Tuesday, 14 April 2009


Ken Berwitz

If I didn't see this I wouldn't believe it.  Here are the relevant excerpts from an article in World News Daily:

Homeland Security on guard for 'right-wing extremists'
Returning U.S. military veterans singled out as particular

Posted: April 12, 2009
9:40 pm Eastern

 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

However, the document, first reported by
talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

Well, there you have it.  The problem isn't al qaeda fanatics who crash planes into skyscrapers and kill thousands.  It isn't the Islamic fundamentalists who tell us in so many words that they want our culture ended and all of us under shari'a law.  It isn't Latino extremists who claim that the Southwest USA is part of Mexico.  It isn't the free flow of illegals through our porous borders.

Nor is it the left wing extremists who specifically tell us they want the end of capitalism.  No no no.  They're not a problem either. 

It's those damn right wingers and even worse, those returning military veterans.  They're the ones we should worry about. 

For the record, any movement has the potential for extremism.  Left wing, right wing, pro or anti abortion, environmental, religious, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.   But this report can only identify one.

Do you have any doubt at all that the idiotic, partisan singling out of one segment as potentially extreme, will immediately be tied to mainstream conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, etc? 

We paid money for this report?  Our head of homeland security - the one who doesn't want to use the term "terrorism" anymore - issued it?

That is looney-tunes, multiplied by 100.

I bet the "talent" at MSNBC are going to love it, though.

free` Have you noticed whenever their are protests it is the left wing terrorist lovers that get violent? What a disgrace to try and shift it to our soldiers who have a lower incidence of crimes of any group. soldiers actually serve this country not themselves like politicians do. (04/14/09)


Ken Berwitz

Somalian thugs/terrorists, also known as pirates, have hijacked four ships in the past 48 hours.  One Greek, one Lebanese and two Egyptian.  These hijackings occurred  after the United States took care of business with the Maersk Alabaman. 

If this tells us anything, it tells us that the United States' success against these thugs/terrorists, in and of itself, will not stop the hijacking, hostage-taking and ransom demands from taking place. 

They will not stop until we take out the source - i.e. the ports they emanate from and the pirate-operated ships in those ports.

NOW does the world wake up? 



Ken Berwitz

L. Brent Bozell is a conservative who runs the Media Research Center.  He is also a devout Catholic.  

Newsweek is medium-to-hard left and moving further leftward.  It celebrated Easter by putting out a special issue on the decline of Christianity in America.

At this point I doubt you'd be surprised to find out that Mr. Bozell is not particularly taken with Newsweek.

His latest column compares how Christianity and Newsweek are doing these days.  It is very interesting and very informative. 

Here, I'll show you:

The End of Newsweek?

by L. Brent Bozell III
April 14, 2009

Newsweek greeted the coming of Easter with a black cover, and the headline "The Decline and Fall of Christian America," spelled out in red in the shape of a cross. Inside, it was more declarative: The End of Christian America. Why? Because they found that the percentage of self-identified Christians had fallen 10 points since 1990. Okay, then lets compare. How much has Newsweeks circulation fallen since 1990? Just since 2007, their announced circulation has dropped by 52 percent. It would be more plausible to state The End of Newsweek.

At the end of 2007, Newsweek reduced its "base rate" (or circulation guaranteed to advertisers) from 3.1 million to 2.6 million, a 16 percent drop. At the end of 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that Newsweek, faced with an estimated 21 percent decline in ad pages, could soon drop that circulation number by another 500,000 to 1 million readers. In February, the magazine confirmed the million-issue drop, saying it would drop to a base of 1.9 million in July and 1.5 million readers by January 2010.

Mass for us is a business that doesnt work, Tom Ascheim, Newsweeks chief executive, told the New York Times. Wish it did, but it doesnt. We did it for a long time, successfully, but we cant anymore. Now that U.S. News & World Report waved a white flag and said it would only publish monthly, the evidence is much stronger for wondering about the decline and fall of the American "news magazine" as if Time and Newsweek havent already shed that label in everything but name.

Newsweeks strategy in the midst of all its financial decline is to double and triple the amount of editorializing, cast aside all semblance of "news" in favor of long, liberal essays by self-impressed Newsweek editor Jon Meacham and his international editor Fareed Zakaria. Is that really a business solution, or is it the captains performing violin solos on the deck of the Titanic?

