Wednesday, 08 April 2009


Ken Berwitz

Here, excerpted from a Reuters article, is what Iran is up to these days:

Iran to say mastering final stage of nuclear cycle

TEHRAN (Reuters) President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to announce Iran has mastered the final stage of nuclear fuel production when the Islamic state celebrates its National Nuclear Day on Thursday.

"I will have good nuclear news for the honored Iranian nation tomorrow (April 9)," Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday in a televised speech at the central city of Isfahan.

Foreign nuclear analysts believe Tehran has yet to prove it has mastered industrial-scale enrichment of uranium, the key to making fuel in large, usable quantities and the most technically difficult aspect of churning out nuclear energy.

Tehran has slowly expanded its Natanz enrichment plant in defiance of U.N. resolutions demanding it stop over concerns Tehran's goal is atomic bombs, something it denies.

But analysts expected Ahmadinejad to say that Iran has perfected the last of several phases of fuel output.

Isn't ahmadinejad the one who said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?

And doesn't Israel literally risk its existence by allowing ahmadinejad to acquire nuclear weapons?

So doesn't it stand to reason that, in the absence of some other country, countries, or world organization intervening, Israel is like to attack Iran's nuclear capability? 

And doesn't it follow that, if this were to happen, there could be a regional war which quickly could become a world war, maybe even a nuclear war?

So what is the UN doing?  Sleeping.

And what is President Obama doing?  Begging Iran to chat with him (and being told where to go by Iran when he did the begging).

When do these people wake up?


Ken Berwitz

When george bisharat's scurrilous, dishonest screed about Israel was published in last Saturday's New York Times, it pushed my father to cancel his subscription (it had been his paper of choice for over 40 years).  Since there was little doubt that the Times would publish a number of letters to the editor about bisharat's commentary, I promised I would tell Dad (and you) about what they said. 

Given the Times' moral equivalency between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs who want to vaporize it, I assumed the letters would be about equally for both sides.  I was wrong in that assumption.

Of the 7 letters published by the Times this morning, one is definitively supportive of Israel, two complain that Israel was singled out and that Palestinian Arabs commit atrocities as well (i.e. both sides do it) and four are definitively supportive of Palestinian Arabs.

You can read them all by clicking here.  Or you can read the following synopis of what you'll find:

-Letter 1, from Peter A. Pettit.  Key line:  "If Hamas is also guilty of war crimes, as Mr. Bisharat alleges, why does he call only Israel to accountability?"

-Letter 2, from Barry Salwen.  Key line:  "Where is the Op-Ed article detailing the crimes of Hamas? Why should only Israel be on trial?"

-Letter 3, from Joel Abramson.  Key line:  "The charge of criminal intent is more appropriately leveled at Hamas".

-Letter 4, from Benjamin Solomon.  Key line:  "Americas steadfast political, financial and arms support has enabled Israel to pursue its unique and destabilizing territorial expansion against the opposition of much of the international community".

-Letter 5, from Maha Mehanna.  Key line:  "...Israels closest if not sometimes only ally is awakening to the crimes against humanity that are being carried out by Israel with American weapons against Palestinians in Gaza.".

-Letter 6, from Emily Crawford.  Key line:  "George Bisharats April 4 Op-Ed article was a refreshingly clear call for holding the Israeli Army accountable for the crimes that have been documented in Gaza" .

-Letter 7, from Garth Massey.  Key line:  "The words and program of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman bring to an end the Israeli public relations success in hiding the colonialization process driving Israels militarism and ethnic nationalism".

There you have it.  By percent, 57% are anti-Israel, 29% are in the middle and 14% are pro-Israel. 

Do you in your wildest dreams think that this in any way represents the readership of the New York Times? 

Nope, these letters were intentionally selected to oversample anti-Israel sentiment.  They bespeak an attitude toward Israel that the Times has had for as long as I can remember - an attitude that finally pushed my father over the edge and caused him to dump the paper. 

I have no doubt that Dad isn't the only one.  Not by a long shot.


