Wednesday, 23 April 2008


Ken Berwitz

The Today show and the New York Times (among others) are in the tank for Barack Obama.  There's no other way to say this.

First let's start with the Pennsylvania primary results:  Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama by 10%:  55% to 45%.   And she did so after Mr. Obama, who is loaded with $$$, outspent her by more than 2 to 1.

Then we'll add a little common-sense logic:  when a frontrunner hugely outspends his opponent, and then loses to her by 10% - in a SWING STATE - that frontrunner is in trouble.  Period, end of story.

Ok, now let's toss results and logic out the window.  We're going to have to, because we will be talking about how Clinton's Pennsylvania victory was handled on the Today show and in the New York Times.

My wife likes to watch Today while she gets ready for work.  And when it is on, we often do what I call "railing and rolling".  That is, I rail about how biased Today's reporting is and she rolls her eyes because she doesn't want to hear it over and over again.

But this morning things were different.  I was in the kitchen cutting fruit for her breakfast and she came in to tell me that Hillary Clinton had just been asked how come she's still staying in the race -- after all, the New York Times, her "home town newspaper", is suggesting she drop out.

This was so flagrantly biased that even my wife, who tries to avoid the political part of the show, couldn't take it.

I recalled that Today had Tim Russert on yesterday, and he said that Clinton needed a 10% or more victory to be a viable candidate.  I disputed that (railing) to my wife (rolling eyes), and said something like "If she already won New York, California, New Jersey, Ohio and almost certainly would have won Florida, then she wins Pennsylvania, why should she drop out?  I don't give a rat's rear what standard Tim Russert sets for her.

Well, the truth is that Ms. Clinton did win Pennsylvania and did meet Russert's artificially high standard.  So what happens?  The same show he said it on asks her how come she's not dropping out.

In the tank for Obama.

Then I picked up the New York Times and read its lead editorial (which had to have been written before the election results were final).  The essence of the editorial, which you can read by clicking here, is that Ms. Hilton is running a negative campaign and she's terrible for doing it, so she should stop it right now - oh, and by the way, Obama runs negative material too, but that doesn't count because he's only doing it to combat the fact that Ms. Clinton is.

(I wonder if they took into account the finger he gave Ms. Clinton at a campaign rally last week. I have two videos of it on this blog, each from a different angle.  Just scroll down a bit to see them).

The Times' editorial is breathtakingly stupid and biased. 

Look, my eyes are wide open here.  Hillary Clinton and hubby Bubba are no strangers to negative campaigning.  They do it more intensely and more effectively than almost anyone else.

But the reason you have heard relatively little such campaigning from Obama compared to Clinton is that a) he is the frontrunner (the one playing catch-up is almost always the one doing most negative campaigning) and - most importantly - because media have given this man a virtual free pass for his entire campaign.

We saw it just last week.  In their last debate Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos had the unmitigated temerity to ask Obama about his associations with a racist anti USA pastor and an unrepentant domestic terrorist.  Instead of expressing appreciation that, finally, someone had asked these obviously important questions, mainstream media villified Gibson and Stephanopoulos mercilessly for doing so.  Heck, you'd have thought they were Republicans.

So mainstream media, led by the New York Times, appears to be on an election-long mission to shield Barack Obama from any scrutiny he would find the least bit embarrassing.  And then they go nuts on his opponent when she tries to ask the questions they are shielding him from.

In the tank for Obama

The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is not leaving this race.  Hillary Clinton shouldn't leave this race.  She has every right and reason to be in it.  And she has every right and reason to demand answers from Barack Obama about who he consorts with and why he would do so.

And if Today and the Times don't like it?  As they used to say in third grade recess, tough noogies.


Ken Berwitz

I am about to give you a link to Michelle Malkin's website, on which she has provided detailed information on how extensive Barack Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist william ayers really has been.

I would normally just "cut and paste" it, but for some reason my attempt to do so earlier today resulted in the blog site getting screwed up enough so that I needed outside help to fix it.  As you might expect, I don't want that to happen again.

So please just click here, and you will see the Obama/ayers connection in all its glory.

Then you can sit back and wonder why Ms. Malkin and other bloggers could find this information but mainstream media somehow couldn't.

Now why do you suppose? 