One has to wonder whether Newsweeks financial gurus really think its a smart business strategy to greet the Easter season with funerals for "Christian America," and greet the Christmas season by making the "religious case for gay marriage"? (Thats not to mention all the reverent Obama worship in between.)

Christianity, in contrast to Newsweek, is in decent demographic shape. The American Religious Identification Survey that Newsweek touted from Trinity College in Connecticut -- estimated there are now 173.4 million self-identified Christians in America, up from 151.2 million in 1990. The percentage declined, but the actual number increased.

The real bold-faced result in the survey that spawned Newsweeks cover is the rise of what the pollsters called the "nones, up from 14 million to 34 million. In a typically ponderous essay, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham welcomed the alleged decline and fall of "the modern religious rights notion of a Christian America" because it creates a "calmer" political environment and a more "theologically serious religious life."

Translation: the "culture wars" should be declared over, and the left should be declared the winner. The Christian right should slink back to its church buildings and keep its antiquated notions of sin and salvation out of the public square. Calmer Christians will seek a creed that chummily goes along and gets along with the modern, secular culture. Only surrender on social issues is theologically serious.

Newsweek watchers might find it odd that Christians should surrender, but Muslims should be granted greater respect. A month ago, Newsweeks cover announced Radical Islam is a fact of life. How to live with it. Fareed Zakaria argued the smart strategy was nuanced, noncombative rhetoric that avoids sweeping declarations like war on terror. Zakarias piece ended right in the secular liberals sweet spot. He was confident radical Islamism would eventually lose adherents, because they lack answers to the problems of the modern world. They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women. We do. Thats the most powerful weapon of all.

Modernity will win, and archaic religion will lose. All this leads back to the sneaking suspicion that the top minds at Newsweek think they are the wisest of men, the definers of trends and the shepherds of public opinion. So why is everyone abandoning their advice? Why are the captains of a magazine thats lost half its circulation telling the rest of us where the mainstream lies?

Personally, I disagree with Mr. Bozell on a good many issues.  But his mega-nailing of Newsweek is right on target. 

One other thing:  ironically, several of Newsweek's most visible people (e.g. Richard Wolffe, Jonathan Alter), are regulars on the hard-left network MSNBC.  What's that they say about birds of a feather?


Ken Berwitz

john murtha, western Pennsylvania's arrogant, corrupt excuse for a congressperson, is off the hook for his slander against Marines -- not because he isn't guilty of the slander, but because he hid behind congressional immunity.

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON A federal appeals court has ruled that a Marine cannot sue Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha for defamation.

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich of Meriden, Conn., claimed Murtha damaged his reputation by saying he and his comrades killed women and children "in cold blood" in Haditha, Iraq, in November 2005.

Murtha argued he has immunity from the lawsuit because he was acting in his official role as a lawmaker when he made the comments to reporters.

A three-judge panel on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed that Murtha has immunity in a ruling Tuesday.

murtha is an absolute disgrace.  And it it disgraceful that his district keeps electing him anyway.


Ken Berwitz

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. :  10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I wondered if it would come to this.  And apparently it has.

From the office of Texas Governor Rick Perry:

Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment

HCR 50 Reiterates Texas Rights Over Powers Not Otherwise Granted to Federal Government
April 09, 2009

AUSTIN Gov. Rick Perry today joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state, Gov. Perry said. That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal governments constitutionally designated powers and impede the states right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed. 

HCR 50 is authored by Representatives Brandon Creighton, Leo Berman, Bryan Hughes, Dan Gattis and Ryan Guillen.

To view the full text of the resolution, please visit:

Is this an extreme action?  Or the response to a series of extreme actions that are demonstrably unconstitutional? 

Is it a good thing that Texas is going to challenge the usurpation of states' rights?  Will other states follow Texas' lead?

Has the federal government gone beyond its constitutional authority at the expense of individual states?

Would the supreme court rule that it did?

I guess we're soon going to find out.

Gumstick (Derek) This is why I love my state! The 9th and 10th Amendments need to stop being the "unwanted step-children" of the Constitution. People and states need to start asserting themselves, empowered by these two amendments. (04/14/09)

free` God bless Texas. (04/14/09)


Ken Berwitz

If you believe the following information, drawn from the latest Rasmussen poll, the country is already rethinking what it voted for in 2008:

Trust on Issues
Republicans Close The Gap With Democrats on Several Key Issues
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows U.S. voters trust the Democratic Party over Republicans on the top issue of the economy by just a three-point margin this month, 45% to 42%.

