Friday, 28 March 2008


Ken Berwitz

If you think that the nuclear war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama means the Democratic BS iniative against John McCain isn't in full gear, read this.  It comes to us from Michael Calderone of

Think Progress retracts McCain plagiarism charge

Yesterday, liberal blog Think Progress published an explosive and "EXCLUSIVE" charge that John McCain had plagiarized from a 1996 speech by Adm. Timothy Ziemer.

Now Think Progress takes it back.

Think Progress had gotten a tip and searched Nexis to verify the scoop. But it never contacted the campaign. From the explanation: "After we published the post, the McCain campaign contacted us and pointed to a speech given by the senator in 1995, which appears on McCains Senate site."


-They lied about the affair Mr. McCain was supposed to have had with a lobbyest - not one single shred of any evidence has been produced.

-They lied about his supposed comment that it's ok with him if we fight a war in Iraq for 100 years.  He never said anything like it

-Now they are lying about him being a plagiarist.

At some point you have to face the fact that these people will lie about John McCain at will, because they do not like him and do not want him to be President. 

Remember that the next time a claim is made against Mr. McCain.  The record so far is abysmal.  His attackers will lie to your face and not care a bit about it.

There is an old adage:  Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me.  Don't let them shame you.  You know better.


Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest installment detailing how we will live if radical Islam makes good on its threat to end western civilization and put us under shari'a law.  It is an excerpt from a larger story found on  For the entire article, just click here:

London Imam's Attempt to Carry Out Sunna Gone Awry

During a question answer session in East London Mosque, preacher Imam Abdul Makin was asked by a niqabi muslima about recent fatwa from a well known Imam .

Naqabi Woman: One eyed hooked Imam Hamza Mesri said muslims can kill British infidels and have sex with their wives and daughters, Do you agree with him?

Imam: It is not what Imam Hamza said nor is there a question of my agreeing with him or not. It is in Quran thus those are Allahs orders.

N.W.:  But why would Allah tell muslims to kill and rape innocent non muslims?

Imam: Because Non-muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet. If you dont believe me, here is the legal authority, the top muslim lawyer of Britain, Anjem Choudhary (Video).

N.W. But our Prophet was sent as a mercy for all the humanity; he never hurt any body in his life

Imam: Yes he never hurt a muslim in his life. But Allah said non-muslim are lowest beasts and worst creatures in ayas 8.22,8.55,95.5 and 98.6 and muslim are ordered to kill them."

N.W.: But did prophet approve of killing them and raping their wives?

Imam: Yes he did. He not only approved of such acts, he and his sahabas practiced it regularly under Allahs orders. He was helpless in it... If you dont believe me , you have to believe sahih hadiths. I will quote you two hadiths about his typical day after a raid. These hadiths are about the raid on jewish village Khaibar whose chief was Kinana who had gorgeous 17 year old wife Safia. Prophet tortured and beheaded Kinana in front of Safia and raped her all night afterwards.Police arrest 24-year-old man from Naura, an Israeli-Arab town in northern Israel , who shot his 19-year old sister to preserve 'familys honor.' Family members arrived to congratulate shooter

 Take a good look.  Because this is what will replace western civilization if we allow it to.  And it will be the way YOU live.

 If we fight against radical islam we may win and we may lose.  If we do not fight, we will most assuredly lose because, either way, they will continue fighting. 

And if they win, our culture and our civilization is over, to be replaced by what?  A society in which it is permissible to kill and rape any non-Muslim, based on a belief that the koran teaches that non-Muslims are the lowest beasts and worst creatures?  Based on the belief that murder and rape of non-Muslims is not only approved by Muhammed, but that he practiced it personally under Allah's orders? 

God help the people who want to live this way.  I know I'm not one of them.  Are you?

We play political games with this lunacy at our own peril. 


Ken Berwitz

I sometimes post blogs with the lead-in that "you can't make this stuff up".  So, this time, I think I'll show you one that someone did make up.  It comes to us courtesy of the London Telegraph:

Man said 'wombat rape' led to accent change

By Nick Squires in Sydney

A New Zealand man who claimed he was raped by a wombat and that the experience left him speaking with an Australian accent has been found guilty of wasting police time.

  • Weird Wired Web: Most ridiculous crime in the world?
  • Rogue monkey accused of attempted rapes
  • How about that: Weird and bizarre stories from around the world

    Arthur Cradock, 48, from the South Island town of Motueka, called police last month to tell them he was being raped by the marsupial at his home and needed urgent assistance.

