Monday, 16 June 2008


Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I blogged about the dissolute charlatan al sharpton and, based on a New York Post report, how he hustles corporations into giving him money.

If you read that blog you might be saying to yourself  "well, regardless of how sharpton gets the money, it doesn't go into his pocket. The beneficiaries are charities he supports through his group, the National Action Network (NAN)".

If you actually think this, for God sake, c'mon.  This is al sharpton we're talking about.

Here, from the invaluable web site,, is where the money goes, straight off of sharpton's tax filings (and aren't we lucky to see them, since he sometimes files and sometimes doesn't bother):

Sharptons Million Dollar Shakedown Racket

June 15th, 2008

Here is how Mr. Sharpton describes his National Action Network to the IRS, via Guidestar:





And here is the modest sum NAN collected in just the 2006, according to its form 990 (a pdf file):


Thats right. Mr. Sharpton made $1,050.740.00 in 2006 alone from just this one organization.

And if we are reading the form 990 right, NAN managed to spend more than that on salaries ($527,633) and consulting fees ($530,574):


Mr. Sharpton is the only employee listed on the form.

The National Action Network lists itself as a 501c4, which according to the US Code and Wikipedia is not supposed to be for the benefit of any private individual:


501(c)(4) exemptions are given to civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit and operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees. Net earnings are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

The exemption applies so long as "no part of the net earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual."

And yet almost all of the money NAN collects goes to "salaries" and "consulting fees."

Which sounds like a lot of inuring to the benefit of someone most likely Mr. Sharpton.

Also please note that out of the $1,050.740.00 taken in 2006, the National Action Network gave only $1,000 to charity.


Still think anyone but sharpton benefits from this scam?  Good, I thought you'd see the light.

Now I have a few questions to ask:

-Why are most media (obviously not the New York Post and obviously not at least some of the blogosphere) bowing down to this charlatan?

-How come so many of the news media that seem to have no problem tracking down high crimes and misdemeanors of George Bush and his administration seem incapable of so much as looking at an available tax form when it comes to sharpton? 

-Most people would see al sharpton as one of the three or four most well known, highly publicized Black "leaders" (what a shame to use that word in the same sentence).  But it is clear that, in almost all cases, media studiously avoid even the most perfunctory examination of what he is all about.  Is it because they fear the discord he can create based on  the influence he has over some Black people?  That certainly is the hatchet sharpton uses against corporate America;  maybe media are just as scared for the same reason.

-When does the Democratic party cut this sickening fraud loose?  Are they scared too?  (In this instance I admit they have good reason to be, since even a small loss of Black voters is catastrophic for Democrats) 

-Is there even one major Democrat left who has the honesty, integrity and guts to stand up and disclaim al sharpton?   So far, the answer is no.  And it isn't like media are pressuring them to do so, is it?

Finally, when will Barack Obama, the single most significant Black Democrat there is (he has to be, he's their presidential standard-bearer this year) speak up about sharpton?  Or is this going to be one of those "gee, I didn't know he said stuff like that" routines, like the one he did with jeremiah wright?


Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama has changed churches.

After attending the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) for only 18 years, he noticed that it was a cesspool of racism, anti-Israel and anti-White sentiment. 

No one can say Mr. Obama isn't a quick study.

Now he is attending the Apostolic Church of God (ACG), which is a short distance from Trinity United in Chicago.

I thought you might like to see what Mr. Obama's new church is all about, from its web site.  So here is its mission statement and its belief system:

Our Mission

The chief purpose of the Apostolic Church of God is to glorify God, who has given us the highest revelation of Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. In glorifying God, we enter into public worship services, seeking to give fitting expression to our profound and dedicated commitment to our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved us and gave Himself for us. In our worship service we find a meaningful awareness of His presence with us, and we respond to this awareness with adoration and praise.

Our worship includes the preaching and teaching of the gospel concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so as to enlighten the conscience to the holiness of God, to feed the mind with the truth of God, and to open the heart to the matchless grace of God. In our service to Christ, we are to call sinners to repentance, lift the fallen, visit the sick, uplift and maintain the highest standards of morality, and urge all believers to seek a Spirit-filled life.

It is essential that we nourish and cultivate the Christian lives of our parishioners; that we concern ourselves with giving aid and comfort to the poor, to work for better living conditions in society in general, and in our community in particular. In order to effectuate this purpose, the ministries and auxiliaries of the Apostolic Church of God were founded.