It is still too early to determine whether voters are trending away from the economic initiatives of President Obama and congressional Democrats, but this is the closest the two parties have been on the issue of the economy since the first week of last September. In March, voters trusted the Democrats more by a 47% to 40% margin.

For the third straight month, investors trust the GOP more to handle the economy, 48% to 42%, but non-investors still trust Democrats more by 16 points.

Republicans now have moved further ahead of Democrats on the issues of national security and taxes. The GOP also has come on strong on several other issues, including immigration and Social Security.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.

Republicans hold an eight-point lead on national security, up from six-points last month, representing their biggest lead since early January. New Rasmussen polling shows that confidence in the War on Terror has rebounded slightly this month.

On taxes, voters trust Republicans more by a 45% to 39% margin. Over the past two months, the GOP held three-point leads on the issue.

Separate polling released last week shows the number of voters who believe they pay more than their fair share of taxes has hit a new recent low. However, a Rasmussen video report shows 62% of voters think the middle class pays a higher portion of their income in taxes than the wealthy.

Just as the president announced his plans to push immigration reform last week, Republicans moved ahead on the topic of immigration, leading the Democrats in voter trust by a 41% to 36% margin. In March, Democrats held a two-point lead on the issue.

The parties are now tied on the issue of Social Security, a topic the Democrats held solid leads on for several years of tracking. Now, each party earns trust from 41% of voters. In March, Democrats led 44% to 39% on the issue.

Democrats came in ahead of the GOP on the War in Iraq by a 44% to 42% margin. The Democrats have held one- to four-point leads on the issue since November.

While the Democrats continue to hold strong leads on health care and education, their advantage on government ethics and corruption has slipped this month. The Democrats now lead Republicans by just three percentage points on the issue, compared to a 10-point lead last month.

The GOP has moved ahead on the issue of abortion, 42% to 39%, after trailing by two points a month ago.

Republicans pulled within one point of Democrats last week in the Generic Congressional Ballot. Three weeks ago, Republicans took a two-point lead over Democrats, their first in several years, but that quickly reversed the following week.

What do these findings mean?  Maybe nothing.  It's just a political poll.

But if the data are correct, we seem to be drifting away from the Democratic agenda and back toward either the center or the Republican agenda.

Let's keep an eye out and see if it continues.



Ken Berwitz

The sickening nazi apologist pat buchanan is at it again.

During the initial attempts to deport nazi bastard john demjanjuk, over 20 years ago, buchanan referred to nazis who illegally came to this country as "elderly immigrants".  Only an amoral scumbag would refer to them in this way.

Well, he's not through yet.  Here is buchanan's take on the latest effort to deport demjanjuk:

Patrick J. Buchanan
The True Haters

On Good Friday, John Demjanjuk, 89 and gravely ill, was ordered deported to Germany to stand trial as an accessory to the murder of 29,000 Jews -- at Sobibor camp in Poland.

Sound familiar? It should. It is a re-enactment of the 1986 extradition of John Demjanjuk to Israel to be tried for the murder of 870,000 Jews -- at Treblinka camp in Poland.         

How many men in the history of this country have been so relentlessly pursued and remorselessly persecuted?

The ordeal of this American Dreyfus began 30 years ago.

In 1979, the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) at Justice, goaded and guided by Yuri Andropov's KGB, was persuaded that Demjanjuk was "Ivan the Terrible," a huge, brutal, sadistic guard at Treblinka, who bashed in babies' heads and slashed off women's breasts, as he drove hundreds of thousands of Jews into the gas chambers.

Demjanjuk's defense was simple: I was never at Treblinka.

Yet, a dozen survivors, shown a photo spread, identified him as the beast of Treblinka. In 1986, OSI had him extradited to Israel. In 1988, he was convicted and sentenced to death. The greatest Holocaust monster since Mengele was to be hanged.

His family, friends and lawyers did not give up. They scoured Europe and, in the last days of the Soviet Union, struck pay dirt. In Moscow's files on Treblinka they discovered a photo of the real "Ivan," a far bigger, more mature man than the 23-year-old Demjanjuk in 1943.

Ivan Marchenko was positively identified as Ivan the Terrible.