Ken Berwitz

I suppose there might be people who buy the media's BS about Barack Obama and william ayers - i.e. that they shouldn't care about it because these attitudes and actions are from 40 years ago and now he's just a wam fuzzy college professor.

Well, John Hinderaker at is about to burst their little bubble.

Here is what he uncovered - which media either didn't find or just decided not to let you in on:

The Friends of Barack Obama, Part 1

When Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer decided to retire in 1995, she hand-picked local left-winger Barack Obama as her successor. In order to introduce Obama to influential liberals in the district, she held a function at the home of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. This was, really, the beginning of Obama's political career, and it linked him forever with Ayers and Dohrn, with whom, as his campaign has acknowledged, he continues to have a friendly relationship.

Ayers and Dohrn were famous radicals, and fugitives from the law, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Dohrn, actually, was the more famous of the two; she was the head, as I recall, of Students for a Democratic Society or one of its factions. Dohrn was crazy. She is the only public figure, to my knowledge, to approve publicly and enthusiastically of the Charles Manson murders.


Ayers was a would-be murderer of soldiers and policemen, but he wasn't a very good terrorist. He had the ill fortune to choose September 11, 2001, as the day on which to publish an op-ed in the New York Times, in which he said that he didn't regret his attempted murders and only wished that he had planted more bombs.


In last week's Pennsylvania debate, Barack Obama was finally asked about his friendship with, and the political support he has accepted from, Ayers and Dohrn. Obama replied that Ayers had done reprehensible things forty years ago, when Obama was eight years old, and scoffed at the idea that Ayers's ancient history could be relevant. That was disingenuous, of course, given Ayers's 2001 regrets.

It turns out that we don't have to go back as far as 2001 to find that Obama's friends are as unrepentant as ever. Just last year, Ayers and Dohrn attended a reunion--no kidding--of what must have been the tiny remnant of SDS members who still haven't figured out that they were wrong about everything. Listen to what Bill Ayers, who hosted Barack Obama's first fundraiser, has to say about the United States. Not when Obama was eight years old, but in 2007:

At the same event, Obama's friend and supporter Bernadine Dohrn described the United States as "the monster." Obama was 47 years old at the time:

Barack Obama has declined to repudiate or distance himself from his neighbors, supporters and friends, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. There is a certain consistency of perspective among Obama's friends and mentors, which can be summed up in Jeremiah Wright's memorable phrase: "God damn America."

Much more to come, tomorrow.

PAUL adds: Michelle Obama also takes a fairly dim view of America. But with all those student loans to pay off, I guess it's understandable.

SCOTT adds: Hugh Hewitt notes:

Keep in mind a young radio producer --Guy Benson of WYLL's The Sandy Rios Show -- found audio that no one else in all of the MSM found to launch this story.

Hugh asks: "What else will we be discovering about Barack Obama's friends, and about the candidate?"

Barack Obama is a bubble with a dozen aneurysms on it.  jeremiah wright is a big one. But william ayers has the potential to become just as big and maybe even bigger. 

When you go ga-ga over a politician with an unknown past, you better be prepared.  If that past was good, he'd have already told you about it. 

This is one of the parts Mr. Obama hasn't told you about, and you can bet your buckaroo there will be others.


Ken Berwitz

I don't mean to be parsing this stuff out, one blog after another.  But the information is flying right now and I want you to know it when I do.

Here is the latest connection between terrorists/terrorist supporters and Barack Obama, courtesy of

Terrorist Fundraisers for Obama

By Patrick Poole | Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Two years ago, Hatem El-Hady was the chairman of the Toledo, Ohio-based Islamic charity, Kindhearts, which was closed by the US government in February 2006 for terrorist fundraising and all its assets frozen. Today, El-Hady has redirected his fundraising efforts for his newest cause - Barack Obama for President.

El-Hady has his own dedicated page on Barack Obama's official website, chronicling his fundraising on behalf of the Democratic Party presidential candidate (his Obama profile established on February 19, 2008 - two years to the day after Kindhearts was raided by the feds). Not only that, but he has none other than Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, listed as one of his friends (one of her 224 listed friends).

