Tuesday, 01 April 2008


Ken Berwitz

First Mr. Paterson told us that he was having sex with women other than his wife years ago.  Ok, on this one he gets a free pass, because his marriage was on the rocks at that time and both Paterson and his wife were doing the same.  

Then we were told that he had been paying for some of his trysts with campaign money - i.e. money donated in good faith by his supporters to be used for political reasons, not to pay for a Days Inn room so he could have sex with that night's girlfriend.  We were also told that he had reimbursed most (most!) of the money for those trysts but would be sure to give back the rest.  That's when the bells started ringing.

After that we were told that he had used campaign (and, if I remember correctly, state) money to pay for meals, buy clothes and buy furniture.  That is when Mr. Paterson should have resigned.

But the most media (not all, thank God) have decided to bury these scandals and abuses, and forget the whole thing.  That is an absolute disgrace, a gross disservice to the citizens of New York State and a gross dereliction of journalistic integrity.

Why did they do it?

Here are three possible reasons:

-Media don't really care about this stuff at all.  They dumped Spitzer over his call girls and apparent money laundering more because they had come to dislike Spitzer than because they were appalled by his actions.  They like Paterson so his actions don't count;

-Media are backing off because David Paterson is a Black Governor and they don't want to look like racists.  Or, because he is a Black Governor and some media specifically root for and defer to him for that reason;

-Media do not want State Senator Joseph Bruno to succeed to the Governorship, which is what would happen if Mr. Paterson were forced out.  FYI, Bruno is almost 79 years of age, has been accused of far worse than Mr. Paterson has admitted to (though he denies it and no one has convicted him of a thing or even indicted him), and .....(GASP!!).....he is a Republican.

Maybe you have a fourth reason.  If so, let's see it.

Meanwhile, no matter what the reason, New York got rid of a corrupt Governor and replaced him with a corrupt Governor. 

Great.  Just great.


Ken Berwitz

I have read Christopher Hitchens for years.  I have watched him on TV.  And I have been in the audience when he made mincemeat of a debate adversary.

I consider Mr. Hitchens one of the most arrogant human beings on planet earth -- and a nasty S.O.B. if there ever was one.  But I also consider him one of the people I'd least want to get on the wrong side of.

Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, she is on Christopher Hitchens' wrong side.  Big time. Read his piece in www.slate.com and see for yourself:

The Tall Tale of Tuzla

Hillary Clinton's Bosnian misadventure should disqualify her from the presidency, but the airport landing is the least of it.

By Christopher Hitchens

The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted for much more than just the lying itself. There are two kinds of deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally lying claim of having "misspoken.") The first involves what seems to be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.

I remember disembarking at the Sarajevo airport in the summer of 1992 after an agonizing flight on a U.N. relief plane that had had to "corkscrew" its downward approach in order to avoid Serbian flak and ground fire. As I hunched over to scuttle the distance to the terminal, a mortar shell fell as close to me as I ever want any mortar shell to fall. The vicious noise it made is with me still. And so is the shock I felt at seeing a civilized and multicultural European city bombarded round the clock by an ethno-religious militia under the command of fascistic barbarians. I didn't like the Clinton candidacy even then, but I have to report that many Bosnians were enthused by Bill Clinton's pledge, during that ghastly summer, to abandon the hypocritical and sordid neutrality of the George H.W. Bush/James Baker regime and to come to the defense of the victims of ethnic cleansing.

I am recalling these two things for a reason. First, and even though I admit that I did once later misidentify a building in Sarajevo from a set of photographs, I can tell you for an absolute certainty that it would be quite impossible to imagine that one had undergone that experience at the airport if one actually had not. Yet Sen. Clinton, given repeated chances to modify her absurd claim to have operated under fire while in the company of her then-16-year-old daughter and a USO entertainment troupe, kept up a stone-faced and self-loving insistence that, yes, she had exposed herself to sniper fire in the cause of gaining moral credit and, perhaps to be banked for the future, national-security "experience." This must mean either a) that she lies without conscience or reflection; or b) that she is subject to fantasies of an illusory past; or c) both of the above. Any of the foregoing would constitute a disqualification for the presidency of the United States.

