Tuesday, 08 April 2008


Ken Berwitz

This story, which comes to us from the Associated Press, definitely qualifies for the "you can't make this stuff up" file:

Bride, groom spend wedding night in jail

Couple arrested after wedding party got out of hand, police say

VALLEJO, Calif. - A weekend wedding turned into an unforgettable first night for these two newlyweds.

Police said a bride and groom spent their first night as a married couple in jail after their wedding party at a Vallejo home got out of hand.

When police had to return a second time to the home Saturday night, officers stunned both the groom and his cousin with a Taser when they both became aggressive toward the officers.

The groom and cousin were arrested for allegedly resisting arrest.

The bride was taken into custody on suspicion of public intoxication.

This is truly a wedding for the books.  After all, how often is a bride given away and bailed out on the same night?

And the wedding pictures?  Definitely worth waiting for.  Maybe they can stuff in a couple of 8 X 10 glossies of the fingerprints too.

Did they bring the band along with the bride and groom?  How many choruses of Jailhouse Rock did they play?

Ok, enough, you do the next ones.  And don't tell me I didn't give you material to work with.

(Anon) arrested for allegedly resisting arrest i have never understood how that is possible. (04/08/08)


Ken Berwitz

Here is a little quiz for you:  Who wrote the following passage?

In foreign policy as well, Mr. Obama would bring to the White House an important experience that most other candidates lack: he has actually lived abroad. He spent four years as a child in Indonesia and attended schools in the Indonesian language, which he still speaks.

I was a little Jakarta street kid, he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office... He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics and more likely to be aware of their nationalism if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (itll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.

Moreover, Mr. Obamas own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim. Mr. Obama never met his grandfather and says he isnt sure if his grandfathers two wives were simultaneous or consecutive, or even if he was Sunni or Shiite. (O.K., maybe Mr. Obama should just give up on Alabama.)

This is devastating.  Who could have written such a thing? 

-An operative from the McCain camp?

-An operative from the Clinton camp?

-A Muslim-hating fanatic?

-A racist who will try to stop Barack Obama at all costs?

-A comedian, someone like Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert or Bill Maher, who then assured you it was all a big joke?

The answer to those five choices, in order, is no, no, no, no and no.

That passage came from the NEW YORK TIMES, in its March 6, 2007 edition.  It was written by NICHOLAS KRISTOF, the hardline leftist who almost certainly is an Obama supporter.  If you doubt me (and I don't blame you for being skeptical), just click here and see it with your own eyes.

I got this information - along with the picture from the previous blog - from a site called http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com.  I never heard of it before.  But I can assure you I will be reading it regularly from now on.

This may not be much of a problem to Obama during the primary season (it's not good politics to mention any possible tie between Mr. Obama and Islam among Democratic primary voters).   But then there is the general election.  How do you suppose it will play then?

No wonder John McCain is smiling so much.


Ken Berwitz

It's not as if Barack Obama is lacking for anti-Israel people. 

Mr. Obama has stacked his campaign with them (I've blogged about one after another after another already, just scroll back).  His "spiritual mentor", jeremiah wright, is an Israel hater of the first order, who calls Israel an "apartheid state" and seems virtually immune to faulting palestinian Arabs for any act of subversion or terrorism that they commit against Jews.

Aren't these Israel-haters enough?  Why does Barack Obama need another one?

Here is a link to the web site of someone named Tony Wicher.  I learned about it from the invaluable site www.littlegreenfootballs.com.  As you will see, it is a site HOSTED by the Barack Obama campaign. 

Please, please read its material, note the thoroughly anti-Israel position -- and remember, again, that Wicher is not just palsy-walsy with Obama, his sight is literally hosted by the Obama campaign:


If you are a supporter of Israel, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, how can you support this man? 

I don't give a damn how many times he eloquently, slickly assures you of his devotion to the state of Israel.  Look at what he DOES not what he SAYS.  Look at who he appoints within his campaign.  Look at who he reveres as a spiritual mentor.  Look at who he hosts on his own campaign web site.

The new testament says there are none so blind as those who will not see.  The issue is, are you one of them?

1,000 WORDS

Ken Berwitz

They say a picture is worth 1,000 words.

Here are 1,000 for you. 

Barak Hussein Obama

Remember these 1,000 words the next time Barack Obama assures you about how much he loves his country.  And if these thousand don't work, remember his wife saying she has never been proud of the USA for her entire adult life until her husband's presidential run.  And if that doesn't do it remember his specific refusal to wear a flag pin on his lapel.

How many thousands of words do you need to know about Barack Obama?


Ken Berwitz

Gasoline from grass and trees?  Wouldn't that be something!