To its eternal credit, Israel's Supreme Court threw aside the verdict and stopped Demjanjuk from being the first man hanged in Jerusalem since Adolf Eichmann in 1961.

A humiliated OSI, through its Israeli friends, now asked the court to authorize a new trial, charging Demjanjuk with having been a guard at Sobibor -- during the same time they previously charged he had been at Treblinka.

What OSI was admitting was that its case against Demjanjuk, to see him hang from the gallows as "Ivan the Terrible," had been based on flimsy or falsified evidence and worthless or perjured testimony.

Replied the court, we don't do double jeopardy here in Israel.

Demjanjuk was released. And the grin of the jailer who opened his cell testified that many in Israel never accepted the charge that this simple man was some unrivaled devil of the Holocaust.

So, after 13 years, the last four on death row reflecting on his hanging for horrors he never committed, Demjanjuk came home to Cleveland, a free man. His citizenship was restored.

Though disgraced, OSI was not ready to throw in its hand. For it had been dealt a new card by its old comrades in the KGB.

The new evidence was a signed statement by one "Danilchenko," who claimed to have been a guard at Sobibor and had worked with Demjanjuk. As this document would have blown up the Treblinka case in Jerusalem, OSI had withheld it from the defense.

Another document turned up suggesting that Demjanjuk had indeed, after training at Trawniki camp, been assigned to Sobibor.

When the defense asked to interrogate "Danilchenko," to verify he had made and signed the statement and to question him on details, they were told this was not possible. Seems Danilchenko had died after signing.

So, after the first 13 years of his ordeal took him right up to a gallows in Jerusalem, Demjanjuk has now been pursued for another 17 years by an OSI that will not rest until he has been convicted, somewhere, of genocide.

And so we come to today.

Demjanjuk is to be taken to Germany and prosecuted as an accessory to the murder of 29,000 Jews at Sobibor -- though not one living person can place him at that camp and not even the German prosecutor will say that he ever hurt anyone. One witness in Israel, who was at Sobibor and says he knew all the camp guards, says he never saw Demjanjuk there.

If Friday's ruling is upheld, John Demjanjuk, who has been charged with no crime on German soil, is to be taken to Germany, home of the Third Reich, to be tried by Germans for his alleged role in a genocide planned and perpetrated by Germans. He is to serve as the sacrificial lamb whose blood washes away the stain of Germany's sins.

But if Germans wish to prosecute participants in the Holocaust, why not round up some old big-time Nazis, instead of a Ukrainian POW.

Answer: They cannot. Because the Germans voted an amnesty for themselves in 1969. So now they must find a Slav soldier they captured -- and Heinrich Himmler's SS conscripted and made a camp guard, if he ever was a camp guard -- to punish in expiation for Germany's sins.

The spirit behind this un-American persecution has never been that of justice tempered by mercy. It is the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago.

For the record, the reason Israel's courts found demjanjuk innocent (which is artfully danced around in buchanan's vomitrocious garbage) was because evidence surfaced at the trial that he was a nazi guard, just not the one they originally believed him to be.  In fact, the evidence that he was a different guard was part of why he was found innocent of being "ivan the terrible".

Whatever mistakes prosecutors made in Israel, the fact remains that demjanjuk was a nazi who came to the USA illegally.  That would be enough for most people to want him the hell out of here.  I know it's enough for me and hope you feel the same.

But not buchanan.  To patrick buchanan, demjanjuk should be compared to Dreyfus (I assume he picked the Jewish Dreyfus to stick it to Jews in general - as if he needed to prove he doesn't like us). Evidently buchanan doesn't think it important that Dreyfus was clearly innocent of treason, while demjanjuk is clearly guilty of being a nazi who came here illegally.

buchanan also compares demjanjuk to Jesus - which should enrage any Christian who is in the least serious about his/her religion. 

What a putrid sack of shit this "man" is.  

Some years ago, a joke went around about buchanan in which you'd say "Hey, lay off buchanan, didn't you know he lost an uncle in the holocaust?"  And when the patsy asked how his uncle died - e.g. was he shot, did he starve to death - you'd answer, "He got drunk and fell out of a guard tower"

It seems to me that the joke works just as well today as it did then.