    Cradock, an orchard worker, later called back to reassure the police operator that he was all right.

    "Ill retract the rape complaint from the wombat, because hes pulled out. Apart from speaking Australian now, Im pretty all right you know. I didnt hurt my bum at all."

    He pleaded guilty in Nelson District Court to using a phone for a fictitious purpose and was sentenced to 75 hours community work.

    Police prosecutor Sergeant Chris Stringer told the court that alcohol played a large role in Cradocks life.

    Judge Richard Russell said he was not sure what had motivated Cradock to make the extraordinary claim.

    In sentencing Cradock, he warned him not to do it again.

    Wombats are native to Australia and are not found in New Zealand. Although powerfully built and about the size of a small pig, they are very rarely dangerous. There are three species: the widely distributed common wombat and the much rarer southern and northern hairy-nosed wombats.

  • I hope for Cradock's sake it was the northern hairy-nosed variety.  Then at least he could have gotten a back scratch too.

    Note:   Be sure to read the three links that are in blue.  If you want weird, this is a treasure trove of it.


    Ken Berwitz

    A lot of what Gary Bauer covers in his article about Barack Obama (which is taken from has already been noted in this blog.  But Mr. Bauer puts it all together very thoroughly and professionally, so I am posting it below. 

    Besides, despite the rapidly growing number of reasons for Israel supporters to run, not walk, away from Mr. Obama, there are still people who do not see what is in front of their eyes.  Maybe this fact-filled analysis will help them:

    Obama's Controversial Views on Israel

    Innuendo about Barack Obamas faith and upbringing often dominate discussions regarding how the likely Democratic presidential nominee might conduct his foreign policy. Thats a shame, because it distracts us from more legitimate and far deeper concerns over Obamas relationship not with Islam but with Israel, the principal rhetorical and military target of that religions most extreme adherents. 

    Of course, as with Obamas remarks on many issues, its easy to cherry-pick a few of his statements about Israel that make it seem as if a President Obama would be a loyal friend of the beleaguered state.  Such as when he says, peace through security is the only way for Israel and when I am president, the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel. 

    Whats not to like, right?  Well, a more thorough examination of Obamas statements, his background and previous associations and, most importantly, his would-be foreign policy team reveals a far different reality -- one that has caused many supporters of Israel, including me, to worry about what an Obama presidency might do to the long-term support for the Jewish State.

    First off, Obama demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the Middle East when he calls for the immediate removal of American forces from Iraq, which would expose Iraq to worse ethnic bloodshed and embolden the enemies of Israel and the United States.  Senator Obama also voted against legislation to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the list of terrorist organizations and criticizes Hillary Clinton for voting in favor of the legislation, which passed with the support of over three-quarters of the Senate. He has also pledged to meet without preconditions with Irans Holocaust-denying leader, Ahmadinejad. 

    Just as disturbing are Obamas statements about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which include: Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people and the clueless remark that the Israeli government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart. 

    These troubling statements caused my friend and former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Danny Ayalon to ask in a recent op-ed, Who are you, Barack Obama?  Ayalon wrote that after meeting with Obama on two occasions, he was left with the impression that [Obama] was not entirely forthright with his thinking [about Israel].

    Ayalons skepticism no doubt stems from the fact that Obamas more recent pro-Israel statements do not square with his past sympathy for Palestinian radicals.  Anti-Israel activist Ali Abunimah claims to know Obama well and to have met him at several pro-Palestinian events in Chicago when Obama was an Illinois state senator.  In an article, Abunimah lamented that  Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation. Obamas about-face is not surprising, Abunimah insisted, He is merely doing what he think is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power.

    Then theres Obamas church, Trinity United Church of Christ, whose anti-Semitism is now well known.  Among many anti-Semitic documents that the church has published on its website is a letter that alleges Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and claims that Israelis worked on an ethnic bomb that kills blacks and Arabs.  Trinitys former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who Obama has described as a spiritual mentor, gave anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan an award for being a leader who truly epitomized greatness. 

    Wright even traveled to meet with Libyan terrorist leader Muammar al-Gaddafi and has compared conditions in Israel to the apartheid of South Africa.  Of course, you wont hear much from Wright these days.  As Wright told PBS last year, he understands that Obama must keep his distance because he cant afford the Jewish support to wane or start questioning his allegiance to Israel.