Think it's a pipe dream?  Well, maybe not.  Please read the excerpts from this article in today's Science Daily and see for yourself (the entire article can be accessed by clicking here):

Breakthrough In Biofuel Production Process

ScienceDaily (Apr. 8, 2008) Researchers have made a breakthrough in the development of "green gasoline," a liquid identical to standard gasoline yet created from sustainable biomass sources like switchgrass and poplar trees.

Reporting in the April 7, 2008 issue of Chemistry & Sustainability, Energy & Materials (ChemSusChem), chemical engineer and National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER awardee George Huber of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst (UMass) and his graduate students Torren Carlson and Tushar Vispute announced the first direct conversion of plant cellulose into gasoline components.

In the same issue, James Dumesic and colleagues from the University of Wisconsin-Madison announce an integrated process for creating chemical components of jet fuel using a green gasoline approach. While Dumesic's group had previously demonstrated the production of jet-fuel components using separate steps, their current work shows that the steps can be integrated and run sequentially, without complex separation and purification processes between reactors.

While it may be five to 10 years before green gasoline arrives at the pump or finds its way into a fighter jet, these breakthroughs have bypassed significant hurdles to bringing green gasoline biofuels to market.

"Green gasoline is an attractive alternative to bioethanol since it can be used in existing engines and does not incur the 30 percent gas mileage penalty of ethanol-based flex fuel," said John Regalbuto, who directs the Catalysis and Biocatalysis Program at NSF and supported this research.

"In theory it requires much less energy to make than ethanol, giving it a smaller carbon footprint and making it cheaper to produce," Regalbuto said. "Making it from cellulose sources such as switchgrass or poplar trees grown as energy crops, or forest or agricultural residues such as wood chips or corn stover, solves the lifecycle greenhouse gas problem that has recently surfaced with corn ethanol and soy biodiesel."

Not only is the method a compact way to treat a great deal of biomass in a short time, Regalbuto emphasized that the process, in principle, does not require any external energy. "In fact, from the extra heat that will be released, you can generate electricity in addition to the biofuel," he said. "There will not be just a small carbon footprint for the process; by recovering heat and generating electricity, there won't be any footprint."

The latest pathways to produce green gasoline, green diesel and green jet fuel are found in a report sponsored by NSF, the Department of Energy and the American Chemical Society entitled "Breaking the Chemical and Engineering Barriers to Lignocellulosic Biofuels: Next Generation Hydrocarbon Biorefineries" released April 1. In the report, Huber and a host of leaders from academia, industry and government present a plan for making green gasoline a practical solution for the impending fuel crisis.

This is exciting news.  It is more than exciting.  If grass and trees can be converted to gasoline we will have what amounts to a neverending energy supply that does not despoil the environment or take away a food crop (like corn, for example).

I'm certainly no scientist and I don't have any insight into how well this will work out.  But if you aren't rooting for something like this to succeed big-time, you are very, very misguided.

Hey, a "rooting" interest in grass and trees!  Not only is it a tremendous potential breakthrough, but I even get a bad pun out of it.  



Ken Berwitz

At least he was man enough to apologize, I'll give him that much.

John D. Rockefeller III (the guy who tries to make you comfortable with his name by calling himself Jay) viciously insulted John McCain.  This is hardly anything new among Democrats.  But instead of lying about what McCain said about 100 years in Iran, or pretending that james hagee is McCain's spiritual advisor (those are the two most frequent lies these days), he went after Mr. McCain's war record.

Here is the story, via excerpts from the Associated Press (you can read the entire story by clicking here):

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller apologized for suggesting Republican Sen. John McCain doesn't care about people because he was a Navy fighter pilot who dropped bombs on Vietnam.

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues," Rockefeller said.

He said he called McCain to apologize.

"I made an inaccurate and wrong analogy, and I have extended my sincere apology to him," Rockefeller said in a statement. "While we differ a great deal on policy issues, I profoundly respect and appreciate his dedication to our country, and I regret my very poor choice of words."

McCain was shot down during the Vietnam War and spent nearly six years as a prisoner of war.

A vicious stupid comment followed by a gracious apology.  That doesn't expunge what Mr. Rockefeller said, but does at least ameliorate it to some degree.

Now, when does Barack Obama start apologizing for the flat-out lie he keeps telling every time he says John McCain advocates 100 years of war in Iraq?

One person put it very well:

REALLY, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq (as Mr. Obama said) or willing to keep this war going for 100 years (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong.

What Mr. McCain actually said in a New Hampshire town-hall meeting was that he could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-term presence in South Korea and Japan, where Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. See for yourself on YouTube.

And who said that?  Fascinatingly, what you just read was the lead two paragraphs from Frank Rich's column in Sunday's New York Times. 

Rich is as hard-left as it gets, even by Times standards, and is strongly against John McCain.  But Obama's lie is so rancid that even he couldn't take it.  Meanwhile, Obama has not retracted a word.  He just keeps saying it, therefore he keeps lying.