Brian Lord Jesus - grant poor John the strength to withstand his Jewish tormentors who have taken over the American judicial system and who now act above the law to persecute the poor old man. (05/04/09)

Eat me you anti-Ukrainian swine You are the true sack of shit. Buchanan tells the truth. An old man, tried on false charges, victim of false identifications by collaborators who danced in the street shouting "death to Ukrainians" is being tortured once again by vermin like you. Buchanan is a patriot. You are scum. Thank God for honorable Jews that are not like you. Burn in hell you dick. (04/15/09)


Ken Berwitz

Over the past week or so I've outlined a number of areas in which President Obama has emulated President Bush -- including areas for which Mr. Obama criticized Mr. Bush during the campaign.

This, to say the very least, isn't one of them.   

Here are the particulars, via excerpts from David Sanger's article in today's New York Times:

U.S. may drop key condition for talks with Iran

Official: Obama aims to 'build a little trust' in break from Bush approach

By David E. Sanger
updated 3:04 a.m. ET, Tues., April 14, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration and its European allies are preparing proposals that would shift strategy toward Iran by dropping a longstanding American insistence that Tehran rapidly shut down nuclear facilities during the early phases of negotiations over its atomic program, according to officials involved in the discussions.

The proposals, exchanged in confidential strategy sessions with European allies, would press Tehran to open up its nuclear program gradually to wide-ranging inspection. But the proposals would also allow Iran to continue enriching uranium for some period during the talks. That would be a sharp break from the approach taken by the Bush administration, which had demanded that Iran halt its enrichment activities, at least briefly to initiate negotiations.

The proposals under consideration would go somewhat beyond President Obamas promise, during the presidential campaign, to open negotiations with Iran without preconditions. Officials involved in the discussion said they were being fashioned to draw Iran into nuclear talks that it had so far shunned.

A review of Iran policy that Mr. Obama ordered after taking office is still under way, and aides say it is not clear how long he would be willing to allow Iran to continue its fuel production, and at what pace. But European officials said there was general agreement that Iran would not accept the kind of immediate shutdown of its facilities that the Bush administration had demanded.

We have all agreed that is simply not going to work experience tells us the Iranians are not going to buy it, said a senior European official involved in the strategy sessions with the Obama administration. So we are going to start with some interim steps, to build a little trust.

Let's suppose you are Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel. 

-You know that Iran is led by people who have told the world, in no uncertain terms, they intend to vaporize Israel. 

-You know that they are building nuclear weapons which would provide them with the capability to do so.

-You know that President Obama made overtures to talk with Iran's President, the madman mahmoud ahmadinejad, and ahmadinejad essentially told him to take a long walk on a short pier.

-And now you see that, in response to being publicly humiliated by ahmadinejad, President Obama is making concessions to him - concessions that put your country in mortal danger.

What do you do?  What options does that put to the front of the table?

I wonder if Mr. Obama thinks about this.  

Or maybe he got so used to grovelling when he bowed to king abdullah of Saudi Arabia, that he figures another grovel is ok too - even if it sells out one of the USA's most loyal allies, which also happens to be a shining beacon of democracy and productivity in the middle east.

Last week, President Obama held what is being touted as the first-ever Passover seder in the White House.  I wonder about that too.  I wonder if it was a premeditated set-up to give his Jewish support some warm fuzzies before he lowered the boom on them by conceding nuclear capability to Iran.

That's something for supporters of Israel, including the 78% of Jews who voted for Mr. Obama, to think about.  As one of the other 22% I don't have to think about it at all.  I only wish it didn't surprise me.


Ken Berwitz

It is now 12:06PM. 

I have been listening on and off to President Obama's speech about the economy.  It started quite a while ago (at least 15 minutes, probably more).  And I just heard the first applause from his audience.  Maybe there were a couple more, I haven't listened to every word. 

The one thing that I've heard applause for is when Mr. Obama said we have to make sure this financial situation doesn't happen again.

No applause at all that I heard as he outlined his plan and told the audience how effective it has been. 

At 12:09 more applause, but for his suggestions as to what should happen in the future - not for what he has done so far.

What does it mean?  You tell me.

UPDATE:  It is now 12:16.  Mr. Obama gets applause when he talks about what he hopes for the future (which obviously is very positive) and the standard-issue applause opportunities for mentioning global warming and alternative energy.

I am still fascinated by the fact that when he talked up what he had done so far and made claims that it was working, the entire audience - which I now understand to be at Georgetown University - sat on its hands. 

Does that mean the unmesmerization process is in progress, even at a major liberal university? 


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!!