    But nothing should concern Israel supporters as much as Obamas foreign policy team, which consists of the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski, a remnant of the administration of President Jimmy Carter, who, like Rev. Wright, calls Israel an apartheid state.  Brzezinski, Carters national security advisor, has long held anti-Israel views and supports open dialogue with the terrorist group Hamas.  Other top foreign policy advisors with avowed hostility toward Israel include Susan Rice and Robert Malley. 

    Most recently, it was revealed that Obama military advisor and national campaign co-chairman Merrill Tony McPeak has a long history of criticizing Israel and in 2003 alleged that American Middle East policy is being controlled by Jews at the expense of American interests in the Middle East.  During the interviewer with the Oregonian, McPeak was asked why there was a lack of action in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.  He responded, New York City.  Miami.  We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel.  And no politician wants to run against it.

    Whats most worrying about Obamas foreign policy team is that given the candidates extreme lack of foreign policy experience (he once declared that the four years he spent living in Indonesia as a child give him credibility on the world stage), one would expect Obama to lean heavily on it for advice.  Thats something that should concern anyone who understands the value of supporting Americas only reliable ally from a region in which we are engaged in two wars. 

    Bottom line:  the more you know about Barack Obama, the more you realize that an Obama presidency would be damaging, bordering on disastrous, for the state of Israel. 

    Since Israel is our most loyal ally in the middle east (and, arguably, in the world), not to mention a beacon of freedom and democracy in a region where it is virtually unknown, that can't be good. 

    Please, please pass this information on.  Friends who support Israel don't let friends who support Israel remain ignorant about Barack Obama.


    Ken Berwitz

    It's not like there isn't damning evidence already against CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations).  But you should know it all.

    This additional damning evidence comes to us from Charles Johnson's invaluable site,

    Major IPT Report: CAIR Questioned Al Qaeda's Role in 9/11

    Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:34:57 am PDT

    Today brings part 5 of the Investigative Project on Terrorisms giant expos of the radical Islamic front group calling itself the Council on American Islamic Relations; this installment looks at CAIRs universal readiness to defend Islamic terroristseven defending Al Qaeda immediately after the 9/11 atrocities: Quick To Defend Alleged Terrorists, CAIR Even Questioned Al Qaeda 9/11 Role.

    CAIRs soft spot for terrorists extends well beyond the Hamas connections documented in yesterdays installment in this comprehensive series on the group. Today we focus on its portrayal of virtually any law enforcement action against radical elements as an assault on all American Muslims.

    * Days after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, CAIR-New York Executive Director Ghazi Khankan used an online chat with the Washington Post to launch a weeks-long campaign casting them as part of a conspiracy to discredit Muslims. Citing spurious evidence, he claimed that many of the names of the terrorists are people impersonating innocent Muslims and Arabs.

    CAIR pushed Khankans misidentification theory in an October 2001 statement, speculating that three of the 19 suspected hijackers were still alive in the Middle East and asking, Who is impersonating these three Muslim Arabs? Why are Muslim Arabs been (sic) implicated in this terrorism? And, who could benefit from this horrific tragedy?

    * CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper similarly hesitated to blame Al Qaeda. We condemn the attacks on the buildings, he told, adding, If Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name. Asked why he qualified the response, reported, Hooper said he resented the question.

    * As late as June 2005, CAIR-Canada Advisory Board Member Jamal Badawi questioned responsibility for 9/11. Calling the attacks un-Islamic and declaring, I strongly condemn them, he told the Saudi Gazette it had not yet been confirmed who was actually behind the actions. And at an August 2005 Know Your Rights workshop sponsored by CAIR-San Diego, invited speaker Randall Hamud responded to an audience members comment that there was still no evidence that Muslims carried out 9/11 by saying, Maybe a hundred years from now well find that out.

    An accompanying PDF file has much more detail and documentation.

    Where are the mainstream media on this story? Answer: theyre still uncritically publishing CAIRs propaganda: Southfield Muslim charity executive indicted as spy.

    Al-Hanooti was active in many area Muslim and Arab organizations and briefly worked for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2000, executive director Dawud Walid said.

    CAIR will be closely monitoring to make sure he has his rights afforded to him and that he receives due process, Walid said. He is innocent until proven guilty.