Ken Berwitz

I was going to write about this anyway, but since Geoffrey Dickens of did such a good job of it, why duplicate?  Here is his piece:

'Today' Double Standard: Only GOP Governors Caught In Sex Scandals Get Party Label

Just this past Monday, NBCs "Today" show studiously avoided mentioning disgraced Governor Eliot Spitzers Democratic affiliation during his interview with Matt Lauer, but fast forward to Wednesdays "Today" and a story about another governor embroiled in a sex scandal -- in this case Nevada Republican Governor Jim Gibbons -- and NBCs Michael Okwu was careful to note he is a Republican at the very top of the story:

MICHAEL OKWU: If voters in Nevada were betting on a nasty gubernatorial divorce, this week they hit the jackpot. That's Republican Governor Jim Gibbons. There's his future ex-wife, Dawn. After 23 years of a polished political marriage to Dawn Gibbons, a former state assemblywoman, the governor has filed for divorce citing incompatibility in what's become a very public war of the roses.

Back in March of 2008, when they first covered Spitzers prostitution scandal "Today" devoted an entire 4-hour program to ignoring the "D" next to Spitzers name and in that same month "Today" also bypassed the party affiliation of yet another Democrat caught in compromising position, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

The following is a complete transcript of the Okwu story as it was aired on the April 8, "Today" show:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: And now to what could be one of the nastiest divorce battles in America right now. Nevada's First Lady accusing her husband Governor Jim Gibbons of having multiple, extramarital affairs. NBC's Michael Okwu has the latest.

MICHAEL OKWU: If voters in Nevada were betting on a nasty gubernatorial divorce, this week they hit the jackpot. That's Republican Governor Jim Gibbons. There's his future ex-wife, Dawn. After 23 years of a polished political marriage to Dawn Gibbons, a former state assemblywoman, the governor has filed for divorce citing incompatibility in what's become a very public war of the roses.

KATHLEEN TURNER IN WAR OF THE ROSES MOVIE CLIP: Was it as good for you as it was for me?

OKWU: In the divorce papers unsealed this week, Dawn Gibbons says her husband wanted out, to pursue his dalliances and accused him of having affairs with at least two married women, including a former Playboy model seen here two-stepping ahead of the governor at a Reno rodeo.

JOHN SMITH, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, COLUMNIST: Is the divorce a big deal here? Sure, it is. This is a three-ring circus and all three rings are full.

OKWU: The other, other woman, according to Dawn Gibbons, was a state employee. Last year when news broke, the governor had reportedly sent the worker more than 800 text messages over several weeks, sometimes in the middle of the night. It was a scandal.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER TO GIBBONS: Is this an affair as your wife claims through your attorney?


SMITH: The only response is OMG, are they BFFs?

OKWU: Tuesday the governor's lawyer told NBC News the allegations are not worthy of a response, "Continuing infidelity is not relevant to anything in Nevada. We're a no-fault state." In the court documents, Dawn Gibbons says she is devastated and feels like a cast-away wife after standing by her man. Standing by him, even in 2006 after Las Vegas cocktail waitress accused Gibbons, then a five-term U.S. Congressman running for the state house, of making unwanted sexual advances.

GIBBONS: I unequivocally deny that I ever engaged in any inappropriate or offensive behavior.

OKWU: No criminal charges were filed, ruling in the civil suit is pending. In the meantime, Dawn Gibbons has moved out of the governor's mansion and into a one-room apartment on the property. For his part the governor says his wife has been overly aggressive. In one legal motion, the governor's lawyer said, "Being in close quarters with such a volatile person was like being locked in a phone booth with an enraged ferret." For "Today," Michael Okwu, NBC News, Los Angeles.

If this happened once, or once in a while, or some of the time that would be one thing.  But on Today - and the Associated Press, NY Times and many other mainstream media - it happens just about all the time.  If you read this blog you've seen me give example after example.

Simply stated, it is disgraceful.  It is bias posing as journalism.  And they just don't seem to care, do they?


Ken Berwitz

As Barack Obama stumbled and bumbled through the world, I heard the applause from people in countries which, as a rule of thumb, do not like the USA very much.  I also heard and read the mostly fawning love letters from our media about what a great job he was doing.  But I have a few questions:

WHO is reacting well to Mr. Obama - the citizens mesmerized by his rock-star celebrity status or the heads of state?  WHAT did he accomplish?  HOW did it help us? 