But his leadership of Kindhearts is not the only thing that has brought him scrutiny by federal law enforcement officials. Last summer, El-Hady was questioned by the FBI concerning his knowledge of possible conspirators in a UK-based terror plot.

Hatem El-Hady's interest in "change" is understandable. Following the closure of Kindhearts, he said in response to the government's closure of his organization:

"It's dirty politics," said Dr. Hatem Elhady, chairman of the board of KindHearts, which raised $5.1 million in 2004. "They do not like the way things are going in Palestine. They do not like the election results. But that is not our problem. Our problem is providing aid to people in desperate need of help."

The Department of Justice had a very different version of events. According to the DOJ, Kindhearts assumed the role of lead terrorist fundraising in the US after the government had closed other such Islamic "charities":

"KindHearts is the progeny of Holy Land Foundation and Global Relief Foundation, which attempted to mask their support for terrorism behind the faade of charitable giving," said Stuart Levey, Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

Not only was Kindhearts engaged in providing funds for HAMAS in Lebanon and the West Bank, it had hired as a fundraising specialist the man identified as the designated HAMAS bag man in the US, Mohammed El-Mezain.

And as investigative reporter Joe Kaufman revealed, "The Black Hearts of Kindhearts", a number of other Kindhearts officials were tied to terrorist fundraising and support:

  • KindHearts Director of Domestic Programs, Khalifah Ramadan. Ramadan was a training and evaluation consultant for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), two large Muslim organizations based in the United States that have links to overseas terror groups.
  • KindHearts Representaive, Omar Shahin. Shahin was an Imam for the Islamic Center of Tucson (ICT), the former home of numerous terror operatives, including Wael Jelaidan, who later helped found Al-Qaeda.
  • KindHearts Representative, Wagdy Ghuneim. Ghuneim, an Egyptian cleric, has been featured in KindHearts fundraising dinners for 2002, 2003 and 2004. During a rally at Brooklyn College, in May of 1998, Ghuneim attempted to persuade the crowd to support violent jihad and labeled Jews as descendants of the apes.
  • KindHearts Representative, Hatem Bazian. Bazian is an Islamic Studies instructor and a member of the faculty of Near Eastern Studies at UC Berkley. In April of 2004, during a San Francisco anti-war rally, Bazian, a native Palestinian, called for an intifada against the United States. This was just two months prior to Bazian being featured in a KindHearts Fundraising Dinner, entitled Palestinians in agony!
  • KindHearts Manager in Lebanon, Haytham Maghawri (a.k.a. Haytham Fawri). Maghawri, the past Social Services Director for HLF, according to the Treasury Department, collected [KindHearts] funds and sent them to Hamas and other Salafi groups. [One of the recipients of KindHearts funding was Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) Usama Hamdan, a leader of Hamas in Lebanon.]

And two months before Kindhearts closure by the US government, Beila Rabinowitz had revealed that the South Asia Division Coordinator for Kindhearts, Zulfiqar Ali Shah, had known ties to al-Qaeda, even conducting a 10-day tour with officials for the Tablighi Jamaat organization, which the New York Times had described as "a springboard for militancy" and a "recruitment" center for Al-Qaeda.

Barack Obama has promised change. And as indicated by the public support that his candidacy has received by accused terrorist fundraiser Hatem El-Hady, Obama's version of change that terrorists and their US supporters can believe in.

Interesting, no?

Now, would you like to see how big a hit Barack Obama is with palestinian Arabs in Gaza? 

The following report comes to us from al-jazeera, by way of  (If you have any trouble retrieving the video, just click here):

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Gazans Rally Support For Barack Obama (Video)

Before every Democratic Primary battle in the US Gazan internet users rally support for Barack Obama.
Aljazeera reported:

Allow me to re-ask two questions I have asked before:

1. If this information is so accessible that bloggers can pick it up without breaking a sweat, where the @&^%$@&#* is mainstream media?

2. How can anyone who worries about terrorism and/or supports Israel vote for Barack Obama? 


Ken Berwitz

Really, did you have any doubt whatsoever as to which web site would come out more honest and accurate?  Me neither.

Rather than reshash what Charles Johnson of said so well, I'll just let him do it:

When Media Matters Attacks

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:06:36 am PDT

Media Matters shill Eric Boehlert is at it again, with another bilious rant about warbloggers: Michelle Malkin and the warbloggers get everything wrong again.

