land Foundation [34]

In 2007 U.S. federal prosecutors named CAIR as one of several hundred Muslim "unindicted co-conspirator" organizations in a plot to fund the designated terrorist organization Hamas, through the Holy Land charity.[38][39]

CAIR Chairman Emeritus (Omaer Ahmad) was paraphrased in an article to the effect that Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant, that the Koran should be the highest authority in America, and that Islam should be the only accepted religion on Earth.[40]

Critics have also taken aim at CAIR's fundraising and sources of funds. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, CAIR's website solicited donations for what it called the "NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund."[41] However, clicking on the donation link led to the web site for Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF).[41][4] Later that year, HLF was later designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union and U.S. because of alleged connections to Hamas, and shut down by executive order. The 2007 trial of the the Holy Land Foundation was declared a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury[42].

CAIR, it should also be noted, is enthusiastically advocating for the "flying imams" - 6 imams who appear to have intentionally caused a terrorist scare after boarding a plane in Minneapolis.  The imams have since tried extract a monetary settlement from the US Airways.  And they tried to sue the passengers who pointed them out, which would intimidate anyone on a future flight who might dare think he/she saw something suspicious.  Who does THAT help?

Bottom line:  CAIR seems clearly to be a domestic organization that supports and advocates on behalf of terrorist groups. 

In my book, that makes CAIR a domestic terror organization. 

What does your book say?


Ken Berwitz

In Godfather III, Michael Corleone says words to the effect that "every time I think I'm out, they drag me right back in".

For Barack Obama, it seems, the statement would be "every time the media let me off the hook, I drag myself right back in"

For a man running his campaign on the promise of superior judgment, Mr. Obama is displaying an astonishing lack of it.

He continues to fuel the fires of his pastor and "spiritual mentor" jeremiah wright, even as the media - so many of which are clearly in his hip pocket - try to let him skate on it.  And, by doing so, he insures that the issue stays in front of voters (which, in reality, is where it should be).

Here are excerpts from an Associated Press article which details what I'm talking about (the entire article is available by clicking here):

Obama seeks to quell flap over pastor
The Associated Press
Updated 03/26/08 - 3:28 PM
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday sought to quell concerns over anti-American remarks by his former pastor, saying people are paying too much attention to a small number of "stupid" comments.

"This is somebody that was preaching three sermons at least a week for 30 years and it got boiled down ... into a half-minute sound clip and just played it over and over and over again, partly because it spoke to some of the racial divisions we have in this country," Obama told an audience in this central North Carolina city.

The controversy began earlier this month when videos of Wright sermons surfaced, including one in which the pastor shouts "God damn America" for its treatment of minorities.

Wright has said the U.S. government invented AIDS to destroy "people of color" and has also suggested that U.S. policies in the Middle East and elsewhere were partly responsible for the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

In a highly publicized speech last week, Obama sharply condemned Wright's remarks and the preacher's refusal to acknowledge progress in race relations. But he refused to repudiate his longtime spiritual mentor, saying he could no more disown Wright than he could disown his white grandmother.

Barack Obama is far, far from being a stupid man.  Even his worst enemies concede that.  So why is he acting like one?

Every time Mr. Obama opens his mouth about jeremiah wright, he personally is responsible for media being forced to report it -- even if all they want to do is let the story die and give Obama a free pass on his 17 year association with the contemptible "Black liberation theology" spewbot.

This is no way to run a "good judgment" campaign.  How can Mr. Obama not realize as much?

Maybe his judgment isn't so good after all.


Ken Berwitz

The blog title poses a question that, at least on paper, should not even have to be asked.  But, as you will see, the answer is not that simple.

Barack Obama is ahead in delegates, number of states won and the popular vote.  Therefore, if anyone should drop out it is Hillary Clinton.  A good many "experts" are demanding that she do so, and wondering out loud why she is still hanging around.

But what about Ms. Clinton's argument that, although she has won fewer states, she has won almost all the big ones - like New York, California, Ohio, Texas and New Jersey.  Plus, if you believe the polls she has a double-digit lead in Pennsylvania.  Does that mean that Mr. Obama, despite his lead, should be the one to drop out?

Well, Rasmussen research put the question to a national sample of voters.  And this excerpt tells you what it found out (you can read the entire article by clicking here):

22% of Democrats Want Clinton to Drop Out; 22% Say Obama Should Withdraw

A solid majority of Democrats, 62%, arent ready for either candidate to leave the race. Nationally, Clinton and Obama are running essentially even among Likely Democratic Primary Voters in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of Obama supporters think Clinton should drop out. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Clinton supporters say Obama should drop out. Those who remain undecided are a bit more likely to suggest that Obama should leave. But, its worth noting that less than half of Obama supporters say Clinton should withdraw, less than half of Clinton supporters say Obama should withdraw, and less than half of undecided voters say either should withdraw at this time.