Ralph Peters, writing for the New York Post, has the answers.  And they aren't very pleasant, I assure you.  Here is what Mr. Peters has to say:



April 8, 2009 --

THE real climax of President Obama's Spring Apologies Tour wasn't his photo op with our troops in Baghdad or even his "American Guilt" concerts in Western Europe.

While fans in the press cheered wildly at every venue, the real performance came in Turkey. And it was a turkey.

Obama means well. Just as Jimmy Carter, his policy godfather, meant well. But the road to embassy takeovers and strategic humiliation is paved with good intentions -- coupled with distressing naivete.

On every stage, Obama draped Lady Liberty in sackcloth and ashes, drawing plentiful applause but no serious economic or security cooperation in return. Then, in Turkey, he surrendered our national pride, undercut our interests and interfered in matters that aren't his business.

On the latter point: Suppose the European Union president went to Cuba and insisted that the world's sunniest concentration camp should be welcomed into NAFTA? That's the equivalent of what our president did in Ankara on Monday when he declared that he supports Turkey's bid for EU membership.

The Europeans don't want Turkey in their club. Because Turkey isn't a European state, nor is its culture European. And it isn't our business to press Europe to embrace a huge, truculent Muslim country suffering a creeping Islamist coup.

The Europeans were appalled by Turkey's neo-Taliban tantrum on-stage at last week's NATO summit. The Turks fought to derail the appointment of a great Dane, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as the new NATO secretary general. Why? Because he didn't stone to death the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Mohammed.

Which brings us to the even bigger problem: Obama has no idea what's going on in Turkey. By going to Ankara on his knees, he gave his seal of approval to a pungently anti-American Islamist government bent on overturning Mustapha Kemal's legacy of the separation of mosque and state.

Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party, the AKP, means headscarves, Korans, censorship and stacked elections. The country's alarmed middle class opposes the effort to turn the country into an Islamic state. Obama's gushing praise for the AKP's bosses left them aghast.

Obama's embrace of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (now orchestrating show trials of his opponents) was one step short of going to Tehran and smooching President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

What was Obama thinking? He wasn't. He relied on advice from State Department appeasement artists who understand neither Turkey, Islam nor the crises raging between the Bosporus and the Indus. State's answer is always "More love, more humility, more aid."

Well, I, for one, don't think our country has anything to apologize for, either to Turkey or to Europe.

Insisting that America's always guilty, Obama omitted any mention of Turkey's wartime betrayals of our troops, its continuing oppression of its Kurd minority or the AKP's determination to turn a state with a secular constitution into a Wahhabi playground.

When it came to the Armenian genocide, Obama bravely ducked: He never dared use the g-word.

And Obama's disdainful remarks about President Bush were just shabby.

After those overpriced tour T-shirts have shrunk in the wash (trust me -- they will), what will we have gained from Obama's superstar act?

He told the Europeans that the global economic crisis is all our fault. No mention of European greed, overleveraged governments, destructive Euro-loans or Chinese currency manipulation. We did it. Whip us, please.

In return, the Europeans gave him . . . nothing.

Even though Obama was right when he said that Europe faces a greater terror threat than we do, the entire continent only ponied up 2,500 short-term non-combat troops for Afghanistan. The Europeans know we'll do the heavy lifting.

He gave the Russians yet another blank check, too. (Meanwhile, in Moscow, Putin's thugs beat an aging pro-democracy dissident to a pulp.) In return, the Russians promised to . . . well, actually, they didn't promise anything.

Then Obama went to Turkey, undercut secular political parties, infuriated the Europeans -- and disclaimed our country's Judeo-Christian heritage. (Did Turkey's leaders respond by denying Islam's importance to them? Naw.)

In Turkey, Obama got . . . nothing we didn't already have.

Then he went to Iraq and told its prime minister that Iraq would get nothing.