What We Believe

We believe that we should earnestly contend for God's standard of salvation. In the Word of God we find nothing short of a holy, Spirit-filled life with the signs following as on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:4; 8:14-17; 10:44-48; 10:1-6, Romans 12:1-2, Hebrews 12:14).

The only ground upon which God will accept a sinner is repentance from the heart for the sins that he has committed.
(Psalm 51:17, Luke 24:47)

We believe in water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and the receiving of the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 2:38; 10:44-48; 19:1-6)

  • We believe in the Translation of Saints.
  • We believe in the Millennium.
  • We believe in the Lord's Supper.
  • We believe in Divine Healing.
  • We believe in a wholly sanctified life and final judgment.
That mission statement and belief system should absolutely thrill any truly devout Christian, regardless of his/her color.  What an immense change from TUCC!  And what an immense change there is from TUCC's hate-soaked pastor jeremiah wright to ACG's exceptionally impressive pastor, Dr. Byron Brazier.

But I do have just a few questions:

-If Barack Obama sincerely accepts the mission statement and belief system of the Apostolic Church of  God, why in God's name wasn't he going there in the first place instead of spending all those years at TUCC?  Why did he subject his wife and children to the TUCC hate-fest instead of the far more Christian teachings apparently available at ACG?

-If George Bush's church had the same mission statement (and it very well may), what would the people who are fawning over Mr. Obama say about it?  Isn't this precisely the kind of Christianity that so many of them reference when demonizing Mr. Bush as a hopeless fundy?  If that is how they feel, wouldn't Mr. Obama be one too?

Please note that my purpose in asking this question is not in any way meant to denigrate the Apostolic Church of God.  ACG is exactly what a committed Christian Church should be and I have nothing but respect for it.  

My point is that there are two different sets of rules here for the same situation.  And, using those different sets of rules, Mr. Obama wins and Mr. Bush loses.

I wonder what the mission statement and belief system is at John McCain's church. 


Ken Berwitz

This is a question that, you would think, rests entirely on the political views of the answerer.  Liberal/leftists are more likely to say he did.  Conservative/rightists are more likely to say he did not.

But there are exceptions. And one very notable exception is James Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic.

Warner Todd Houston of gives us the particulars:

Liberal TNR Editor: 'Bush Never Lied to Us About Iraq'

By Warner Todd Huston | June 16, 2008 - 13:39 ET

James Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic, has come under NewsBusters scrutiny for his bias before, of course. Our job is, we all know, to document and analyze that bias. But while we naturally focus on when the media get it wrong, we should have the maturity to point out when those who we criticize get it right. Here is a case when a member of the media that we usually criticize did, indeed, get it right and this time it might get him in Dutch with his lefty pals in the nutroots. After all, the surest way to get the nutroots upset at you is to say Bush did not lie about the war. But that is exactly what Kirchick just did and he did an admirable job chronicling it, too.

In an editorial in the L.A. Times on the 16th, Kirchick said that "Bush never lied to us about Iraq" and then went on to substantiate his claim in a style that runs contrary to the Media and nutroots meme that "Bush lied and people died."

Kirchick started his piece with a recounting of the flip flop that Mitt Romney's father, George, undertook when he reversed his support of the Vietnam war as he geared up to run for president in 1968. Romney initially supported the Vietnam War but later claimed that the administration and war supporters "brainwashed" him into believing in the war. With his flip flop he claimed that he had seen the light, but critics said that he was merely playing to a perceived anti-war changing tide and trying to capture that vote -- in other words, Romney's flip flop was only calculated to get votes. This, Kirchick says, is the same thing that politicians like John F. Kerry have done with the Iraq war. They voted for it before they voted against it.

The left narrative, one the media is happy to parrot, has been that Bush lied us into war. Kirchick points out that "the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war."

But Kirchick then steps out into some of the most intellectually honest analysis I've seen from the left since before the 2000 election when BDS first began to infect the media.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

Kirchick goes on to chronicle some of the agencies and investigative bodies that have found absolutely no evidence that the Bush Administration manipulated Congress as it made the case for the war.

Kirchick also comes as close to calling John D. Rockefeller (D, W. Va.) a liar as you can without using those specific words when he notes that Rockefeller's "highly partisan" Senate Intelligence Committee report does not support the wild eyed claims made in its summation.

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Kirchick also trenchantly notes that the latest partisan attack that is being presented as a "report" conveniently forgets to mention the words of the many dozens of highly placed Democrats who's words were nearly identical to Bush's in the run up to war.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

In the end, Kirchick finds no shred of proof that Bush "lied" about anything. In fact, he scolds every Democrat and partisan leftist for saying that he did and that the claim that Bush lied us into war is an "unsubstantiated allegation" that is "cowardly and dishonest."