    Briefly worked for CAIR? Muthanna Al-Hanooti was the head of the Michigan branch of CAIR.

    At the end of this piece, asks "where are the mainstream media on this story?"

    Great question, and here's the answer:  if there is a car bombing somewhere in Iraq, I promise you will see it in the first two minutes of your network news show.  That's where.

    But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


    Ken Berwitz

    On March 17th, I blogged about what a liar keith olbermann was for suggesting that John McCain said it would be ok with him if we fought in Iraq for another 100 years.  Here is the specific passage:

    Mr. olbermann told me that John McCain wants to be at war in Iraq for 100 years - which is an absolute lie.   The truth is that McCain said it's ok with him if we are there for 50 or even 100 years as long as we are NOT at war - i.e. not being harmed, attacked hurt or killed.   McCain specifically referenced our presence in Japan and South Korea to make his intent 100% clear.  But olbermann, who apparently has little use for truth, misled his viewers about it anyway. 

    Today, the redoubtable Charles Krauthammer has a column in which he enumerates other similarly dishonest claims about what John McCain said.  I am posting excerpts of the column, but you can read it all by clicking here.  I very much hope you do.

    First we have Mr. Krauthammer's lead-in:

    WASHINGTON -- Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

    And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

    Now that is pretty clear, isn't it?  Not much room for error, is there? 

    Ok.  Let's see how it was turned into a lie by Democrats and at least some media (not just the pathetic olbermann).  For this I am posting the latter part of Mr. Krauthammer's column:

    -- "He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).

    -- "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).

    -- "He's (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).

    -- "What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).

    Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it: "John McCain is telling us ... that we need to win even if it takes 100 years" (March 16).

    As Lenin is said to have said: "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him," reports David Paul Kuhn of Politico.

    Hence: A Howard Dean fundraising letter charging McCain with seeking "an endless war in Iraq." And a Democratic National Committee press release in which Dean asserts: "McCain's strategy is a war without end. ... Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq."

    The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."

    The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie.

    There you have it.  Dishonesty in the first degree.  And don't doubt for a minute that these people know they are lying about Mr. McCain. 

    It is utterly shameful.  They've seen the same quotes you have.  They are doing this intentionally and making fools of anyone who makes the mistake of believing what they say.

    Don't expect this disgraceful bottom-dwelling to get any better in the forseeable future.


    Ken Berwitz

    Barack Obama is lying to our faces.  Again.

    The following excerpt is taken from an Associated Press story.  You can read the entire story by clicking here:

    Obama would have left if Wright stayed

    Fri Mar 28, 1:09 AM ET

    White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama's campaign, not stepped down.

    "Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.

    In his sermons over the years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has railed against the United States and accused it of bringing on the Sept. 11 attacks by spreading terrorism. He also has said the government invented AIDS to destroy "people of color" and has shouted "God damn America" for its treatment of minorities.

    This, readers, is an absolute lie. 

    How do I know?  Because, until wright's sick hatred surfaced and became known to the public, Obama DIDN'T leave for almost 20 YEARS, that's how I know.

    If you remember, Obama lied to our faces by claiming he didn't know that wright preached this kind of filth.  Almost two decades attending the church and hearing wright's sermons and he didn't know. 

    Then Obama lied by saying that, yeah, wright sometimes made offensive statements, but I wasn't in the church when he did so.  Again - almost two decades of attending a church led by a "Black liberation theology" lunatic and he didn't hear him say anything about it? 

    Then Obama lied by saying, in last week's speech (the one our "neutral" media have been drooling over ever since), that, ok, he was there to hear some of wright's ravings.  Finally he told the truth -- but since it is a 100% contradiction of what he said the week before, it counts as a lie too.

    Now Obama is telling us that if wright had continued on as pastor, he would have left the church.  But for 17 years wright WAS the pastor and not only did Obama not leave, he adoringly fawned over wright and called him his "spiritual mentor". 

    Anyone who thinks this is not another lie is either brain dead or might as well be.

    The article notes that Obama's latest lie will be stated on today's airing of "The View".  I have not seen a pre-screening of the show, but I am betting that Obama gets a round of applause for his latest lie. 

    Any audience that can applaud LAMBs*** like Rosie O'Donnell, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg is going to eat this up.