I believe that our president wants to do the right thing. But he doesn't have a clue how. For now, he's enraptured by the applause. But he hasn't tried to charge his fans for their tickets. And they've already made up their minds they won't have to pay.

Ralph Peters is Fox News' strategic analyst and the author of "Looking for Trouble."

Is Mr. Peters right?  If so, we have a stumbling, bumbling amateur of a President who essentially is playing house in front of the world.  A man who humbles the United States on our behalf and gives the people he's humbling us to a free pass on their actions.

There is no country in the history of the world that has ever done more good for more people over a longer period of time than the USA -- often in spite of roadblocks put up by some of the same countries President Obama was busy apologizing to this past week. 

The time is way overdue for him to act as if he knows this.


Ken Berwitz

From Reuters, via the redoubtable Steve Gilbert of

Sharpton Demands Sheriff Arpaio Step Down

April 7th, 2009

From his (Mr. Sharptons, that is) fans at Reuters:

Vice President Joseph Biden, left and Rev. Al Sharpton wave to the audience as they arrive on stage at the National Action Networks 11th annual convention in New York, Friday April 3, 2009.

Al Sharpton calls for Arizona sheriff to step down

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. civil rights activist Al Sharpton weighed into a fight over an Arizona sheriffs immigration sweeps on Tuesday, accusing him of racially profiling Hispanics and urging him to step down.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has dispatched deputies into Hispanic communities in the Phoenix area, where they stop people and arrest anyone who cannot prove he or she is a legal U.S. resident.

Under a deal allowing them to enforce federal immigration laws, the deputies have arrested more than 1,500 people who they determined were in Arizona illegally, triggering street protests and condemnation from Latino activists who accuse him of racial profiling.

"I am first calling for the resignation and or removal of Sheriff Arpaio harassment based on color is nothing short of racial profiling, which many of us helped to fight to make against the law," Sharpton told reporters.

U.S. Department of Justice officials recently launched an inquiry into Arpaios activities. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee also held hearings last week about the federal program that allows for such enforcement tactics.

"Arpaio needs to be confronted, he needs to be removed. We also need to suspend the law that he is using. We must stand with our brown brothers and sisters," Sharpton said.

Sharpton said he would travel to Arizona to make his case.

Arpaio, who has held the job since 1992, called charges he carries out racial profiling of Hispanics ridiculous.

"Im never going to resign," he said. "The guy is living in a fantasy land if he thinks he is going to pressure me into anything. He doesnt even know where Arizona is."

We suspect that for once Mr. Sharpton will not get away with his race-baiting shakedown routine.

And we say that knowing he also has the moral weight of Mr. John Conyers and the rest of the Democrat Congress and Mr. Holders Department of Justice and even apparently the Vice President behind him.

At least we hope Mr. Sharpton and the rest of these thugs wont get away with it.

Let's think for a moment about the idiocy of sharpton's contention that this is racial. 

Indigenous Mexicans (Mayans and Aztecs, for example) tend to be darker-skinned than Caucasians.  Thus if the preponderance of illegals are poor indigenous Mexicans, they will be darker-skinned than Caucasians.   That isn't racism, that is who they are.  

Put another way, suppose that half of the Mexicans illegally crossing over were Caucasian and half were Mayan, but Arpaio's people were only stopping Mayans.  Then sharpton would have a point.  But that isn't the way it is at all.  It's just typical sharpton BS.

Now let's think about the consequences of wholesale illegal "immigration" of poor indigenous Mexicans into the USA. 

If Mexican illegals take jobs, whose jobs will they be taking?  Obviously the jobs of people at lower economic levels.  Well, which racial group is disproportionately at those lower levels?  The answer, as we both know, is Blacks. Therefore, sharpton is actively petitioning for a way that illegal Mexicans will disproportionately take the jobs of his fellow Blacks. 

 Maybe I'm just misunderstanding, but that sounds a helluva lot more racist to to me than stopping, identifying and deporting illegals.

I have to believe that, somewhere in this, sharpton smells a pile of $$$.  And he's perfectly willing to hurt the Black people he professes to advocate for, to get it.

Sadly, that sounds exactly what sharpton would do.

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!!