So, kudos to James Kirchick for an honest look at the record. Certainly we can agree to disagree right now, at this point, if the war was a good idea or not. But, it is beyond question that there were no lies disseminated by the Bush Administration and neither did the president "manipulate" any evidence to "mislead" the nation into war.

Go read Kirchick's piece and marvel that it came from a lefty. He really nailed it. "Bush never lied to us about Iraq" is worth your time.

Now this is one courageous man.  And an honest one too.

I urge you to click on the link to Mr. Kirchick's commentary.  You will be treated to a thoughtful analysis which deals in facts rather than emotion and partisan fury.  These days, that isn't easy to come by.

Jim Last August in a Boston Globe op-ed, Kirchick declared himself a "gay recovering leftist," pointed out that "most people knew me as "the gay conservative" for a column I wrote in the school paper," complained that liberals are "the most intolerant people I’ve ever met" (as opposed to him, "the supposedly closed-minded conservative") and asserted, "But there’s nothing about my homosexuality that dictates a belief about raising the minimum wage, withdrawing immediately from Iraq, and backing teachers’ unions: all liberal causes that I strongly oppose." (06/19/08)


Ken Berwitz

This perfectly sickening article about what is happening in the Sudan comes to us from Stephen Brown of  Read it, if you have the stomach to do so:

Sudan On The Brink  
By Stephen Brown | Monday, June 16, 2008

It just shows what is wrong with our media.


The front pages of most newspapers last week carried a story about a horrific plane crash in the Sudan that cost 100 lives. While this tragedy was certainly newsworthy, hardly a single media outlet has been covering the real story in Africas largest country that could turn into a human catastrophe for millions of its non-Muslim citizens.


A twenty-year civil war between the Sudans Arab and Islamic North and Christian and animist African South that ended with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005 is set to explode again. Fighting broke out last month between the Norths Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA), the armed forces of southern Sudan, in the oil-rich Abyei region, resulting in dozens of deaths.


The Abyei region, located between North and South, is technically part of northern Sudan, having been transferred there by the British colonial power in 1905. According to the CPAs Abyei Protocol, which was put into the accord at Americas insistence, the Abyei area, which is inhabited mainly by Africans of the Dinka tribe, is supposed to hold a vote to decide whether it wants to join the South. In 2011, the entire South Sudan will have its own referendum on independence.  


Disgracefully, the world hardly noticed that the town of Abeyei was destroyed in May by aggressive federal forces, which are controlled by the ruling National Congress Party in Sudans capital, Khartoum, located in the North. As usual, it was the civilians who suffered the most. More than 100,000 Dinka, according to one report, were driven from their homes. Many Dinka arrived in refugee camps with little or no belongings with some grieving for their children who were lost in the flight.  


Roger Winter, a highly respected expert on the Sudan who was once appointed Special Representative of the Deputy Secretary of State for Sudan by the Bush administration, visited the area a few days after the attack by the governments army, which now occupies the ruined and looted town.


The town of Abyei has ceased to exist, stated Winter in his report. Brigade 31 of the Sudanese Armed Forces, or SAF, has displaced the entire civilian population and burned Abyeis market and housing to the ground.


Such Arab atrocities are nothing new to southern Sudans black African population. This large area of about 227,000 square miles and 11 million people was once one of the main sources of slaves for the Islamic world until British colonization put a stop to the inhuman practice. But when the British left and the Sudan was granted its independence in 1956, the Arab Norths oppression of the non-Muslim, African South quickly picked up where it left off.


As a result, African Sudanese almost immediately formed a resistance movement that fought a civil war against the Arab North that ravaged the South and ended with a peace treaty in 1972. During that time, the odious custom of slave raiding also returned, supported by the Arab worlds new oil wealth. In 1962, a Swiss journalist recorded that hundreds of black African Sudanese were enslaved and sent to northern Sudan, and some even further on to Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other oil sheikdoms.


An Italian journalist, who was in the Sudan in 1966, wrote the Arabs continue in the Sudan what could be called their national sport, hunting slaves, and the bondage of Negro Sudanese who are guilty of not only of having a black skin but also of not being Muslim. Arab slavers even had the audacity to seize a Sudanese African member of the pre-independence legislature and put him up for sale for $1,600; but he managed to escape.


All in all, it is estimated that between 500,000 and one million people died in Sudans first civil war.