Yet this is only to underline the YouTube version of events and the farcical or stupid or Howard Wolfson (take your pick) aspects of the story. But here is the historical rather than personal aspect, which is what you should keep your eye on. Note the date of Sen. Clinton's visit to Tuzla. She went there in March 1996. By that time, the critical and tragic phase of the Bosnia war was effectively over, as was the greater part of her husband's first term. What had happened in the interim? In particular, what had happened to the 1992 promise, four years earlier, that genocide in Bosnia would be opposed by a Clinton administration?

In the event, President Bill Clinton had not found it convenient to keep this promise. Let me quote from Sally Bedell Smith's admirable book on the happy couple, For Love of Politics:

Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselvesthe fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people.

I can personally witness to the truth of this, too. I can remember, first, one of the Clintons' closest personal advisersSidney Blumenthalreferring with acid contempt to Warren Christopher as "a blend of Pontius Pilate with Ichabod Crane." I can remember, second, a meeting with Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments. The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady's health care "initiative."

It's hardly necessary for me to point out that the United States did not receive national health care in return for its acquiescence in the murder of tens of thousands of European civilians. But perhaps that is the least of it. Were I to be asked if Sen. Clinton has ever lost any sleep over those heaps of casualties, I have the distinct feeling that I could guess the answer. She has no tears for anyone but herself. In the end, and over her strenuous objections, the United States and its allies did rescue our honor and did put an end to Slobodan Milosevic and his state-supported terrorism. Yet instead of preserving a polite reticence about this, or at least an appropriate reserve, Sen. Clinton now has the obscene urge to claim the raped and slaughtered people of Bosnia as if their misery and death were somehow to be credited to her account! Words begin to fail one at this point. Is there no such thing as shame? Is there no decency at last? Let the memory of the truth, and the exposure of the lie, at least make us resolve that no Clinton ever sees the inside of the White House again.

I think it would be fair to say that Mr. Hitchens will not be the guest of honor at Hillary Clinton Night any time soon. 

But is he right about her?

See, there's the problem right there.  Mr. Hitchens may be devastatingly insulting to Ms. Clinton.  But what part of his frontal attack on her is wrong?  I can't find it.

If you are a Barack Obama supporter, you must be very happy with this article. 

Of course, if you are a John McCain supporter who thinks that Mr. Obama will be easier to beat in a general election than Ms. Clinton you're pretty happy with it too.


Ken Berwitz

This lovely bit of children's entertainment comes to us from those wonderful folks Israel is supposed to cut a peace deal with.  It is reported by www.msnbc.com:

Puppet child kills Bush on Gaza TV kids show

President slain in revenge for U.S., Israeli acts on Hamas channel in Gaza

MSNBC News Services
updated 2:02 p.m. ET, Tues., April. 1, 2008

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Brandishing "the sword of Islam," a Palestinian boy stabs President Bush to death in revenge for American and Israeli actions in a new puppet show for children aired by Hamas-owned television in the Gaza Strip.

The show, part of a series called "Exceptionals," first aired Sunday.

In the episode, Bush, a hand-held puppet dressed in a green uniform and wearing boxing gloves, is shown talking to a Palestinian child.

The child, with tears in his voice, accuses Bush of killing his father in Iraq, his mother in Lebanon and his brothers and sisters in Gaza with the assistance of the Israelis.

"You are a criminal, Bush, a despicable man. You made me an orphan. You deprived me of everything," says the hand-held puppet.

The program was broadcast on Hamas' al-Aqsa television, which has used puppets and cartoon characters in the past to illustrate the Islamist movement's battle against Israel and opposition to U.S. support for the Jewish state.

No one was available at the station to comment on the show.

"I must take my revenge with the sword of Islam," the puppet-child says, stabbing the Bush puppet several times in the chest and ignoring pleas of "I repent, just don't kill me" and an invitation to a toy-filled White House.

"I killed him," the puppet says, accusing Bush of being "impure" and vowing the White House would be turned into a mosque.

Last year, al-Aqsa television aired a program starring a Mickey Mouse clone, Farfur, who urged children to fight Israel in the name of Islam. Farfur was killed off, on-air, by an actor posing as an Israeli security agent.

Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, is shunned by the United States over its refusal to recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept existing interim Israeli-Palestinian peace deals.