I wouldnt even bother with Boehlerts nonsense, except that his description of our coverage of AP photographer Bilal Husseins release under an Iraqi amnesty law is so laughably dishonest it needs a reply.

Ditto for warblogging central, Little Green Footballs: The Associated Press story about the release of photographer Bilal Hussein, strangely, does not explain that Hussein was released because of a new Iraqi amnesty law not because the charges were found to be without merit.

But where were the details about this amnesty law? Where were the facts that proved that Iraqi judges, in an extraordinarily high-profile case against a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and in a case the U.S. military was heavily invested in, never examined the evidence presented against Hussein and simply allowed him to walk free regardless of his guilt or innocence? Did warbloggers quote U.S. military officials? Did they research Iraqi law? Did they even cite news accounts? No they just liked the sound of the amnesty spin.

No, actually our report about the amnesty law comes directly from none other than the Associated Press. Heres our quote from the AP article, since Boehlert appears to have missed it somehow:

BAGHDAD (AP) - An Iraqi judicial committee has dismissed terrorism-related allegations against Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein and ordered him freed after nearly two years in U.S. military custody.

The decision by a four-judge panel says Husseins case falls under a new amnesty law and orders Iraqi courts to cease legal proceedings.

The shill continues:

Still curious as to how LGF could be so certain in its April 16 item about the details of the amnesty law and how it represented Husseins bogus, get-of-jail card, I went back and looked at what LGF wrote following the April 9 news that the Iraqi judges had dismissed charges against Hussein.

LGF posted this: AP photographer Bilal Hussein has received amnesty from the Iraqi government, under a new law. I was unable to find any details about this new law, but apparently it covers Hussein. [emphasis added]

Oh, my. Warbloggers maintain this fantasy that they were right all along about Hussein being a terrorist and it was only the creation of a new amnesty law that saved him from a certain prison sentence. But in truth, warbloggers have no idea what the amnesty law means.

Interesting that Boehlert went back and looked at what LGF wrote, and yet somehow missed the update we posted 11 minutes after the original post, with details about the amnesty law in question. Of course, mentioning that wouldnt fit the narrative hes creating.

Media Matters, of course, is a hard left propaganda outfit funded by George Soros. They are heavily invested in promoting the kind of biased reporting that is a natural outcome of mainstream medias use of local stringers in Iraq; its important for them to discredit anyone who pulls back the curtain, so the propaganda can continue to flow. And these are the tactics they use: selective quoting and exaggerated misrepresentations of their opponents views.

For example, this is what I actually wrote about Husseins amnesty release:

Amnesty, of course, does not necessarily equal innocence. Well have to see what the military decides to do next.

But in Boehlerts distorted fun-house mirror version:

Where were the facts that proved that Iraqi judges, in an extraordinarily high-profile case against a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and in a case the U.S. military was heavily invested in, never examined the evidence presented against Hussein and simply allowed him to walk free regardless of his guilt or innocence?

These are opinions that I never expressed; they come from nowhere except Boehlerts fevered imagination.

Boehlert concludes by stating that Bilal Hussein was completely innocent of all the allegations against him. Boehlerts source for this? Bilal Husseins AP-funded lawyer.

Now theres an unbiased source.

Remember this the next time these serial-lying dirtbags give you "information".  They are as honest as the day is long.....On December 21st.


Ken Berwitz

In case there was even a smidgen of doubt left that jimmy carter was lying when he claimed he brokered some kind of peace deal between hamas and Israel, we have this from Agence Press France.....

Carter-Hamas meeting achieved nothing: Palestinians

Last week's meeting between former US president Jimmy Carter and the exiled leader of Hamas militants did not produce any results, Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Malki said here Wednesday.

"President Carter came to the region thinking he could achieve something. Unfortunately president Carter left without anything concrete," he told a conference in the Spanish capital.

"The only thing he achieved was permission on the part of Khaled Meshaal of Hamas to deliver a letter from a detained Israeli soldier to his family. Nothing else," he said.

"Hamas offered nothing to president Carter. They reiterated the same positions. There was no change on the part of Hamas," Malki added.