The second civil war, which ended with the 2005 CPA, began in 1983 when the Khartoum government threw out the 1972 peace accord, squashed the Souths constitutional guarantees, declared Arabic the countrys only official language and made sharia the law of the land. In other words, everyone, both North and South, had to become Muslim and Arabic. This was reinforced when the northern government declared jihad against the South in 1989.


In this second round of civil strife, the racial and religious hatred of the Sudanese Arab for the Sudanese African was in full evidence. More than two million southern Sudanese perished and another two million were displaced, becoming exiles in their own country, as the Islamic government embarked on a policy of genocide.


Evidence of this genocide was on display last January in the United States when dozens of young, southern Sudanese men gathered at Harry S. Truman College in Chicago to celebrate their common birthday (since they fled the war as children, many do not know their real birthdays). They form part of the 20,000 Lost Boys who had fled to Ethiopia, walking hundreds of miles across harsh and dangerous terrain to avoid almost certain death. The last eight years, the United States has taken in about 4,000 of these refugees, many of whom have gone to college themselves in their new country.


Again, like in the first Sudanese civil war, the slave trade made its loathsome reappearance. Francis Bok, whose story was told in Front Page Magazine, became its most visible representative in the United States. Captured in a slave raid at age seven, the southern Sudanese Dinka boy spent ten cruel years as an Arab slave before he escaped and eventually made his way to America where he has testified across the country and before Congress about his barbarous experience.


With such a record of savage brutality, one wonders why the media, the Bush administration and the rest of the world for that matter, remain silent as the Sudan appears to be sliding into a horrific and unthinkable third civil war. It is all the more puzzling when one considers the justifiable media attention given to, and the international condemnations made, concerning the Darfur conflict.


President Bush himself enjoys great prestige among the people of South Sudan for having helped bring about the 2005 CPA treaty; so much so that the African inhabitants there want to see the Republicans stay in the White House under John McCain. They well remember President Clintons bombing of Serbia to force the end of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, while he undertook no action on their behalf against a Khartoum government that was much more inhumanly ferocious and merciless.


The Democrats did nothing for us, said a southern Sudanese journalist. They were not interested.


Winter believes the reason the Bush administrations inaction is that it will soon be out of power and is in meltdown mode, which Sudans Islamic government well recognises. Moreover, President Bush is currently attempting to normalize relations with the Khartoum regime, probably as part of his overall strategy in the War on Terror, holding talks to this end in Rome in April and May. As a result, Bush does not wish to endanger these efforts by vigorously responding to the Abyei attack.


This is disappointing. Appeasement and inaction never work and will only encourage the predatory Arab Khartoum government to commit more depredations against a people that would make natural allies of America, especially if and when they get their own country. Already, the northern leaders are refusing to accept the Abyeis boundaries that were set by an international committee, a term of the Protocol.


To their credit, during the recent primaries the three main candidates, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, issued a joint declaration saying they will continue to keep a close watch on events in the Sudan and speak out for the marginalized peoples. They also condemned the Sudanese government for breaking the CPA. Hopefully, their actions will match their words after Januarys inauguration.


Abyei has been called the cornerstone to peace for the Sudan. What happens there will determine whether the Arab North sincerely desires peaceful co-existence with the South. But a southern Sudan army spokesman ominously says the population displacement in Abyei indicates the Khartoum government is actually preparing a final solution.


If this is the case, western media outlets should be calling politicians in their countries to account for their inaction regarding the developing human catastrophe in South Sudan. They should also be putting the Khartoum government under the microscope of international criticism and be calling for sanctions. In the long term, the world press duty will be to monitor closely the previously agreed referenda in Abyei and the South Sudan to ensure the will of these long-suffering peoples is respected.


Twice in the past half century the African people of the southern Sudan have called for help against a murderous racial and religious hatred that has left their country littered with killing fields; but the West and its media scarcely heard them. So to ignore any aggression by Khartoums Arab regime that may cause such heart-rending appeals to be made a third time is both unpardonable and unconscionable.

Where is the UN?  Where is the African Union?

What purpose do either of these organizations serve, other than generating well-paying jobs in which the fatcats who hold those jobs can congratulate each other on their humanitarianism --- as the people they are supposed to protect suffer and die by the millions?

Maybe we should just leave the UN to do the three things it really does best: 

-Condemn Israel;

-Facilitate the rapes of pre-teen girls in third world countries their troops are sent to;

-Keep the fine restaurants of Manhattan prosperous with their expense account dining while the condemnations and rapes continue.


Ken Berwitz

Less than a week ago the US Supreme Court decided it was the legislature too, and voted to give enemy combatants habeus corpus rights.  The vote was 5-4, with the four most liberal justices, joined by Anthony Kennedy, overcoming the remaining four most conservative justices.