Are you surprised?  Shocked, even?  My first reaction was to be both. 

But then I thought about how angry each candidate's people are at each other (more than likely the candidates themselves too).  And suddenly it started to make a bit more sense.

These data dovetail with other polls which indicate that about 20% of Obama supporters say they would not vote for Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee, and an equal number of Clinton supporters say they would not vote for Barack Obama.

Does this compound fracture of the Democratic party have any realistic chance of being healed by election day?  

It's hard to see how.


Ken Berwitz

Richard Widmark died today at the age of 93.

In over a half century of movie and television work, Widmark played countless characters on both sides of the law, as well as some really good western roles.  And before that, he spent over a decade in radio and on the stage.

Candidly, I wasn't even aware that Widmark was still alive.  Given his age, it is not surprising that he retired some time ago (his last role was in 1992).  

Widmark was a fine actor.  He was also one of the relatively few Hollywood actors with a stable family life (his first marriage lasted 55 years and ended in his wife's death.  His second and last marriage has ended with his death). 

I'm sorry to see him go.  May he rest in peace.


Ken Berwitz

This piece comes to us from the watchdog organization IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis).  It is another indication (among all too many) of how Barack Obama truly feels about zionism, therefore the state of Israel.  As usual, the bold print is mine:

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Dr. Richard L. Benkin
Tuesday, 25 March, 2008

In an article published Monday in The American Thinker, the man who secured the release of self-described Muslim Zionist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was "the only member of the US Congress or Senate who passed on helping the imprisoned and tortured journalist."

Dr. Richard L. Benkin of Chicago said that he approached about 15 percent of the US House and "a handful of Senators." Everyone took some action, he wrote, except Obama. Although The American Thinker is an influential
journal of conservative thought in the US, Benkin makes it clear that this
is not a liberal-conservative issue. In the article and elsewhere, he sites
liberal and conservative members of Congress who went on record to protest
Choudhury's persecution.

"Since I'm from Illinois, I naturally approached both of my Senators for
help. Dick Durbin came through. He recognized the matter as "an important
human rights issue" and wrote a letter of protest to the Bangladeshi
government. Obama, however, was another story. I spoke with him personally on two occasions, met with his people in Washington, and sent them a ton of information on the case. I never even got a form letter. If everyone did the same thing as Obama did, Shoaib Choudhury still would be in jail-or worse."

Benkin also notes that when he brought the matter before his Congressman,
Mark Kirk, he took immediate and powerful action, calling the Bangladeshi in his office where the three of them had an hours-long meeting. Three weeks
later, Shoaib Choudhury was released.

You can find the American Thinker article by clicking here, and I hope you read every word of it.

Mr. Obama has willingly attended a virulently anti-Israel (and anti-White and anti-USA) church for almost two decades, and considers its hate-filled pastor his "spiritual mentor" and revered advisor.

Mr. Obama has stacked his campaign staff with one anti-Israel advocate after another - several (not all) of whom I have cited in previous blogs.

And now we have this.

The more you know about Barack Obama, the more you question the logic, common sense and even ability to think rationally, of Jews who support him. 

Oh, and one other thing:  The house passed a resolution in support of Mr. Choudhury, by a vote of 409-1.  The one and only "nay" vote?  It was from that other lover of Israel and Jew, ron paul - the guy who also was the lone vote against reinstating the civil rights voting act. 


Ken Berwitz

Strange bedfellows?  That ain't the half of it.

Here is a short little piece from Byron York of, which explains it all"

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Hell Has Officially Frozen Over [Byron York]

It caught my eye as a flash on Brit Hume a few moments ago, but here is a photo from Hillary Clinton's visit today to the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. In this picture, she is seen talking to none other than Richard Mellon Scaife, the owner of the paper and the man who once said that the death of Vincent Foster was the "Rosetta stone" of the Bill Clinton administration. (He also funded the so-called "Arkansas Project" at The American Spectator.) We've heard reports of a rapprochement between Scaife and the Clintons of late, and the Pennsylvania primary is fast approaching, but this is still a pretty striking picture.

What next?  Are we going to see jeremiah wright and louis farrakhan hosting a passover seder for the board of the Zionist Organization of America?  

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!!