The group has accused the United States of backing Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip, attacks against militants that have at times caused civilian casualties.

Keep in mind, please, that the description "Hamas-owned television" is entirely literal.  Hamas won a majority of the parliamentary elections over yasir arafat's baby, fatah, in both Gaza and Judea/Samaria (the west bank).  Then it promptly overthrew the two-party government in Gaza through violent means and now controls it entirely.

So let's review the high(?) points of this puppet show.  President Bush is a partner in murder with Israel.   Mr. Bush and the state of Israel have killed Muslims all over the world and taken everything from them (where does Israel store all that oil?).  Because of this President Bush is killed on-camera by a child who slices him up with the "sword of Islam".  The child then states that Mr. Bush was impure, and that he wants to turn the White House into a mosque.


Ok, now it's your turn.  Tell me how Israel is supposed to make peace with hamas.  I'll wait.....


Ken Berwitz

One of my biggest problems with the Bush administration has been its laxity in protecting our borders. 

What you are about to read should have taken place long ago.  And I find it impossible to escape the belief that the only reason it is being done now is for election-year purposes.  Does this bother me?  Outrage me?   Yes it does on both counts.

That said, however, now at least it looks as if Mr. Bush has finally become serious about protecting our borders.  With the caveat that looks can be deceiving, please read the following article from www.worldnetdaily.com

Bush pulls rank to finish fence
Bypasses environmental laws, red tape
in effort to complete 670-mile barrier

Posted:  April 01, 2008

 2008 WorldNetDaily

The Bush administration plans to cut through the bureaucratic red tape and bypass environmental laws hindering the building of 670 miles of fence along the border with Mexico and finish the section authorized by Congress by the end of this year.

Federal officials said the administration will invoke two legal waivers sanctioned by Congress to overcome obstacles holding up construction in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, the Associated Press reported.

Officials have said the "virtual fence" along a 28-mile section of the border in Arizona has been delayed by technical problems, and opposition from landowners along the border has delayed plans for the 670 miles of fencing.

The department previously used its waiver authority to build smaller portions, two in Arizona and one in San Diego.

Federal officials say that 309 miles of fencing has been completed, as of March 17, with another 309 miles to go.

Amid more than 100 meetings between federal officials and environmental groups and residents, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff had insisted using the waivers would be a last resort, the AP noted. DHS says it will conduct environmental assessments when necessary, but the waivers allow the department to go ahead with building before the assessments are completed.

Landowners have refused to give the government access, and environmentalists complain the fencing puts endangered species into even worse situations. DHS argues the barrier will solve the problem of widespread trash and human waste left by illegal aliens.

As WND reported in January, the author of the fencing provisions of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif, introduced legislation in the House of Representatives to require the construction of double-layered barrier within six months.

However, an amendment submitted by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, into the Department of Homeland Security funding bill specifically exempted DHS from having to build any fence at all.

Hunter said in January that when the Secure Fence Act "was enacted more than one year ago, the American people were pleased to see the necessary steps were finally being taken to secure the dangerous and problematic smuggling corridors that exist along our border with Mexico."

"Instead of adhering to the law and building the prescribed fencing, the Department of Homeland Security began to immediately retreat from the mandates of the bill, indicating its intention to build 370 miles of fence and not the required 700 miles," he said.

At the time, Hunter pointed out, DHS had built about 75 miles of new fence along the border, of which only five miles was double-layered.

"The reality is that single-layered fencing and vehicle barriers do little, if anything, to stop illegal immigration, and the 'virtual fence' alternative being aggressively pursued by DHS remains ineffective and unusable," he the congressman said.

"The legislation I am introducing reinstates the most important elements of the Secure Fence, which were wrongly amended under the omnibus spending bill," Hunter said. "If we truly hope to bring some sense of security to our southern land border, then we must begin building the appropriate infrastructure in the timeliest manner possible."

We owe a debt of gratitude to Rep. Duncan Hunter (frankly, a far greater one than what we owe the President) for doggedly fighting to get this fence built. 

Now let's see how many politicians and/or political activist groups try to stop it again (we probably can already guess which ones, can't we?). 

These people do not care about the security of this country.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, 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!!