Today, in an identical 5-4 split - same justices in the same roles - additional latitude was granted to people who have stayed in the USA beyond the limits of their visas, but who want us to forget about their illegality anyway.  The bold print is mine. 

Here, from, are the particulars:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court made it easier Monday for some foreigners who overstay their visas to seek to remain in the United States legally.

The court ruled 5-4 Monday that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States.

The decision essentially embraced a proposed Justice Department regulation governing the treatment of similar cases in the future.

Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen, stayed beyond the expiration of his tourist visa in 1998. He married an American the following year and soon began trying to obtain a visa as an immediate relative of a citizen. But Dada and his wife apparently failed to submit some documents, causing immigration officials to deny the visa.

Dada has been trying again to obtain the visa, but immigration authorities meanwhile have ordered him to leave the country.

He agreed to leave voluntarily, which would allow him to try sooner to re-enter the country legally than if he had been deported.

The court's task was to decide whether he could withdraw his voluntary agreement to leave the country and continue to try to adjust his status while in the United States.

Immigration authorities recently ruled that Dada had entered a "sham" marriage in order to stay in the United States, but that finding was not part of the court's consideration.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by his four liberal colleagues. The four conservative justice dissented.

Justice Antonin Scalia said, "The court lacks the authority to impose its chosen remedy."

Nice. A phony marriage of convenience to get into the country, and "that finding was not part of the court's consideration".

For better or worse, Anthony Kennedy appears to have decided he is the court's new Sandra Day O'Connor -- that is, a justice who effectively runs the court by being the majority vote between four liberals and four conservatives.

It is becoming more and more evident to me that one of the most important keys to the 2008 election is who will be replacing USSC justices whose terms will end in the next four years.  As I have mentioned in previous blogs, the most likely to go are Justices Stevens and Ginsburg - two of the most unconditionally liberal of the bunch. 

If voters favor the 5-4 habeus corpus and immigration decisions, they should run, not walk, to Barack Obama.  If they don't, they should be thinking about John McCain.

What an election this is going to be.


Ken Berwitz

Did you ever hear of the Islamic Saudi Academy?

What if I told you it was a hate-school teaching exactly the kinds of sickness that we are fighting in the war against terrorism?  And what if I told you that a) this is known to the state department which b) knowing it, is allowing the school to remain open?

Here are the particulars, from  The bold print is mine:

Jawdropper of the Week: Islamic Saudi Academy Will Stay Open

Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 3:40:45 pm PDT

Theyre teaching children to hate and kill Jews and Christians.

A former school valedictorian, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, was convicted of joining Al Qaeda and plotting to assassinate President Bush.

And theyve been spreading this radical Islamic ideology in the US for decades.

But the State Department has no plans to close the Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax, Virginia.

Because they promised to change their textbooks.

State Department officials said Thursday they have no plans to close a Saudi-financed Islamic school in Northern Virginia that has failed to eliminate violent and intolerant language in textbooks.

They told us they would revise the textbooks by the 2008 school year, State Department spokesman Rob McInturff said. We dont plan to take additional action apart from the discussions that have been going on with the Saudi government.

Results released Wednesday from a federal investigation into the Islamic Saudi Academy - with campuses in Alexandria and Fairfax - found textbooks at the 900-student private school had passages that blame the Jews for discord and say it is sometimes permissible to kill non-Muslims.

The investigation by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom focused on 17 textbooks used during the last school year and obtained from independent sources. The panel, formed by Congress, last year recommended the State Department close the school, though members had not yet reviewed the textbooks. The commission said the Foreign Missions Act gives the Secretary of State authority to require a foreign mission to divest itself of or forgo the use of property and to order it to close.

State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos on Thursday cited the Saudi governments 2006 acknowledgement of a need to revise its textbooks and agreement to do so in time for the start of the 2008 school year, which starts this fall.

In this "academy" they teach anti-semitism and a rationale for murdering people based on their religion.  But the state department says "no problem, it's ok, they promised they'll change their textbooks", as if that would change a thing.  There is a reason those textbooks had such material - it is what these jihad wannabes intend for the students to learn.  Forcing them to revise a few words in their textbooks will not change a thing.

But the state department says everything will be ok.

Incredible stupidity and/or malevolence like this is exactly the kind of thing the state department seems to have unchecked power to do.  Even President Bush, who has had always had a contentious relationship with the state department, appears powerless to stop them.

Why is the state department beyond reproach?  Who put these amoral idiots above everyone else?

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!!