Lying and refusing to take it back?  That's not change.  That's same old-same old.  Just what you'd expect from a Chicago machine politician.


Ken Berwitz

Here, from Ed Morrissey (formerly of Captain's Quarters, now writing for www.hotair.com) is an encapsulation of what anyone who followed events in Zimbabwe would have fully expected:

Mugabe rounding up poll workers

posted at 8:10 am on April 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Robert Mugabe apparently cant spin the poll data enough to convince anyone that he qualified for a run-off against the apparent winner of the presidential election, MDC challenger Morgan Tsvangirai. The Zimbabwean dictator has settled on another explanation instead. His security forces have begun arresting poll workers for undercounting the votes Mugabe intended to overcount:

Zimbabwean police have arrested at least five officials for allegedly under-counting votes cast for President Robert Mugabe in last months election.

Police said the election officials have been charged with fraud and criminal abuse of duty, accused of taking nearly 5,000 votes away from Mr Mugabe.

Government ministers have said the arrested election officials were paid to falsify the election results.

They say the results posted outside polling stations showed more votes for Mr Mugabe than the forms forwarded to Harare for counting.

The poll workers make easy targets in this tug-of-war. MDC officials took pictures of every local poll result, so if the tallies received by the Zimbabwe Election Commission were suspect, they could simply check them against the pictures instead. Theyre not interested in a correct count, but in manipulating allegations to delegitimize the result of the popular vote. If they have to arrest a few poll workers, then they have no problem with that, especially since it will reduce the incentive for participation in succeeding elections.

Mugabes Zanu-PF has now demanded a recount. That seems odd, since the election commission hasnt released results yet. How can they know they need a recount if the votes have not yet been counted fully the first time? Theyre stalling for time time enough to figure out how to steal an election they obviously lost too badly to spin.

Ten days have passed since the election, and still the government has yet to announce any results. The MDC has taken the issue to court, which the Mugabe governments election commission protested as outside its jurisdiction. In an ominous ruling for the ruling clique, the high court disagreed with Mugabe and heard arguments on the case, and could rule on it as early as today. A negative outcome could force Mugabe to use violence to maintain power, and could touch off a civil war.

Zimbabwe is a crime scene.  They should put yellow tape around the entire country. 

People die in the streets without food, clothing, shelter or medicine.  What once was a paradigm for Africa's future has been allowed to degenerate into a national death camp.  Virtually the only places where there is anything at all (and they have everything) are mugabe's compound and the facilities where troops who protect him are stationed, so they stay loyal.

The Organization of African States?  It sits by watching.

The UN, those "let them do their work" folks we all know and love so well? It sits by watching.

The rest of the world (us included)?  it sits by watching.

And they all continue to sit by watching as mugabe steals an election that everyone who knows a thing about Zimbabwe knew he would steal.

Anyone who wonders how a Hitler could come to power and run wild in the 1930's - how the rest of the world could just sit by watching - has a contemporary model in Zimbabwe.  As Santayana warned, we do not learn from history and are doomed to repeat it.


Ken Berwitz

As we await today's hearings in which General David Petraeus will be subjected to inquisitions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - both members of a party that has loudly and publicly declared the troop surge (thus General Petraeus) a failure BEFORE the hearings, we have the following report from Martha Raddatz of ABC news.

Ms. Raddatz has "asked American soldiers in Iraq" about their political views, including who they would prefer to be their next President.

You can read Ms. Raddatz' entire piece by clicking here.  But I will make it easy for you.  Here are the names of every soldier she included in her article and who he/she prefers as the next President:

PFC Jeremy Slate:  Obama

SPC.  Patricia Keller:  Obama

SPC. Patrick Nicholls:  No preference expressed

LT. Leah Wicks:  No preference expressed

SPC. Imus Loto:  Obama

Sgt Justin Sarbaum - A Democrat, no specific preference for which one

Sgt. Corey Messingham:  No preference expressed

1st. Sgt. David Logan:  Clinton

Sgt. Matthew Durkin:  No preference expressed

Staff Sgt. Derek Dion:  No preference expressed

SPC. Joseph Lindsesdt:  Obama

So there you have it.  Eleven soldiers quoted.  Not one of them supports a great military hero and the only candidate who was ever in the miltary, John McCain.  But five support a candidate (4: Obama, 1: Clinton) who is against the war. 

And among the soldiers who expressed opinions about the war itself?  Four say we should get out.  None says we should stay or mentions anything at all about completing the mission.

Not one soldier - the vast majority of whom are volunteers who enlisted or re-enlisted, during this war - has a good word to say about our efforts in Iraq.

That, folks, is your "neutral" report on how the military feels about Iraq. 

Do YOU think it looks neutral?  Do YOU think it could possibly be accurate in its portrayal of military sentiment - again remembering that every person interviewed is a volunteer?

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

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!!