Carter's meetings with top Hamas leader Meshaal and his deputy in Syria angered Israel and the United States, which consider the movement a terror group despite its victory in 2006 elections.

He was unable to secure a ceasefire or a prisoner exchange for an Israeli soldier seized by Gaza militants in 2006, but on Monday Carter said Hamas told him it would recognise Israel's right to exist such a deal was approved by a Palestinian vote.

Just hours later Meshaal told a press conference in Damascus that Hamas would not recognise the Jewish state and would insist on the right of return for 4.5 million Palestinian refugees.

So carter's pals at hamas think he's just as full of manure as I do.  That's about the only thing we have in common.

Let me put it bluntly:  jimmy carter is the south end of a northbound horse.


Ken Berwitz

The following story comes to us via the Michigan City (Indiana) Post-Dispatch.  Sit down before reading it, you won't believe your eyes:

4/22/2008 11:03:00 AM   
Indiana 2nd Congressional District candidate Tony Zirkle addresses a gathering of the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party on Sunday in Chicago. The group was celebrating Adolf Hitlers birthday while Zirkle spoke of ridding society of prostitution, pornography and the trafficking of young, white women. Provided
Worst Campaign Idea Ever?
Hoosier congressional candidate speaks at birthday party for Hitler, in Chicago

Jason Miller
The News-Dispatch

CROWN POINT, Ind. - If fans of Hitler held a party, and a candidate for federal office attended, would anybody notice?

Apparently, yes.

U.S. Congressional candidate Tony Zirkle is facing criticism from one of his primary opponents, and a host of people on the Internet, for speaking at an event over the weekend that celebrated Adolf Hitler's birthday.

Zirkle confirmed to The News-Dispatch on Monday he spoke Sunday in Chicago at a meeting of the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party, whose symbol is a swastika.

When asked if he was a Nazi or sympathized with Nazis or white supremacists, Zirkle replied he didn't know enough about the group to either favor it or oppose it.

"This is just a great opportunity for me to witness," he said, referring to his message and his Christian belief.

He also told WIMS radio in Michigan City that he didn't believe the event he attended included people necessarily of the Nazi mindset, pointing out the name isn't Nazi, but Nationalist Socialist Workers Party.

The Crown Point Republican spoke in front of about 56 "white activists" at an event honoring the birth of Hitler. The German leader was responsible for the genocide of millions of Jews and others during World War II.

Zirkle said the group asked him to speak to discuss the effect of pornography and prostitution on young, white women and girls.

Zirkle is running against Republican Luke Puckett of Goshen and Joseph Roush of Plymouth in the May primary. He lost twice before in primaries to former U.S. Rep. Chris Chocola and has made doing away with pornography and prostitution his top campaign plank.

"I told (Channel 16, WNDU in South Bend) in the beginning that I'd speak to any group that wanted me to speak," Zirkle said Monday. He said he's also recently spoken on the subject to a pair of black journalists.

"I'm keeping my promise. I'll speak to any group. (The National Socialist Workers Party) was interested in the targeting of white people for prostitution."

Puckett spokesman Kyle Bailey said Monday that Puckett was in "disbelief" when he saw a story on the Internet from a Web site called

It detailed Zirkle's speech in a story about the gathering, called not only to honor Hitler but to "fight America's economic collapse and reinvigorate the white working class."

At the event, Hitler's birthday was observed with a cake with a photo of Hitler and the words "Seig Heil."

"I can't believe, in 2008, someone could have such backward opinions," Puckett said.

Zirkle said he told the group about his days as a prosecutor in Indiana, during which time he prosecuted gangs involved in trafficking prostitutes and pornography from Eastern Europe.

The Crown Point lawyer, who also has an office in South Bend, has in all three of his primary races pointed to pornography and prostitution as the downfall of society. He said Monday that he agrees with the group's notion the trafficking of "young, white women should be stopped," he said.

When asked if meeting with Nazis was a danger to his political career, Zirkle said he was willing to take the chance.

"That's the risk you have to take to get your point across," Zirkle said. "If the Black Panthers or the Jewish Zionists want me to speak about these issues, I'll do it."

This man would need remedial help to achieve imbecile status.

Any time the Republican Party asks him to leave will be fine.  God knows they won't regret the loss.

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!!