    ***Members of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade


    Ken Berwitz

    By now, most people are aware that Fox Sunday host Chris Wallace had an on-air disagreement with other Fox personalities about what Wallace referred to as "Obama-bashing".  Although there were no raised voices and no one walked off the set (for real or for show), both sides strongly presented their point of view during this exchange.

    For days afterwards we were treated to reports that it was "mayhem" (it wasn't) and that Wallace was going to jump ship because of it. 

    Can you spell w--i-s-h-f-u-l- -t-h-i-n-k-i-n-g?

    Here, courtesy of Noel Sheppard at, is Chris Wallace discussing this incident in his own words to talk show host Steve Malzberg:

    Wallace Discusses 'Fox & Friends' Tiff and What 'Fair and Balanced' Means

    By Noel Sheppard | March 28, 2008 - 10:30 ET

    Who's the best political talk show host on television every Sunday? Tim Russert? George Stephanopoulos? Bob Schieffer? Wolf Blitzer?

    Get real! There's nobody on the television landscape that comes close to Fox News's Chris Wallace. And, there's nobody on Fox News that better exemplifies and understands what the network's slogan "fair and balanced" means.

    To drive home the point, Wallace was Steve Malzberg's guest on WOR radio Wednesday, and quite candidly discussed how his little tiff with the good folks at "Fox and Friends" last Friday demonstrates vividly why FNC is indeed the only fair and balanced news network on television (15-minute audio available here):

    I would take mild exception to "scolding." I would say I took exception, or you know, offered a different point of view. No, I thought it was a legitimate story. I thought that what he said was regrettable and probably not, if he had, you know, it was in an off the cuff statement to a sports radio interviewer, and you could tell that as he went on he realized that's not really what I want to say, and he was trying to soften it, and say that someone who's been brought up and has a certain instinctive reaction to things. Uh, and, and, I thought it was a perfectly legitimate thing to talk about. I just thought that they talked about it, and talked about it. And so, all I was saying was, enough. But, you know, that was my opinion, and they obviously disagreed.

    You know, the point is we really are, despite the sniffing or dismissals of our liberal critics, "fair and balanced" at Fox News. And, and we, you know, generally speaking, that means that we at least offer, not that we espouse, but that we offer the conservative point of view because that is not often represented in the mainstream media. But, occasionally, at least in my mind, if I think that, you know, you're going too far the other way, it means offering, in this case, Obama's point of view, or at least a caveat about it, and, and, I don't think that's a bad thing. I, you know, I don't think you want to do it all the time, but if that occasionally spills out on the air, I don't think that's a bad thing for Fox or our viewers.

    Exactly, which was my point in originally covering this story.

    Earlier in the week, Wallace further elaborated on this issue with the New York Observer (emphasis added):

    Mr. Wallace later told The Observer that in fact he had received one e-mail from a Fox News executive (he declined to name names). It was not at all in the sense of, you know, how dare you defend Obama, said Mr. Wallace. It was in the sense that, isnt this the kind of thing we should be talking about off camera, not on camera? I e-mailed him back and said, I think youre generally right, and Im not going to make a habit of it. He wrote me right back and said, Fine, forget about it. Have a good Easter.

    To date, over this prolonged primary season, Mr. Obama has yet to appear on Mr. Wallaces Sunday program. In response, several weeks ago, Mr. Wallace introduced Obama Watchessentially a running clock adding up the amount of time that has elapsed since Mr. Obama had failed to make good on his apparent promise to appear on the show.

    Mr. Wallace said that in the wake of his Friday comments, he received two supportive e-mails from members of the Obama campaign. But nobody offered to put Obama on the air, said Mr. Wallace, chuckling. He hastened to add, Which wasnt the point of this whole thing in the first place.

    Any questions about what "fair and balanced" means?

    Does that suggest Chris Wallace is on his way out of Fox?  Does it suggest that his different point of view was discouraged or disparaged in any way?  No, and no.

    Fox, it should be noted, is the news channel that is scorned as NOT presenting both sides by competitive networks.  Is it fair to wonder if they are more than a little envious of the fact that Fox blows them away in the ratings?  You tell me. 

    I get a particular laugh out of MSNBC's keith olbermann calling it "Fixed News".  On olbermann's show, - other than the racist, anti-semitic, isolationist oddball Pat Buchanan - there is virtually no one who ever disagrees with him on anything.  But he's tossing rocks at Fox?  What a joke.

    keith olbermann is about as fair and balanced as fidel and raul castro are closet conservatives.

    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!!